United States International Trade Commission

USITC Publication 4416

July 2013

THE YEAR IN 

TRADE 2012

Operation of the Trade 

Agreements Program 

64TH REPORT
Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

Acting Director, Office of Economics

Nannette Christ

Director, Office of Operations

Robert B. Koopman

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4416 July 2013

The Year in Trade 2012

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program

64th Report 
This report was principally prepared by the Office of Economics

Project Leader

Joanne Guth

Deputy Project Leaders

Cathy Jabara, Office of Industries

Edward Wilson, Office of Economics

Office of Economics

Dylan Carlson, Justino De La Cruz,

William Greene, Lin Jones, David Riker,

Darren Sheets, and James Stamps

Office of the General Counsel

William W. Gearhart

Office of Industries

Katherine Linton, Joann Peterson, and Laura Rodriguez

Office of Investigations

Nathanael Comly

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Naomi Freeman and Daniel Shepherdson

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

David Lloyd

Office of Analysis and Research Services

Russell Duncan and Jeremy Wise

Content Reviewer

Jennifer Baumert Powell

Office of Economics Interns

Roland Hendrickson and Jeffrey Horowitz

Special Assistance

Peg Hausman and Cynthia Payne

Help Desk and Customer Service Division

Under the direction of

Arona Butcher, Chief 

Country and Regional Analysis Division
iii

PREFACE

This report is the 64th in a series of annual reports submitted to the U.S. Congress under 

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

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

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

operation of the trade agreements program.”

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

Commission provides Congress with factual information on trade policy and its 

administration for calendar year 2012. The trade agreements program includes “all 

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

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

President by the Constitution” and congressional legislation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................... xi

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

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

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

Overview of the U.S. economy in 2012 ...................................................................................... 1-2

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

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

U.S. trade in goods in 2012 ........................................................................................................ 1-5

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. trade in services in 2012...................................................................................................... 1-9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laws against unfair trade practices ............................................................................................. 2-1

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

Section 301 cases in 2012 ................................................................................................ 2-2

Special 301....................................................................................................................... 2-3

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

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

Countervailing duty investigations.................................................................................. 2-7

Reviews of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders/suspension

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tariff preference programs.......................................................................................................... 2-13

Generalized System of Preferences....................................................................................... 2-13

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

Andean Trade Preference Act............................................................................................... 2-17

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act............................................................................ 2-18

Haiti initiatives................................................................................................................. 2-20
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

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

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

Doha Development Agenda.................................................................................................. 3-1

General Council ................................................................................................................... 3-5

Work programs, decisions, and reviews .......................................................................... 3-5

Accessions........................................................................................................................ 3-7

Selected plurilateral agreements ........................................................................................... 3-7

Agreement on Government Procurement......................................................................... 3-7

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aviation............................................................................. 3-10

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products.......................... 3-10

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

New requests for consultations and new panels established............................................ 3-13

Panel and Appellate Body reports issued and/or adopted during 2012 that involve

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

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ..................................................... 3-28

Ministerial council meeting .................................................................................................. 3-28

Trade Committee .................................................................................................................. 3-31

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ........................................................................................... 3-32

The Bogor goals, FTAAP, and related APEC commitments................................................ 3-32

Regional economic integration, regulatory cooperation, and food security ......................... 3-33

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

FTAs in force during 2012 .......................................................................................................... 4-1

FTA developments during 2012.................................................................................................. 4-4

Changes to the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (USAFTA) ........................ 4-5

Entry into force of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) ..................... 4-5

Changes to the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade 

Agreement........................................................................................................................ 4-6

Entry into force of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement................................................... 4-8

Discussions and agreements connected with the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement 

 (USMFTA).......................................................................................... . 4-9

Entry into force of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (PATPA) and progress

 on information technology................................................................................................. 4-9

Progress on environmental matters connected with the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion 

 Agreement (PTPA) ............................................................................................................ 4-11

Negotiations and consultations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement..... 4-11

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

Free Trade Commission........................................................................................................ 4-15

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

Commission for Environmental Cooperation ....................................................................... 4-17

Dispute settlement................................................................................................................. 4-19

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

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

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

The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth .......................................... 5-2

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC)................................................................................ 5-3

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

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

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

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

China .......................................................................................................................................... 5-7

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

Industrial policies.................................................................................................................. 5-9

Export restraints on raw material inputs............................................................................... 5-10

Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 5-10

Services................................................................................................................................. 5-11

Mexico ........................................................................................................................................ 5-12

Cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico ............................................ 5-13

Japan ........................................................................................................................................... 5-14

Multilateral negotiations and cooperation ............................................................................ 5-15

Information and communication technology principles ....................................................... 5-16

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

Beef....................................................................................................................................... 5-17

Recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster.................................................... 5-17

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

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

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

Cherries, citrus, and blueberries............................................................................................ 5-20

Brazil .......................................................................................................................................... 5-20

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC)................................................... 5-21

Tariffs.................................................................................................................................... 5-22

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

Beef and beef products.......................................................................................................... 5-23

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

Trade and investment dialogue ............................................................................................. 5-25

Intellectual property rights ................................................................................................... 5-26

Foreign direct investment ..................................................................................................... 5-27

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

WTO accession ..................................................................................................................... 5-28

 Agricultural import quotas.................................................................................................... 5-29

 Intellectual property.............................................................................................................. 5-32

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

Boxes

3.1 Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedures............................................................ 3-13

5.1 Highlights of Russia’s WTO accession commitments ........................................................... 5-30
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Figures

ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1994–2012............................................................ xv

1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, annual rate of change, 2003–12........................................ 1-2

1.2 Indices of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2012...... 1-3

1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2010–12 .................................................................. 1-5

1.4 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2012.................................................... 1-8

1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2012.................................................... 1-8

1.6 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2010–12......................................... 1-9

1.7 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2012 ......................................... 1-12

1.8 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2012 .......................................... 1-13

5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2008–12....................................................................... 5-1

5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2008–12.................................................................. 5-1

5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2008–12...................................................................... 5-5

5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2008–12 ................................................................. 5-5

5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2008–12 ........................................................................ 5-8

5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2008–12 ................................................................... 5-8

5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2008–12...................................................................... 5-12

5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2008–12................................................................. 5-12

5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2008–12......................................................................... 5-15

5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2008–12.................................................................... 5-15

5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2008–12 ........................................................................ 5-18

5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2008–12 ................................................................... 5-18

5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2008–12 ........................................................................ 5-21

5.14 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2008–12 ................................................................... 5-21

5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2008–12...................................................................... 5-22

5.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2008–12 ................................................................. 5-22

5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2008–12.......................................................................... 5-24

5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2008–12..................................................................... 5-24

5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2008–12 ....................................................................... 5-28

Tables

ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities ......................................................................... xxv

1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2012, 

billions of dollars................................................................................................................. 1-7

1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2012,

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

2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2012 ................................................ 2-6

2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2012.............................................. 2-7

2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2010–12 .......................................... 2-16

2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA countries, 2010–12............................................ 2-17

2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2010–12............................................. 2-19

2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2010–12.......................................... 2-21

2.7 U.S. imports for consumption of apparel from Haiti, 2010–12.............................................. 2-23

3.1 WTO membership in 2012 ..................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2 WTO observers in 2012.......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2012....................................................... 3-14
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

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

in 2012 in which the United States was a party .................................................................. 3-20

4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2010–12.................................. 4-2

4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2010–12................................ 4-3

4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2012 ........................................................................ 4-5

4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with TPP partners, 2010–12 ............................................................. 4-14

4.5 Active files as of yearend 2012 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement 

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

4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of the end of 2012......................... 4-20

5.1 Russian tariff-rate quota quantities for meat and poultry, 2008–12 ....................................... 5-32

Appendix tables

A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 ..................... A-3

A.2 Leading domestic U.S. exports to the world by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 ............... A-4

A.3 Leading U.S. imports from the world by HTS subheading, 2010–12 .................................... A-5

A.4 U.S. trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2012 ................................................. A-6

A.5 Top 15 U.S. single-country export markets and import sources, 2012 .................................. A-7

A.6 U.S. private services trade with the world, by category, 2010–12 ......................................... A-8

A.7 Antidumping cases active in 2012, by USITC investigation number .................................... A-9

A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012 .... A-10

A.9 Countervailing duty cases active in 2012, by USITC investigation number.......................... A-16

A.10 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2012.............................................. A-17

A.11 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed

in 2012, by date of completion .......................................................................................... A-19

A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International

Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on December 31, 2012..................... A-20

A.13 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012 ..................................... A-30

A.14 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by leading GSP beneficiary, 2010–12 .......... A-35

A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 ........... A-36

A.16 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by HTS provision, 2010–12.......................... A-37

A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by source, 2010–12......................................... A-38

A.18 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by HTS provision, 2010–12 ........................... A-39

A.19 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2010–12.......................................... A-40

A.20 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by HTS provision, 2010–12 ............................ A-41

A.21 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA/CBTPA, by source, 2010–12......................... A-42

A.22 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA/CBTPA, by HTS provision, 2010–12............ A-43

A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments

in 2012 ............................................................................................................................... A-44

A.24 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations

of USITC and USDOC, developments in 2012................................................................. A-54

A.25 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 .... A-56

A.26 Leading U.S. exports to the European Union, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 ............ A-57

A.27 Leading U.S. imports from the European Union, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 .................. A-58

A.28 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12......................... A-59

A.29 Leading U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12................................. A-60

A.30 Leading U.S. imports from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 ...................................... A-61
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Appendix tables—Continued

A.31 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 ........................... A-62

A.32 Leading U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 ................................... A-63

A.33 Leading U.S. imports from China, by HTS subheading, 2010–12......................................... A-64

A.34 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 ........................ A-65

A.35 Leading U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 ................................ A-66

A.36 Leading U.S. imports from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 ...................................... A-67

A.37 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12............................ A-68

A.38 Leading U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 ................................... A-69

A.39 Leading U.S. imports from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 ......................................... A-70

A.40 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12........................... A-71

A.41 Leading U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12................................... A-72

A.42 Leading U.S. imports from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2010–12......................................... A-73

A.43 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12........................... A-74

A.44 Leading U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12................................... A-75

A.45 Leading U.S. imports from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2010–12......................................... A-76

A.46 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12......................... A-77

A.47 Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12................................. A-78

A.48 Leading U.S. imports from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 ...................................... A-79

A.49 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12 ............................ A-80

A.50 Leading U.S. exports to India, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12 .................................... A-81

A.51 Leading U.S. imports from India, by HTS subheading, 2010–12 .......................................... A-82

A.52 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12.......................... A-83

A.53 Leading U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12.................................. A-84

A.54 Leading U.S. imports from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2010–12........................................ A-85
xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AB Appellate Body (WTO)

ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

AD antidumping

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act

AIT American Institute in Taiwan

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ATEC Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (Brazil)

ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act

ATPDEA Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC)

BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission (NAFTA)

BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty

BOP balance of payments

BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy

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

CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act

CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative

CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)

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

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CLC Commission for Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)

CNL competitive need limitation

COOL country of origin labeling

CSQ country-specific quota

CSRM Committee on Standards-Related Measures (NAFTA)

CTD Committee on Trade and Development (WTO)

CTE Committee on Trade and the Environment (WTO)

CTI Committee on Trade and Investment (APEC)

CTPA U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

CU customs union

CVD countervailing duty

DDA Doha Development Agenda (WTO)

DG Director-General (WTO)

DSB Dispute Settlement Body (WTO)

DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO)

EAC Environmental Affairs Committee (NAFTA, Peru TPA)

EC European Communities

ECC Environmental Cooperation Commission (NAFTA, Peru TPA)

EDA Economic Development Administration (USDOC)

EHI U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative

EIAP Earned Import Allowance Program (CAFTA-DR)

EMC electromagnetic compatibility

EMI electromagnetic interference

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)
xii

ETA Employment and Training Administration (USDOL)

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN)

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA)

FDI foreign direct investment

Fed. Reg. Federal Register

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (Mexico)

FSC Food Safety Commission (Japan)

FTA free trade agreement

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

FTAAP Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific

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

FY fiscal year

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

G20 Group of 20 (WTO developing country group)

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO)

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GDP gross domestic product

GI geographical indication

GPA Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO)

GPS global positioning system

GSP Generalized System of Preferences

HELP Haiti Economic Lift Program

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

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

HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act

HS Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (international)

HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

ICITE International Collaborative Initiative on Trade and Employment (OECD)

ICSID International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

ICT information and communications technology

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPR intellectual property rights

ITA International Technology Agreement (WTO)

ITA International Trade Administration (USDOC)

JCCT Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade

JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives

JNNSM Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (India)

KFTA Korea Fair Trade Commission

KORUS FTA U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement

LCA large civil aircraft

LCIA London Court of International Arbitration

LDBDC least-developed beneficiary developing country

LTFV less than fair value

MEA multilateral environmental agreement

Mercosur Common Market of the South

MFN most-favored nation

mmt million metric tons

MOFCOM Ministry of Commerce (China)

MOU memorandum of understanding

MRA mutual recognition agreement
xiii

MRL maximum residue limit

NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)

NAALC North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)

NAC National Advisory Committee (NAFTA)

NADB North American Development Bank (NAFTA)

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NAMA nonagricultural market access

NAO National Administrative Office (NAFTA)

NGTF Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (WTO)

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (United States)

NTB nontariff barrier

NTR normal trade relations

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

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

OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel (USDOC)

OTLA Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (NAFTA)

PATPA U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement

PNTR permanent normal trade relations

PTPA U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement

Pub. L. Public Law

R&D research and development

RMB renminbi

ROOs rules of origin

RTA regional trade agreement

S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue (China)

SBDC Small Business Development Center (NAFTA)

SCM subsidies and countervailing measures

SEM Submissions on Environmental Measures (NAFTA)

SITC Standard International Trade Classification

SLA Softwood Lumber Agreement

SME Sindicato Mexicano de Electristas (NAFTA)

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary (standards)

SSA sub-Saharan Africa

STRI services trade restrictiveness index

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance

TAAC Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

TAAEA Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act

TAATC Trade Agreement Administration and Technical Cooperation (USDOL)

TBT Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO)

TEC Transatlantic Economic Council

TIFA trade and investment framework agreement

TMT thousand metric tons

TNC Trade Negotiations Committee (WTO)

TPA trade promotion agreement

TPF U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership

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

TRQ tariff-rate quota

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (EU)

UK United Kingdom
xiv

UN United Nations

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

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

U.S.C. United States Code

USAFTA U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement

USCBP United States Customs and Border Protection (USDHS)

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDHS United States Department of Homeland Security

USDOC United States Department of Commerce

USDOE United States Department of Energy

USDOL United States Department of Labor

USDOS United States Department of State

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USFDA United States Food and Drug Administration

USITC United States International Trade Commission

USMFTA U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement

USTR United States Trade Representative

WHO World Health Organization (UN)

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services fell slightly from $560.0 billion in 2011 to

$540.0 billion in 2012 on a balance-of-payments basis. The deficit on goods fell from 

$738.4 billion in 2011 to $735.3 billion in 2012, well below the $835.7 billion record set 

in 2006. At the same time, the U.S. surplus on services rose from $178.5 billion in 2011

to a new record of $195.8 billion in 2012 (figure ES.1).

U.S. trade in goods and services grew in 2012, but the rate of growth for both exports and 

imports was roughly a quarter of the rates of increase for 2011. Generally lower growth 

in many foreign countries, particularly within the European Union (EU), as well as the 

drought in U.S. farm areas, led to a smaller expansion in U.S. exports of goods and 

services in 2012. The decline in U.S. import requirements for petroleum-related products 

led to similarly lower growth in total U.S. imports of goods and services in 2012

compared to 2011. The U.S. economic recovery that began in the summer of 2009 

continued as real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.2 percent in 2012, compared

to 1.7 percent in 2011. In contrast, the pace of global economic growth slowed, from 3.9

percent in 2011 to 3.2 percent in 2012.

The U.S. dollar depreciated by slightly less than 1.0 percent in 2012 against a broad 

trade-weighted index of foreign currencies. By yearend, the dollar had fallen against 

major European and Western Hemisphere currencies by 1–5 percent, but had appreciated 

against the Japanese yen. These currency movements were uneven during the year as the 

dollar responded to financial market developments, as well as concerns about fiscal 

stresses in Europe and the global economic outlook, by falling in the first, third, and 

fourth quarters and rising in the second quarter of the year. The Chinese yuan followed a 

more stable path against the dollar, but the dollar ended the year lower by 1 percent 

against the yuan.

FIGURE ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 1994–2012

Source: USDOC.
xvi

A summary of U.S. trade agreement activities in 2012 is presented below, followed by a 

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

agreement activities during 2012 included the administration of U.S. trade laws and 

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

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

Cooperation (APEC) forum; U.S. negotiation of and participation in free trade 

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

Key Trade Developments in 2012 

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations 

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

Commission) conducted no new safeguard investigations in 2012. Only one safeguard 

measure was in effect during part of 2012, involving imports of certain passenger vehicle 

and light truck tires from China, and it expired in September. The President had imposed 

additional tariffs on such tires from China in September 2009 for a three-year period, 

setting the tariffs at 35 percent ad valorem in the first year, 30 percent ad valorem in the 

second year, and 25 percent ad valorem in the third year.

Section 301: In 2012, one section 301 case was ongoing from previous years, and no 

new section 301 petitions were filed. The ongoing case concerned the EU meat hormone 

directive. In August 2012, the EU increased the tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for beef produced 

without growth-promoting hormones to 45,000 metric tons as previously agreed under a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and the EU pursuant to 

the beef hormone dispute.

Special 301: In the 2012 Special 301 review, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)

examined the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection 

in 77 countries. USTR did not list any countries as priority foreign countries, but 

identified 13 countries on the priority watch list: Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, 

China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela. The 

Special 301 report highlighted the need for greater IPR protection and enforcement of all 

forms of IPR in China, noting concerns about compulsory licensing, trade secret theft, the 

persistence of “notorious” physical and online markets selling IPR-infringing goods, and 

“indigenous innovation” policies and related industrial policies in China. Although 

Russia remained on the priority watch list, the report noted that it has taken significant 

steps to improve IPR protection. Malaysia and Spain were removed from the watch list, 

while 26 countries remained. In September 2012, Israel was removed from the priority 

watch list and placed on the watch list when it introduced three bills to improve its 

pharmaceuticals regime. In December 2012, the USTR issued the Notorious Markets List 

and identified more than 30 Internet and physical markets that deal in goods and services 

that infringe IPR and cause economic harm.

Antidumping duty investigations: The Commission instituted 5 new preliminary 

antidumping investigations and completed 16 final investigations during 2012. 

Antidumping duty orders were issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) in 

7 of the completed investigations on six products from four countries.

Countervailing duty investigations: The Commission instituted 9 new preliminary 

countervailing duty investigations and completed 9 final investigations during 2012. 
xvii

Countervailing duty orders were issued by the USDOC in 2 of the completed 

investigations on two products from one country (China).

Sunset reviews: During 2012, the USDOC and the Commission instituted 42 sunset 

reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders and suspension 

agreements. The Commission completed 46 reviews, resulting in 38 antidumping duty 

and countervailing duty orders being continued for up to five additional years.

Section 337 investigations: During 2012, there were 127 active section 337 

investigations and ancillary proceedings, 52 of which were instituted in 2012. Of these 52 

new proceedings, 40 were new section 337 investigations and 12 were new ancillary 

proceedings relating to previously concluded investigations. In all but four of the 52 new 

section 337 proceedings in 2012, patent infringement was the only type of unfair act 

alleged. Approximately 40 percent of the active investigations involved 

telecommunications and computer equipment; integrated circuits; and display devices, 

such as digital televisions. At the close of 2012, 56 section 337 investigations and related 

proceedings were pending at the Commission.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: In fiscal year (FY) 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL) received 1,427 petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers 

allegedly harmed by imports, a decline from 1,671 TAA petitions filed in FY 2011 and 

2,222 petitions filed in FY 2010. USDOL certified 1,144 petitions as eligible for TAA 

and denied 183 petitions in FY 2012. The TAA for Farmers and the TAA for Firms

programs also provided assistance in 2012 to farmers and firms, respectively.

Trade Preference Programs 

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Imports that entered duty free under the GSP 

program totaled $19.9 billion in 2012, accounting for 5.9 percent of total U.S. imports 

from GSP beneficiary countries and 0.9 percent of total imports from all trading partners. 

India was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2012, followed by Thailand, Brazil, and 

Indonesia. Crude petroleum and new pneumatic rubber tires for motorcars were the top 

products entered under the GSP program. During 2012, Argentina was suspended from 

the GSP program (effective May 28); South Sudan became a GSP beneficiary (effective 

April 15) and a least-developed beneficiary (effective May 28); Senegal became eligible 

for least-developed beneficiary treatment (effective September 3); and St. Kitts and 

Nevis, Gibraltar, and the Turks and Caicos Islands were removed from the list of GSP 

beneficiaries based on high income (effective January 1, 2014).

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

African (SSA) countries were designated for benefits under AGOA in 2012, and 27 SSA 

countries were designated eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits. Duty-free U.S. 

imports under AGOA, including those covered by GSP, were valued at $34.7 billion in 

2012. U.S. imports under AGOA, exclusive of GSP, were valued at $32.9 billion, down 

36.9 percent from 2011. This decrease was driven mainly by a decline in the value of 

U.S. imports of petroleum-related products, which made up 90.0 percent of imports under 

AGOA in 2012. Nigeria and Angola were the largest AGOA suppliers in 2012. On 

December 20, 2012, South Sudan became eligible for AGOA benefits, and it was 

announced that Guinea-Bissau and Mali would no longer be eligible effective January 1, 

2013.

Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA): At yearend 2012, Ecuador was the only country 

eligible to receive trade preferences under ATPA, because Colombia lost its eligibility 
xviii

following the entry into force of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA)

in May 2012. U.S. imports under ATPA increased over 150 percent in 2012 to $11.2 

billion because of the program’s lapse between February and October 2011. Crude 

petroleum and petroleum products accounted for the overwhelming share (91.5 percent) 

of U.S. imports under ATPA in 2012.

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA): At yearend 2012, 16 countries and 

dependent territories were eligible for CBERA preferences, and 7 were eligible for 

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) preferences, an amendment to CBERA. 

Panama lost its eligibility for both CBERA and CBTPA preferences when the U.S.-

Panama TPA entered into force on October 31, 2012. U.S. imports under CBERA 

decreased by 13.3 percent to $3.1 billion in 2012, reflecting a decline in U.S. imports of 

crude petroleum, methanol, knitted apparel products, and undenatured ethyl alcohol, 

which are major imports from CBERA countries. Although Trinidad and Tobago 

remained the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2012, Haiti accounted for 

nearly all of U.S. imports of apparel entering under CBTPA. U.S. imports of apparel 

from Haiti totaled $730.1 million, up 4.1 percent from 2011, of which $423.6 million 

entered under CBTPA. U.S. imports of apparel entering under the Haitian Hemisphere 

Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Acts (HOPE) and the Haiti Economic 

Lift Program (HELP), which added special provisions to CBERA, rose by one-third in 

2012 to $303.4 million.

WTO, OECD, and APEC 

WTO developments: The WTO Director-General, in his capacity as chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), summed up 

the results of discussions during the first half of 2012 as “meager.” By October, he noted 

signs of momentum, telling WTO members that in discussions in the latter half of the 

year, members appeared committed to achieving a “credible outcome” at the WTO Ninth 

Ministerial Conference in December 2013. In view of the lack of progress in the DDA 

negotiations, a number of countries––the so-called Really Good Friends of services 

group––explored the possibility during 2012 of negotiating a plurilateral agreement on 

trade in services under the WTO. Among other 2012 developments, WTO parties 

formally adopted a revised Agreement on Government Procurement, and parties to the 

WTO Information Technology Agreement (ITA) agreed to expand ITA to cover 

additional products.

Four countries acceded to the WTO in 2012––Montenegro, Samoa, Russia, and 

Vanuatu—bringing WTO membership to 157. Members also began the process of 

selecting a new WTO Director-General, whose term would begin September 1, 2013.

WTO dispute settlement: Of the 27 new requests for dispute settlement consultations 

filed in 2012, 5 involved the United States as complainant and 6 as the respondent. There 

were 11 new dispute panels established during the year, including 3 at the request of the 

United States against China and 2 by China against the United States. The Appellate 

Body report in a case involving an EU complaint about U.S. measures affecting trade in 

large civil aircraft—one of the longest-running disputes—was adopted in March 2012, 

and a compliance panel relating to that dispute was formed at the request of the EU 

towards the end of the year.

OECD developments: The 34 members of the OECD held their ministerial-level council 

meeting in Paris, May 23–24, 2012, where they discussed policies aimed at restoring 

economic growth, including those addressing job and gender inequalities. Ministers 
xix

focused on the OECD Green Growth Strategy, aimed at policies such as sustainable use 

of natural resources and more efficient energy use; the OECD Gender Initiative, aimed at

making the best use of all available resources by orienting education, employment, and 

entrepreneurship policies more directly toward women; and the Framework for an OECD 

Strategy for Development, intended to broaden collaboration and knowledge sharing 

between the OECD and developing countries on policy successes and failures.

APEC developments: APEC was hosted by Russia in 2012, culminating in a summit of 

APEC leaders and ministers in Vladivostok in September. Following a 2011 commitment 

to reduce tariffs on environmental goods, APEC member countries agreed on a list of 

products for which they could cut tariffs on a most-favored-nation (MFN) basis to 5

percent or less by 2015. In addition, member countries worked toward practical steps to 

facilitate services trade and enhance cooperation on several key issues, such as privacy 

and food security. The APEC annual summit also served as a forum for discussing 

pathways toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, a long-time goal of APEC.

FTA Developments in 2012

U.S. FTAs in force in 2012: The United States was a party to 14 FTAs with 20 countries 

as of December 31, 2012. These include the U.S.-Panama TPA (2012); the U.S.-

Colombia TPA (2012); the U.S.-Korea FTA (2012); the U.S.-Oman FTA (2009); the 

U.S.-Peru TPA (2009); a multiparty FTA with the countries of Central America and the 

Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) that entered into force first with respect to the 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (2006–07) and 

then to Costa Rica (2009); the U.S.- Bahrain FTA (2006); the U.S.-Morocco FTA (2006); 

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

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

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

FTA developments: In 2012, the U.S.-Panama TPA (October 31, 2012), the U.S.-

Colombia TPA (May 15, 2012), and the U.S.-Korea FTA (March 15, 2012) entered into 

force. Also during the year, five rounds of negotiations were concluded related to a 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The United States and the other TPP partners 

extended an invitation to Mexico and Canada on June 18 and 19, 2012, respectively, to 

join TPP negotiations with the nine current participants—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, 

Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. In 

addition, the United States and the EU explored options for expanding bilateral trade and 

investment, but no final decision was made during the year.

FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: Two-way merchandise trade (exports 

and imports) between the United States and its FTA partners amounted to $1.4 trillion, or

37.7 percent of total U.S merchandise trade in 2012. The NAFTA countries—Canada and 

Mexico—dominated U.S. trade with FTA partners in 2012, accounting for 75.0 percent 

of total U.S. merchandise trade with its FTA partners, or $1.0 trillion. In 2012, U.S. 

merchandise exports to the NAFTA partners expanded by 6.5 percent and imports by 3.7 

percent, resulting in a 2.4 percent decline in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the 

NAFTA partners to $181.0 billion. Outside of the NAFTA, U.S. two-way merchandise 

trade with those FTA partners that had FTAs in place in 2011 increased by 4.4 percent to 

$228.8 billion in 2012. The United States registered a merchandise trade surplus with 

these 15 partners of $23.3 billion in 2012, an increase of 24.6 percent from 2011.

Completion of FTAs with Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2012 added an additional 

$110.3 billion (8.8 percent) to 2012 U.S. two-way trade with FTA partners. In 2012, U.S. 
xx

imports entered under FTA provisions were valued at $393.7 billion, accounting for 17.5 

percent of total U.S. imports.

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

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

(Developments in the trucking provisions in 2012 are described in the Mexico section 

below.) In 2012, the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) asked the NAFTA 

Committee for Standards-Related Measures to continue its work to enhance cooperation 

in developing, applying, and enforcing standards-related measures, and to provide a 

forum for the parties to consult on issues relating to these measures. The FTC also noted 

that the business development centers in the United States and Mexico are now linking

small and medium-sized enterprises for trade opportunities through an interactive 

platform, the SBDCGlobal.com network. At the end of 2012, 11 files remained active 

under articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation, of which 2 were submitted in 2012.

NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2012, there were five active Chapter 11 cases filed 

against the United States, four of them filed by Canadian investors and one filed by a 

Mexican investor. In the same year, six active Chapter 11 cases were filed by U.S. 

investors against Canada; none were filed by U.S. investors against Mexico. At yearend, 

the NAFTA Secretariat listed 14 binational panels active under Chapter 19, 11 of which 

challenged U.S. agencies’ antidumping and countervailing duty determinations. Among 

these panels, 5 were formed in 2012; 3 of these challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations 

on products from Mexico, and 2 challenged Mexico’s agency determinations on products 

from the United States.

Trade Activities with Major Trading Partners

European Union 

The EU as a unit1 continued to be the United States’ largest two-way merchandise trading 

partner in 2012. U.S. merchandise trade with the EU was $609.8 billion in 2012, which 

accounted for 16.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. merchandise exports to 

the EU totaled $235.6 billion, ranking the EU second to Canada, while the value of U.S. 

merchandise imports from the EU was $374.1 billion, second to China. As a result, the 

U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU was $138.5 billion in 2012. Leading U.S. 

exports included aircraft and parts, petroleum-related products, certain medicaments, 

nonmonetary gold, and coal. Leading U.S. imports included passenger motor vehicles, 

certain medicaments, petroleum-related products, parts of turbo jets, and certain 

heterocyclic compounds. The EU was also the United States’ largest trading partner in 

terms of services in 2012, accounting for 32.6 percent of total trade in private services.

2

The United States registered a trade surplus in services with the EU of $54.8 billion in 

2012.

A major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2012 was the work of the U.S.-EU 

High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, which was tasked with recommending 

ways to expand bilateral trade and investment. In June the group released an interim 

 1 The 27 members of the EU in 2012 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 

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

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

United Kingdom. 2 The services trade data reported for the EU and other countries are based on trade in private services, 

which exclude government sales and purchases of services.
xxi

report concluding that a comprehensive agreement would, if achievable, provide the most 

significant benefits. There was also progress during 2012 in a number of areas of the 

work plan of the Transatlantic Economic Council, including initiatives related to small 

and medium-sized enterprises, raw materials, investment, and secure trade.

Canada 

Canada continued to be the United States' largest single-country trading partner in 2012, 

with total two-way merchandise trade valued at $568.1 billion, accounting for 15.8 

percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada totaled $244.2 

billion and U.S. merchandise imports from Canada amounted to $323.9 billion, resulting 

in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Canada of $79.7 billion in 2012. Leading U.S. 

exports included passenger and truck motor vehicles and parts, and petroleum-related 

products. Leading U.S. imports included petroleum- and energy-related products, as well 

as passenger motor vehicles. Canada was also the United States' second-largest singlecountry trading partner for services in 2012, following the United Kingdom (UK). The 

United States ran a U.S. services trade surplus of $30.5 billion with Canada in 2012.

In January 2012, the United States and Canada signed a two-year extension of the 2006 

Softwood Lumber Agreement until October 13, 2015. In June 2012, Canada passed the 

Copyright Modernization Act, implementing the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty 

(“WIPO Internet Treaties”). Canada signed these treaties in 1997 but did not succeed in 

enacting them into national law until 2012.

China 

In 2012, U.S. merchandise trade with China—the United States’ second-largest singlecountry trading partner—was valued at $528.4 billion, accounting for 14.7 percent of 

U.S. trade with the world. The United States’ merchandise trade deficit with China, 

registering $321.4 billion in 2012, remained higher than the U.S. deficit with any other 

trading partner. U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $103.5 billion, and U.S. 

merchandise imports from China amounted to $424.9 billion in 2012. Leading U.S. 

exports were soybeans, aircraft and parts, cotton, metal waste and scrap, and motor 

vehicles. Leading U.S. imports were computers and parts, cell phones, 

telecommunication equipment, toys, video games, and footwear. The United States ran a 

services trade surplus with China in 2012, which amounted to $16.9 billion.

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

relations in 2012. Notable areas of U.S. interest were IPR enforcement, industrial 

policies, export restraints on raw material inputs, import bans on certain U.S. agricultural 

products, and entry barriers in service sectors in China.

Mexico 

Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner in 2012, 

following Canada and China. With total two-way merchandise trade valued at $451.6 

billion, Mexico accounted for 12.5 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. 

merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $175.2 billion in 2012, and U.S. merchandise 

imports from Mexico amounted to $276.4 billion, resulting in a merchandise trade deficit 

of $101.2 billion. As in the previous year, automotive trade was an important component 

in both exports and imports. Leading U.S. exports to Mexico included petroleum 

products, motor vehicles and parts, corn, aircraft and parts, parts and accessories for 
xxii

automatic data processing machines, and soybeans. Major U.S. imports from Mexico 

were crude petroleum and petroleum products, motor vehicles and parts, televisions, 

computers, cell phones, nonmonetary gold, and road tractors. The United States had a 

services trade surplus of $11.6 billion with Mexico in 2012.

To address cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico, the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced the authorization of Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to transport cargo under a pilot program beyond the commercial 

zones and throughout the United States (long-haul operations) in 2011. In 2012, FMCSA 

conducted an audit of the program and in its interim report indicated that there may not 

be enough authorized carriers to statistically assess the safety of the pilot program.

Japan

In 2012, U.S. merchandise trade with Japan—the United States’ fourth-largest singlecountry trading partner—was valued at 209.1 billion, accounting for 5.8 percent of total 

U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Japan were $64.6

billion in 2012, and U.S. merchandise imports from Japan amounted to $144.5 billion, 

resulting in a trade deficit of $79.9 billion. Leading U.S. merchandise exports to Japan 

included aircraft and parts, various medical equipment, corn, certain medicaments, 

soybeans, and wheat. Leading U.S. imports from Japan included passenger vehicles and 

parts, aircraft parts, parts for printers and copiers, and heavy construction equipment. 

Japan was the United States’ third-largest single-country services trading partner in 2012. 

The United States registered a trade surplus in services with Japan of $20.1 billion.

In 2012, Japan engaged with the United States in consultations toward joining the 

ongoing TPP negotiations, and in that context policymakers discussed bilateral trade 

irritants, including concerns over the competitive position of Japan Post and nontariff 

measures in the auto market. Japan agreed to raise the age limit on cattle used to produce 

U.S. beef exports from 20 months to 30 months, offering expanded opportunities for U.S. 

beef producers seeking to ship high-quality beef to Japan. U.S. imports from Japan in 

several sectors affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster of 2011 largely 

recovered in 2012.

Korea 

In 2012, Korea was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country trading partner, 

with total two-way merchandise trade valued at $97.9 billion; Korea accounted for 2.7 

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

were $40.0 billion in 2012, and U.S. merchandise imports from Korea were $57.9 billion,

resulting in a merchandise trade deficit of $17.9 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Korea 

included machinery for producing semiconductors, electronic integrated circuits and 

microassemblies and parts, ferrous waste and scrap, aircraft and parts, and coal. Leading 

U.S. imports from Korea were cell phones, automobiles and parts, computer parts and 

accessories, processed petroleum, and electronic integrated circuits. The United States 

had a services trade surplus of $8.8 million with Korea in 2012.

The U.S.-Korea FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012. Another notable trade 

development was a new market access agreement, 10 years in the making, that permits 

U.S. exports of blueberries to Korea if U.S. growers and packers meet certain 

phytosanitary requirements.
xxiii

Brazil 

In 2012, Brazil became the United States’ ninth-largest single-country trading partner, 

falling behind Saudi Arabia. Brazil remained the United States’ largest South American 

partner and its second-largest Latin American partner behind Mexico. U.S. merchandise 

trade with Brazil was valued at $69.0 billion in 2012, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world. U.S. exports to Brazil amounted to $37.3 billion, and 

U.S. imports from Brazil were $31.7 billion, which resulted in a U.S. merchandise trade 

surplus of $5.5 billion—lower than the 2011 surplus. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil were 

aircraft and parts, petroleum-related oils and refined petroleum products, coal, 

medicaments, and parts for boring and sinking machinery. Leading U.S. imports from 

Brazil included petroleum-related products, pig iron and semifinished iron, ethyl alcohol, 

unroasted coffee, chemical wood pulp, and coal. The U.S. services trade surplus with

Brazil was $15.8 billion in 2012.

On March 13, 2012, the United States hosted the first meeting of the U.S.-Brazil 

Commission on Economic and Trade Relations, which was established by the U.S.-Brazil 

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC) in 2011. During the 2012 

meeting, the two countries agreed to seek greater cooperation on a broad range of issues 

including investment, IPR, and cross-border trade in services. In September 2012, the 

government of Brazil approved a one-year increase in tariffs that applies to 100 products 

imported from outside of Mercosur. The increased tariff rates amount to 25 percent ad 

valorem. Brazil’s foreign minister cited the currency effects of U.S. monetary stimulus 

and the resulting loss of Brazil’s competitiveness as a part of the rationale for the tariff 

increases.

Taiwan 

In 2012, Taiwan was the United States’ 11th-largest single-country trading partner. 

Bilateral merchandise trade amounted to $60.6 billion, which accounted for 1.7 percent 

of total U.S. trade. After a considerable rise in 2011, the U.S. trade deficit with Taiwan 

decreased slightly to $16.9 billion in 2012. U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan 

amounted to $21.8 billion and U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan totaled $38.7 

billion in 2012. Leading U.S. exports were semiconductor manufacturing related 

machines and instruments, ferrous waste and scrap, and soybeans. Leading U.S. imports 

were GPS devices, photosensitive semiconductor devices, electronic integrated circuits, 

computer memory chips, processors, accessories and parts, and digital camera and video 

recorders. The United States ran a services trade surplus of $4.0 billion with Taiwan in 

2012.

In 2012, Taiwan agreed to adopt and apply a “maximum residue level” standard for 

imports of U.S. beef raised with ractopamine, replacing its zero-tolerance policy. 

Taiwan’s imports of U.S. beef soon increased, although the zero-tolerance policy remains 

in effect for imports of U.S. pork.

India

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

partner—was valued at $59.1 billion in 2012, accounting for 1.6 percent of U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to India amounted to $19.0 

billion in 2012, and U.S. merchandise imports from India amounted to $40.1 billion, 

resulting in a merchandise trade deficit of $21.1 billion. Leading U.S. exports to India 

included nonmonetary gold, aircraft and parts, coal, diammonium phosphate, and certain 
xxiv

petroleum products used in the manufacture of tires. Leading U.S. imports from India 

were nonindustrial diamonds, certain medicaments, mucilages and thickeners, and light 

oils and preparations. India was the only major U.S. trading partner with which the 

United States did not have a surplus in services trade; in 2012, the United States’ services 

trade deficit with India was $5.8 billion.

The United States and India resumed discussions toward a bilateral investment treaty 

(BIT) in 2012 following the release of the U.S. model BIT in April. U.S. policymakers 

engaged members of the Indian government on India’s increased localization

requirements, particularly in the information and communications technology sectors as 

well as the solar energy sector. India permitted higher foreign equity shares in an effort to 

attract increased foreign direct investment (FDI) in several key services sectors, including 

allowing FDI in the multibrand retail sector.

Russia 

Russia was the United States’ 24th-largest single-country trading partner in 2012, with 

total two-way merchandise trade valued at $39.0 billion, accounting for 1.1 percent of 

U.S. trade with the world. U.S. exports to Russia totaled $10.0 billion, and U.S. imports 

from Russia were $29.0 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Russia 

of $19.1 billion in 2012. Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts, passenger 

motor vehicles and parts, and animal products such as chicken, pig, and beef meat. U.S. 

imports were dominated by energy products, such as petroleum goods and gases. Data for 

U.S. trade in services with Russia were unavailable.

On August 22, 2012, Russia became the WTO’s 157th member, completing 18 years of 

negotiations. The United States granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations treatment to 

Russia in December 2012, removing a key obstacle to applying MFN treatment to 

bilateral trade as required under WTO multilateral trade rules. Russia’s tariff-rate quotas 

(TRQs) on imports of beef, pork, and poultry meat tightened in general at the beginning 

of 2012, but expanded later in 2012 when Russia’s WTO commitments on TRQ imports 

took effect.
xxv

January

9: The United States and India postpone a meeting 

of the Trade Policy Forum.

9–10: The United States and the Republic of Korea 

(Korea) hold meetings in Seoul to discuss issues 

related to implementation of the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) 

Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

15: The United States and Saudi Arabia discuss 

ways to strengthen their economic ties by expanding

their trade and investment relationship at the second 

meeting of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia Trade and 

Investment Council.

18: The United States and Egypt agree to create an 

action plan to enhance current trade and investment 

between the two nations.

19: The United States and European Union (EU)

request suspension of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) arbitration 

over the U.S. request to take countermeasures 

against EU measures affecting trade in large civil 

aircraft (DS316). The DSB arbitrator suspends 

proceedings the following day.

20: The United States appeals the WTO dispute 

settlement panel report concerning Mexico’s 

complaint regarding U.S. measures on the 

importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna

products (DS381).

20: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a U.S. complaint regarding China’s 

antidumping and countervailing duty measures on 

broiler products from the United States (DS427).

20: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a U.S. complaint regarding 

the Philippine’s taxes on distilled spirits (DS403).

23: The Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States (CAFTA-DR) Free Trade Commission meets in 

Miami, Florida. The Commission finalizes updates to 

the rules of origin for textile and apparel goods and 

establishes a working group to consider modifications

to rules of origin on non-textiles and non-apparel 

goods.

25: Mexico appeals the WTO dispute settlement 

panel report concerning Mexico’s complaint regarding 

U.S. measures on the importation, marketing, and 

sale of tuna and tuna products (DS381).

27: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) 

announces progress on the U.S.-Japan Economic 

Harmonization Initiative on a variety of issues, and 

releases a set of shared trade principles for 

information and communications technology (ICT) 

services with the aim of promoting these among other 

countries.

February

6: The United States signs agreements with Japan 

and the EU ending the dispute over the use of 

“zeroing” in trade remedy proceedings.

7: The United States and Japan hold a bilateral 

senior-level meeting to discuss Japan’s interest in 

joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

negotiations.

15: The United States and EU agree to a partnership 

regarding organic trade in which organic products 

certified in the EU or in the United States may be sold 

as organic in either region starting June 1.

16: Vietnam requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding U.S. 

antidumping measures on certain frozen warm-water

shrimp from Vietnam (DS429).

17: The United States and China reach agreement to 

significantly increase market access for U.S. movies 

in order to resolve outstanding issues in a WTO 

dispute (DS363) related to films.

21–22: The United States and Japan hold a follow-up 

meeting among expert-level officials regarding 

Japanese interest in joining the TPP negotiations.

22: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a complaint by the United 

States regarding China’s export measures on various 

raw materials (DS394).

28: President Obama signs a law establishing the 

Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, which will act 

as the primary forum within the federal government 

for USTR and other agencies to coordinate 

enforcement of U.S. trade rights.

March

1: USTR submits the Administration’s 2012 Trade 

Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report to Congress.

6: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with India regarding India’s 

import measures on certain agricultural products 

(DS430).

9: The United States and its TPP partners––

Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam––conclude 

the 11th round of TPP negotiations in Melbourne.

12: USTR Kirk applauds a Department of Commerce 

report showing that export-related jobs in the United 

States increased by 1.2 million between 2009 and 

2011.

13: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with China regarding China’s

export restrictions on various forms of rare earths, 

tungsten, and molybdenum (DS431).

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities
xxvi

March—Continued

13: The United States hosts the first meeting of the 

U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic and Trade 

Relations, which was established by the 2011 

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation.

15: The U.S.-Korea FTA enters into force.

26: A Presidential proclamation designates South 

Sudan as a new beneficiary of the Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP) and suspends 

Argentina’s GSP eligibility.

27: The United States and Tunisia explore steps to 

increase trade and investment with each other as well 

as with other partners in the Middle East/North Africa 

region at a meeting of the bilateral Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) Council in 

Tunis.

30: The WTO Committee on Government 

Procurement formally adopts revisions to the WTO 

Agreement on Government Procurement.

30: The United States requests a WTO DSB 

compliance panel regarding the EU’s measures 

affecting trade in large civil aircraft (DS316).

April

2: USTR releases three reports—2012 Report on 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 2012 Report 

on Technical Barriers to Trade, and 2012 National 

Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.

3: The North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) Free Trade Commission holds its annual 

meeting in Washington, DC.

4: USTR releases the annual 2012 Section 1377 

Review regarding the operation and effectiveness of 

telecommunications trade agreements.

9: The United States and Brazil agree to recognize 

distilled spirits from each nation as distinct products.

10: U.S. officials meet with officials from Egypt, 

Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia to discuss ways to 

increase trade, investment, job creation, and 

integration within the region.

10: The United States and the EU announce 

agreement on shared principles for international 

investment, with a view to strengthening collaborative 

efforts to increase open investment worldwide.

13: The WTO DSB refers the U.S. request for a 

compliance panel regarding the EU’s measures 

affecting trade in large civil aircraft (DS316) to the 

original panel.

April—Continued

20: The United States announces revisions to its

tariff-rate quota allocations for raw sugar cane for 

fiscal year (FY) 2012.

20: The United States announces revisions to its 

model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which forms 

the basis for how policymakers negotiate BITs. The 

revised model BIT enhances the 2004 model BIT by 

promoting transparency, strengthening labor and 

environmental protections, and adding provisions for 

state-led economies.

24: India requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding U.S. 

countervailing measures on certain hot-rolled carbon 

steel flat products from India (DS436).

30: USTR releases the 2012 Special 301 Report

concerning intellectual property rights (IPR) 

protection.

May

3–4: The third meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic 

and Economic Dialogue is held in Beijing, China.

4: The United States and EU sign a mutual 

recognition decision, which recognizes compatibility 

between the U.S. and EU cargo security programs.

15: USTR celebrates its 50th anniversary.

15: The U.S.-Colombia FTA enters into force.

18: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the 12th round of TPP negotiations in Dallas.

25: China requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding U.S. 

countervailing duties on certain products from China 

(DS437).

29: The United States and Georgia meet to discuss 

strengthening their bilateral relations in the form of an 

FTA, an updated investment agreement, and other 

measures.

29–31: The United States and Peru hold the third 

meeting of the U.S.-Peru Environmental Affairs 

Council, the second meeting of Environmental 

Cooperation Commission, and the fifth meeting of the 

Sub-committee on Forest Sector Governance.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxvii

June

4–5: The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

holds its annual Trade Ministers meeting in Kazan, 

Russia. APEC priorities at this meeting include 

regional economic integration, next-generation trade 

and investment issues, and liberalization of trade in 

environmental goods.

9–10: The 10th annual African Growth and 

Opportunity Act (AGOA) Forum is held in Lusaka, 

Zambia.

13: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a complaint by Mexico 

regarding the United States’ measures on the 

importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna 

products (DS381).

15: The WTO DSB circulates the panel report 

concerning the complaint by the United States 

regarding China’s imposition of antidumping and 

countervailing duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled steel 

from the United States (DS414).

15: The United States and the East African 

Community pledge to pursue a new trade and 

investment partnership following a meeting in 

Washington, DC.

18: The United States and South Africa sign a trade 

and investment framework agreement (TIFA) as an 

amendment to the original TIFA signed in 1999.

18: The United States and other TPP members 

formally extend an invitation to Mexico to join the 

ongoing TPP negotiations.

18: The United States and Mauritius announce they 

have reached a nonbinding agreement creating a set 

of principles for ICT services. The countries also 

announce they will be promoting the adoption of these 

principles by other countries.

19: The United States and other TPP members 

formally extend an invitation to Canada to join the 

ongoing TPP negotiations.

20: The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs 

and Growth releases an interim report recommending 

ways to expand bilateral trade and investment.

25: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a U.S. complaint regarding Indian 

import measures on certain agricultural products 

(DS430).

26: The United States and Turkey hold the second 

meeting of the U.S.-Turkey Framework for Strategic 

Economic and Commercial Cooperation in Ankara, 

Turkey.

29: USTR announces the outcome of the 

Administration’s 2011 Annual Review under the GSP 

program.

June—Continued

29: The President proclaims that Gibraltar and the 

Turks and Caicos Islands will be graduated from the 

GSP program on January 1, 2014.

29: USTR Kirk announces that USTR has closed the 

GSP country practice review for workers’ rights in Sri 

Lanka and that no changes to Sri Lanka’s GSP trade 

benefits will occur.

July

4: The EU Parliament rejects the Anti-Counterfeiting 

Trade Agreement (ACTA) with 478 members voting 

against it, 39 voting in favor, and 165 abstentions.

5: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with China regarding China’s 

antidumping and countervailing duties on certain U.S. 

automobiles (DS440).

5: The United States and 15 other WTO members 

announce their intention to open negotiations on an 

international agreement liberalizing services trade.

10: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the 13th round of TPP negotiations in San Diego. 

During this round USTR officially notifies Congress 

that Mexico and Canada will join future negotiations.

11: Mexico signs the ACTA.

12: India requests a WTO dispute settlement panel 

concerning its complaint regarding the United States’

countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled carbon steel 

flat products from India (DS436).

11–13: USTR Kirk meets with business leaders and 

government officials in Accra, Ghana, regarding the 

possibility of a BIT between the two nations as well as 

other means of strengthening democratic institutions 

and economic growth in the region.

16–17: The United States and Indonesia hold a TIFA 

meeting in Kuta, Indonesia, to discuss U.S. concerns 

over restrictions on access to Indonesian markets for 

livestock, horticulture, and other products; Indonesia’s

intellectual property rights’ regime; and certain 

Indonesian concerns.

18: The United States and Sri Lanka hold the first 

meeting of the newly formed Labor Affairs Committee 

under the U.S.-Sri Lanka TIFA. The two governments 

discuss opportunities to continue and improve their 

cooperation on labor concerns.

18: The arbitration tribunal formed under the 2006 

U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement to 

examine U.S. claims concerning the underpricing of 

public timber harvested from the interior of British 

Columbia rules that Canada did not circumvent the 

agreement.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxviii

July—Continued

20: China appeals the WTO DSB panel report 

concerning the United States’ complaint regarding 

China’s imposition of antidumping and countervailing 

duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled steel from the 

United States (DS414).

23: The WTO DSB establishes a single dispute 

settlement panel to consider multiple members’

complaints regarding China’s export restrictions on 

various forms of rare earths, tungsten, and 

molybdenum (DS431).

23: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a complaint by Canada and 

Mexico to consider U.S. country of origin labeling

(COOL) requirements (DS384, DS386).

26: Taiwan lawmakers vote in support of three 

amendments allowing the government to adopt 

maximum residue levels for ractopamine in beef. The 

amendments make clear that the action does not 

apply to pork.

31: The United States and Ukraine conclude the 

fourth U.S.-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council 

meeting in Washington, DC. Topics discussed 

included IPR, investment climate, bilateral trade 

irritants, taxation, agriculture, customs, aviation, and 

space.

August

2: The House and Senate pass legislation renewing 

AGOA’s third-country fabric provision and making 

amendments to CAFTA-DR.

16: The U.S. Department of Transportation conducts 

an audit of the pilot program on the NAFTA Long-Haul 

Trucking Provisions designed to reopen cross-border 

trucking with Mexico.

21: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with Argentina regarding 

certain measures imposed by Argentina on imported 

goods (DS444).

22: Russia accedes to the WTO after 18 years of 

negotiations.

30: Argentina requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding certain 

measures imposed by the United States on imports of 

animals, meat, and other animal products (DS447).

31: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a complaint by India regarding the 

United States’ countervailing duties on certain hotrolled carbon steel flat products from India (DS436).

31: The WTO DSB adopts the panel report 

concerning the complaint by the United States 

regarding China’s measures affecting electronic 

payment services (DS413).

August—Continued

31: The first U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations Business Summit concludes in Siem Reap, 

Cambodia, where intentions to deepen and 

strengthen trade and investment between the United 

States and Southeast Asia were discussed.

31: The United States and Cambodia agree to begin 

exploratory discussions regarding a BIT.

September

3: USTR Kirk concludes a meeting with Vietnamese 

officials regarding the countries’ bilateral relations as 

well as issues related to TPP and APEC.

3: Argentina requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding certain 

U.S. measures affecting imports of fresh lemons from 

Argentina (DS448).

7: APEC reaches agreement on a list of 

environmental goods on which tariffs will be cut on an 

MFN basis to 5 percent or less by 2015, marking the 

first time that trade negotiations have produced tariff 

cuts on any list of environmental goods.

11: USTR announces country-specific in-quota 

allocations under the tariff-rate quotas on imported 

raw cane sugar, refined and specialty sugar, and 

sugar-containing products for FY 2013.

13: Japan becomes the first nation to ratify the 

ACTA, which will enter into force once six countries 

have ratified it.

13: Canada and Mexico request WTO DSB 

arbitration regarding U.S. COOL requirements 

(DS384, DS386).

14: USTR, State, and the Small Business 

Administration participate in a signing event for a 

memorandum of understanding between Brazil’s 

Micro and Small Business Support Service, the U.S. 

Association of Small Business Development Centers, 

and the University of Texas at San Antonio Institute 

for Economic Development.

14: India’s government approves up to 51 percent 

foreign direct investment in multibrand retail.

15: TPP negotiators meet in Leesburg, Virginia, to 

continue to resolve outstanding issues or narrow 

differences on issues that still require future 

negotiations. Negotiators made progress on issues 

such as market access, customs, rules of origin, 

technical barriers to trade, and others.

17: China requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding U.S. 

countervailing and antidumping measures on certain 

products from China (DS449).

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxix

September—Continued

17: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with China regarding certain 

measures affecting the automobile and automobile 

parts industries (DS450).

18: USTR Kirk announces that the United States will 

contribute $1 million for trade-related technical 

assistance to the WTO.

24: The United States removes Israel from the 

Special 301 Priority Watch List. This list identifies 

countries that deny sufficient and effective protection 

for IPR.

27: The United States signs a Framework Agreement 

for Trade, Economic, Investment, and Technical 

Cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council.

27: The EU requests WTO DSB authorization to take 

countermeasures against the United States regarding 

U.S. measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft 

(DS353) for U.S. failure to comply with DSB rulings.

28: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a complaint by China regarding the 

United States’ countervailing duties on certain 

products from China (DS437).

October

8: Mexico officially joins TPP negotiations.

9: Canada officially joins TPP negotiations.

11: The EU requests a WTO DSB compliance panel 

regarding U.S. measures affecting trade in large civil 

aircraft (DS353).

15: The United States and Israel sign the Mutual 

Recognition Agreement between the Government of 

the United States and the Government of Israel for 

Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment.

18: The WTO DSB circulates the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a U.S. complaint regarding 

China’s imposition of duties on exports of grain 

oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the United 

States (DS414).

19: The United States and the East African 

Community meet in Nairobi, Kenya, to continue 

progress on their Trade and Investment Partnership.

23: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a U.S. complaint regarding China’s 

antidumping and countervailing duties on certain U.S. 

automobiles (DS440).

October—Continued

23: The WTO DSB refers the EU request for a 

compliance panel regarding U.S. measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft (DS353) to the original 

panel. The parties agree to refer to DSB arbitration 

the EU request for authorization to take 

countermeasures against the United States.

31: The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement 

enters into force.

November

16: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body and 

panel report concerning a U.S. complaint regarding 

China’s imposition of antidumping and countervailing 

duties on exports of grain oriented flat-rolled electrical 

steel from the United States (DS414).

16: U.S. House of Representatives votes to end the 

application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik 

amendment to Russia and Moldova, and authorizes 

the President to extend permanent normal trade 

relations (PNTR) to both countries.

19: China requests a WTO dispute settlement panel 

with the United States regarding U.S. countervailing 

and antidumping measures on certain products from 

China (DS449).

19: The United States and Colombia conclude the 

first meeting of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 

Commission. The two sides agree that both countries 

are benefiting from the agreement, which entered into 

force on May 15th.

27: The United States and EU request suspension of 

the arbitration regarding U.S. measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft (DS353). The arbitrator 

suspends proceedings the following day.

December

3: The United States and Nigeria hold the seventh 

U.S.-Nigeria TIFA meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, focusing 

on issues including market access, WTO cooperation, 

implementing AGOA, IPR, and improving bilateral 

relations between the two countries.

4: The WTO DSB arbitrator’s report is circulated 

concerning a complaint by Canada and Mexico 

regarding U.S. COOL requirements (DS384, DS386).

6: U.S. Senate votes to end the application of 

Jackson-Vanik provisions to Russia and Moldova, and 

authorizes the President to extend PNTR to both 

countries.

6: Deputy USTR Marantis visits India to discuss 

issues related to India’s manufacturing policy and the 

importance of innovation.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities––Continued
xxx

December—Continued

6: The United States requests a WTO dispute 

settlement panel to consider certain import restrictions 

imposed by Argentina on imported goods (DS444).

6: Argentina requests a WTO dispute settlement 

panel to consider certain measures imposed by the 

United States on imports of animals, meat, and other 

animal products (DS447).

6: Argentina requests a WTO dispute settlement 

panel to consider certain measures imposed by the 

United States affecting imports of fresh lemons from 

Argentina (DS448).

7: The United States and Morocco announce new 

agreements on trade facilitation, joint investment 

principles, and joint ICT principles.

8: USTR Kirk and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack 

request that Russia suspend its new testing 

requirements for U.S. meat exports to Russia, citing 

its commitments to the WTO.

12: The United States and its TPP partners conclude 

the 15th round of TPP negotiations in Auckland.

13: USTR Kirk announces the results of the Special 

301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets 

identifying 30 marketplaces that facilitate global piracy 

and counterfeiting.

14: President Obama signs into law H.R. 6156, the 

Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and 

Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act 

of 2012. This allows the President to offer PNTR to 

the two countries and to apply the WTO Agreement to 

Russia.

December—Continued

17: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement 

panel to consider a complaint by China regarding the 

United States’ countervailing and antidumping 

measures on certain products from China (DS449).

18–19: The United States and China hold the 23rd 

meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and 

Trade in Washington, DC. The two sides discuss IPR 

protection, government procurement, agricultural

concerns, regulatory obstacles, and other trade and 

investment related issues.

20: President Obama formally extends PNTR to 

Russia and Moldova by proclamation.

20: President Obama signs a proclamation 

designating the Republic of South Sudan eligible for 

AGOA benefits, giving the nation duty-free access to 

the U.S. market for certain products. President 

Obama simultaneously revoked eligibility for AGOA 

benefits for the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and the 

Republic of Mali, and terminated St. Kitts and Nevis 

eligibility under the GSP as of January 1, 2014.

21: The United States and Russia both notify the 

WTO of withdrawal of their notices of non-application, 

thereby agreeing to apply the WTO Agreement 

between them. The United States withdraws a similar 

non-application notification concerning Moldova so 

that the WTO Agreement applies between the United 

States and Moldova.

21: The United States and Russia announce an 

agreement on an IPR Action Plan to improve IPR 

protection and enforcement.

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

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

Trade Daily.

TABLE ES.1 Summary of 2012 trade agreement activities––Continued
1-1

CHAPTER 1

Overview of U.S. Trade 

Scope and Approach of the Report 

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

program and its administration for calendar year 2012.

1 Trade agreement activities during 

2012 include the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations; U.S. participation in 

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

Development (OECD), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum; U.S. 

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

developments with major trading partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and news reports for supplemental factual information when primary source information 

is unavailable.

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

data on services trade. The services trade data by country are based on figures for trade in 

private services, which exclude government sales and purchases of services. Services 

data were compiled by the Commission primarily from figures provided by the Bureau of 

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

Commerce).

This chapter includes an overview of the U.S. economy in 2012, followed by sections on 

U.S. trade in goods and U.S. trade in private services in 2012.

Overview of the U.S. Economy in 2012 

In 2012, the U.S. economy continued to rebound from the economic recession of 2008 

and 2009. U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 2.2 percent in 2012,

compared to 1.8 percent the previous year (figure 1.1).The increase in real GDP in 2012 

mostly reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (1.33

percentage points) and gross private domestic investment (1.17 percentage points), partly 

offset by a small negative contribution from government spending (–0.34 percentage 

points).2

 The contribution of net exports of goods and services to growth in real GDP 

was 0.03 percentage points, as the export contribution was mostly offset by that of 

imports. Expressing concerns that the pace of economic growth was not high enough to 

 1 This is the 64th in a series of annual reports submitted to the U.S. Congress under section 163(c) of 

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2213(c)) and its predecessor legislation. 2 USDOC, BEA, “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012 (Second Estimate),” 

February 28, 2013.
1-2

FIGURE 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, annual rate of change, 2003–12

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

maintain a sustained improvement in the labor market, the U.S. Federal Reserve kept the 

target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 0.25 percent and stated that exceptionally 

low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.3 

The seasonally adjusted U.S. unemployment rate fell from 8.3 percent in January 2012 to 

7.8 percent in December 2012.4

U.S. international trade continued to grow in 2012, although the percentage increase was 

significantly less than in 2011.5 Both U.S. imports and exports of goods and services 

increased by about a quarter of their rates of growth in 2011, reflecting generally slower 

growth in most other countries, drought conditions for agricultural products in the United 

States, and lower U.S. demand for imported petroleum-related products.6 The global 

economy grew by only 3.2 percent in 2012, compared to 3.9 percent in 2011.7 Economic 

growth fell in major advanced economies to 1.3 percent in 2012 from 1.6 percent in 2011. 

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

average growth for these economies decreased from 6.3 percent in 2011 to 5.2 percent in 

2012. Among major U.S. trading partners, output growth in the European Union (EU) 

euro area fell from 1.4 percent in 2011 to –0.4 percent in 2012; in the United Kingdom, 

from 0.9 percent in 2011 to –0.2 percent in 2012; in Canada, from 2.6 percent in 2011 to 

2.0 percent in 2012; in Mexico, from 3.9 percent in 2011 to 3.8 percent in 2012; in China, 

from 9.3 percent in 2011 to 7.8 percent in 2012; and in India, from 7.9 percent in 2011 to 

 3 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), “Federal Reserve Issues 

FOMC Statement,” September 13, 2012. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository 

institutions lend their excess deposits to each other overnight. Federal Reserve, “Open Market Operations,”

n.d. (accessed March 5, 2013). 4 USDOL, BLS, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” n.d. (accessed February 

11, 2013). 5 USDOC, Census Bureau and BEA, “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services January 2013,” 

March 7, 2013, exhibit 1. 6 The decline in the value of U.S. imports of petroleum-related products reflects a lower average crude 

oil import price, reduced U.S. consumption, and increased domestic production in 2012 compared to 2011. 

U.S. EIA, “Short-term Energy Outlook,” January 8, 2013. 7 IMF, “World Economic Outlook Update,” January 23, 2013, table 1.

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percent
1-3

4.5 percent in 2012.8 An exception to these growth trends was Japan, whose economy 

grew 2.0 percent in 2012 (compared to –0.6 percent in 2011) as its economy recovered 

from the March 11, 2011, earthquake and its aftermath.

Exchange-Rate Trends 

The U.S. dollar depreciated by less than 1 percent in 2012 against a broad dollar index.9

By yearend, the dollar appreciated 13 percent against the Japanese yen, but fell slightly 

against the Chinese and major European and Western Hemisphere currencies by 1 to 5 

percent (as shown in figure 1.2). Fluctuations in the dollar reflected central bank policies 

as well as concerns about the global economic outlook. In the first quarter of the year, the 

dollar depreciated against most major currencies, with the exception of the yen, reflecting 

a higher growth outlook for the global economy.10 In the second quarter, the dollar 

appreciated due to reports of weakening global demand and concerns about the safety of 

the EU euro.11 In the last half of the year, the dollar depreciated due to a weaker-thanexpected U.S. economic outlook in the third quarter, a statement by the European Central 

Bank that it would act to preserve the euro, and a new bond-buy (quantitative easing) 

FIGURE 1.2 Indices of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2012a

Source: U.S. Federal Reserve Board.

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

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

the U.S. dollar relative to the foreign currency.

 8 Ibid. 9 The broad dollar index is a weighted average of the foreign exchange values of the U.S. dollar against

those of the currencies of a large group of major U.S. trading partners. 10 FRBNY, “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations January–March 2012,” May 

10, 2012, 1. 11 FRBNY, “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations April–June 2012,” August 9, 

2012, 1.

90

95

100

105

110

115

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

Depreciation $ Appreciation 

Euro Pound Canadian dollar Yuan Yen Peso

January 3, 2012 = 100
1-4

program by the Federal Reserve Board.12 The Chinese yuan followed a more stable path 

against the dollar, although the dollar ended the year lower against the yuan. Changes in 

the value of the dollar relative to the yen typically reflect interest rate differentials 

between U.S. dollar and yen investments, as well as the view that the yen is a “safe” 

investment similar to the dollar.13 Additionally, the appreciation of the dollar relative to 

the yen in the last quarter of 2012 reflected expectations of further monetary easing in 

Japan based on the elections that brought Japan’s new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, into 

power.14 For the year, the dollar depreciated 3.7 percent against the pound, 1.0 percent 

against the yuan, 1.3 percent against the Canadian dollar, 0.9 percent against the euro, 

and 5.2 percent against the Mexican peso.

Balance of Payments15

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

income, and net unilateral current transfers—increased to $475.0 billion (preliminary) in 

2012 from $465.9 billion in 2011, the third consecutive annual increase in the deficit.

16

The deficit fell, however, as a share of U.S. GDP, from 3.1 percent in 2011 to 3.0 percent 

in 2012. The increase in the current-account deficit was due to a decrease in the surplus 

on income and an increase in net unilateral current transfers to foreigners as the deficit on 

goods and services decreased in 2012.

The U.S. trade deficit for goods and services fell from $559.9 billion in 2011 to $539.5

billion in 2012, following an increase in the previous year. The deficit on goods 

decreased slightly, from $738.4 billion in 2011 to $735.3 billion in 2012, and remained 

well below the record goods deficit of $835.7 billion in 2006. U.S. exports of goods rose 

from $1,497.4 billion in 2011 to $1,564.1 billion, reflecting growth in exports of capital 

goods, particularly civilian aircraft. Imports of goods rose slightly from $2,235.8 billion

in 2011 to $2,299.4 billion in 2012, with the largest increases in automotive vehicles, 

parts and engines, and capital goods.

 12 FRBNY, “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations July–September 2012,” 

November 8, 2012, 4–6. 13 FRBNY, “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations July–September 2012,” 

November 8, 2012, 5. 14 FRBNY, “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations October–December 2012,” 

February 14, 2013, 5. 15 Trade data in this section of the report may not match data in other sections or the appendix because 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

national accounts. These adjustments are made to supplement coverage of the Census-basis data, to eliminate 

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

according to a standard definition. For a more detailed discussion of the differences between BOP-basis and 

Census-basis data, see Bach, “A Guide to the U.S. International Transactions Accounts,” February 2010. 16 Unless otherwise indicated, information in this section is from USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International 

Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2012,” March 14, 2013, 5–7. Income includes investment income and 

compensation of employees (compensation payments to U.S. residents by nonresidents and payments to 

nonresidents by U.S. residents). Net unilateral transfers include current transfers, such as private remittances, 

charitable contributions, taxes on international transactions, and transfers between U.S. and foreign insurance 

companies.
1-5

The U.S. trade surplus for services grew from $178.5 billion in 2011 to $195.8 billion in 

2012, a new annual record.17 Services exports rose from $606.0 billion to $630.4 billion 

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

travel and other private services.

18 At the same time, services imports also increased, 

rising from $427.4 billion to $434.6 billion in 2012. Four major categories of services 

imports rose (travel, royalties and license fees, passenger fares, and other transportation),

while imports of three fell (direct defense expenditures, other private services, and U.S. 

government miscellaneous services).

19

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2012 

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

2012, but the rate of growth was less than in 2011.20 The value of U.S. exports and 

imports of goods grew by 4.2 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, in 2012, compared to 

15.8 percent and 15.2 percent, respectively, in 2011. The reduced growth in U.S. 

merchandise trade in 2012 reflected slower growth among the world economies and the 

reduction in the value of U.S. imports of petroleum-related products. Merchandise 

imports continued to exceed merchandise exports. U.S. merchandise exports increased 

from $1,299.2 billion (8.6 percent of GDP) in 2011 to $1,353.2 billion (also 8.6 percent 

of GDP) in 2012, while U.S. merchandise imports increased from $2,187.0 billion (14.5 

percent of GDP) in 2011 to $2,251.0 billion (14.4 percent of GDP) in 2012 (figure 1.3). 

Although the merchandise trade deficit was up slightly in 2012 at $897.8 billion, it fell 

from 6.4 percent of GDP to 5.7 percent in 2012.

FIGURE 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2010–12

Source: USDOC.

 17 Services data include trade in private services, as well as transfers under U.S. military agency sales 

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

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

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

Accounts Data: Table 3a,” March 14, 2013. 19 Services trade is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. 20 Merchandise trade data in this section do not match the BOP-basis data presented above because of 

adjustments made to the data, as described in footnote 15.

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade Balance
1-6

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category 

Exports 

U.S. exports in seven of the ten 1-digit categories under the Standard International Trade 

Classification (SITC) system increased by $56.2 billion total in 2012, but fell in three of 

these categories (food and live animals; crude materials, inedible, except fuels; and 

animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes) by $2.2 billion total (appendix table A.1). 

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

export category, accounted for 37.4 percent of total exports in 2012. U.S. exports of 

machinery and transport equipment were valued at $506.5 billion in 2012, up 7.5 percent 

from $471.0 billion in 2011. Of the seven categories of exports that grew in 2012, 78.1 

percent of this growth was accounted for by increased exports from two SITC groups: 

machinery and transport equipment (mainly aircraft; motor vehicles and parts; processors 

and controllers; and other electronic products), and mineral fuels, lubricants, and related 

materials (mainly refined petroleum products and coal) (see appendix table A.2 for 

details at the Schedule B subheading level). Machinery and transport equipment alone 

accounted for 62.5 percent of the export growth in these seven categories. The decline in 

the value of exports of food and live animals, which accounted for the largest share

among the SITC groups with negative growth, was largely due to lower corn and cotton 

exports, which fell due to the drought in the Midwest and other growing areas.

Imports 

U.S. imports of goods in seven of the ten SITC groups increased by $100.5 billion in 

2012, while imports fell in three SITC groups (minerals, lubricants, and related materials;

animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes; and chemicals and related products, n.e.s.)21

by $36.4 billion. Machinery and transport equipment, which consistently ranks as the 

largest U.S. SITC import category, accounted for 38.3 percent of total imports in 2012. 

U.S. imports of machinery and transport equipment were valued at $862.5 billion in 

2012, up 9.2 percent from $789.7 billion in 2011. Of the seven SITC groups that 

experienced import growth in 2012, 83.1 percent of this growth was accounted for by 

increased imports of goods from two SITC groups: machinery and transport equipment 

(mainly motor vehicles, computers, cellular telephones, and other electronic products)

and miscellaneous manufactured articles (see appendix table A.3 for details at the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States [HTS] subheading level). Machinery 

and transport equipment alone accounted for 72.4 percent of these increased imports. 

U.S. imports of mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials were valued at $397.4 

billion in 2012, down 7.4 percent from $429.4 billion in 2011. This SITC group 

accounted for 17.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2012, compared to 19.6 percent in 

2011. As noted earlier, the decline in the value of imports of mineral fuels, lubricants, 

and related materials was due to decreased petroleum import prices as well as the drop in 

U.S. import demand in 2012.

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

Agreements

The value of U.S. imports under the United States’ four preferential trade programs with 

developing countries fell from $78.4 billion in 2011 to $66.9 billion in 2012; they 

accounted for 3.0 percent of total U.S. imports during 2012. Most of these entered free of 

duty. Duty-free imports totaled $19.9 billion under the U.S. Generalized System of 

 21 The abbreviation “n.e.s.” refers to “not elsewhere specified.”
1-7

Preferences (GSP) program (appendix table A.14); $32.7 billion (excluding GSP imports) 

under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (appendix table A.17); and 

$11.2 billion under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) (appendix table A.19). In 

addition, imports that entered free of duty or at reduced rates under the Caribbean Basin 

Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) totaled $3.1 billion (appendix table A.21). Imports 

under the AGOA and CBERA programs, which fell by 36.9 percent and 13.3 percent, 

respectively, accounted for the decline in U.S. imports under these preferential trade 

programs. A much larger share of U.S. imports enter under free trade or trade promotion 

agreement provisions; the value of these imports increased by 10.3 percent in 2012 to 

$393.7 billion, or 17.5 percent of total U.S. imports.22

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners 23

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

(exports and imports) in 2012 (see appendix tables A.4 and A.5 for U.S. trade with the 

top 15 single-country trading partners). 24 In 2012, Canada was the leading global market 

for U.S. exports, overtaking the EU (as a unit), which had been the leading market in 

previous years. China continued as the leading source of U.S. imports through 2012. 

Canada remained the largest single-country two-way trading partner of the United States, 

followed by China and Mexico. The leading U.S. export markets and import suppliers, 

respectively, by share in 2012 are shown in figures 1.4 and 1.5.

China alone accounted for 35.8 percent, or $321.4 billion, of the total U.S. merchandise 

deficit of $897.8 billion in 2012, up from $301.6 billion in 2011. Canada and Mexico, the 

United States’ partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), together 

accounted for 20.2 percent ($181.0 billion) of this deficit. U.S. exports to China rose at a 

slightly faster rate (6.8 percent) than U.S. imports from China (6.6 percent) in 2012, 

although both grew at slower rates than in 2011 (13.0 percent and 9.4 percent, 

respectively).

TABLE 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2012, millions of dollars

 Two-way trade

(exports plus

Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports Trade balance imports)

EU 235,620 374,134 –138,514 609,754

Canada 244,199 323,925 –79,726 568,124

China 103,508 424,874 –321,367 528,382

Mexico 175,159 276,408 –101,249 451,568

Japan 64,599 144,538 –79,939 209,137

Korea 40,004 57,874 –17,870 97,878

Brazil 37,252 31,720 5,532 68,972

Taiwan 21,832 38,722 –16,890 60,554

India 18,972 40,105 –21,133 59,078

Russia 9,976 29,049 –19,073 39,025

All others 402,090 509,685 –107,595 911,775

World 1,353,211 2,251,035 –897,824 3,604,247

Source: USDOC.

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

 22 U.S. imports under preferential trade programs are discussed in chapter 2. U.S. trade with countries 

under free trade or trade promotion agreement provisions is discussed in chapter 4. 23 See chapter 5 for further information on U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners, 

including the EU, Canada, China, Mexico, and other countries. 24 Leading U.S. exports to and imports from these major trading partners are presented in tables A.25–

A.54.
1-8

FIGURE 1.4 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2012

Source: USDOC.

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

FIGURE 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2012

Source: USDOC.

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

Canada, 18%

EU, 17%

Mexico, 13%

China, 8%

Japan, 5%

Korea, 3%

Brazil, 3%

Taiwan, 2%

India, 1%

Russia, 1%

All others, 30%

Total = $1,353 billion

China, 19%

EU, 17%

Mexico, 12% Canada, 14%

Japan, 6%

Korea, 3%

India, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Brazil, 1%

Russia, 1%

All others, 23%

Total = $2,251 billion
1-9

U.S. Trade in Services in 201225

The U.S. surplus in cross-border private services trade increased 6.9 percent in 

2012 to $207.1 billion (figure 1.6).26 The year 2012 represented the third 

consecutive year of growth in U.S. services trade since 2009. U.S. cross-border 

exports of private services rose 4.1 percent in 2012 to $611.2 billion, faster than 

the 2.8 percent increase in U.S. imports, which reached $404.0 billion. U.S. 

exports of private services posted gains in 10 of the 11 service categories in 

2012, the exception being financial services. By contrast, U.S. imports of private 

services decreased in four service categories: financial services, insurance 

services, port services, and telecommunications services. Appendix table A.6 

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

FIGURE 1.6 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2010–12a

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2013, 

table 3a.

 a

Data for 2012 are preliminary. 

 25 This section focuses primarily on cross-border transactions in private services, which 

exclude government sales and purchases of services. Services trade data are drawn from the BEA. 

In these national accounts data, “cross-border transactions” occur when firms resident in one 

country provide services to consumers in another, with people, information, or money crossing U.S. 

boundaries in the process. Cross-border transactions appear explicitly as imports and exports in the 

balance of payments. U.S. firms also provide services to foreign consumers through affiliates 

established in host countries, with the income generated through “affiliate transactions” appearing 

as investment income in the balance of payments. The channel of delivery used by service 

providers depends primarily on the nature of the service. For example, many financial services, 

such as retail banking services, are supplied most effectively by affiliates located close to the 

consumer. Conversely, most trade in education services takes the form of cross-border transactions, 

with students traveling abroad to attend foreign universities. 26 USDOC, BEA,“U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data: Table 3a,” March 14, 

2013.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
1-10

U.S. Services Trade by Product Category

Exports 

Business, professional, and technical services27 led U.S. cross-border services 

exports in 2012, accounting for 23.1 percent of the total, followed by travel 

services (21.0 percent) 28 and royalties and license fees (19.9 percent).29 Although 

most services categories experienced export growth in 2012, many sectors faced 

growth rates that were well below 2011 levels. For instance, in 2012, U.S. 

exports of freight services and port services increased by 0.8 percent and 0.3 

percent, respectively, compared to growth rates of 5.5 percent each in 2011. 

Similarly, U.S. exports of royalties and license fees increased by 0.8 percent in 

2012, far slower than the 12.8 percent growth rate recorded in the previous year. 

Among all service categories, only U.S. exports of insurance services grew faster 

in 2012 (10.5 percent) than in 2011 (6.5 percent), likely reflecting an increase in 

cross-border sales by U.S. firms of reinsurance services.30

The post-recessionary growth experienced by U.S. exports of travel and 

passenger fares31 began to slow in 2012. In that year, travel increased 10.7 

percent to $128.6 billion, and passenger fares increased 7.9 percent to $39.5

billion, as compared to 12.2 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively, in 2011.

Growth in U.S. exports of passenger fares and travel services occurs when more 

foreign visitors travel to the United States on U.S. airlines and when there is an 

increase in visitors’ travel-related expenditures.

32 In 2012, global demand for 

airline travel was tempered by the European debt crisis.33 In addition, U.S. travel 

expenditures fell in the third quarter of 2012, partly due to fewer purchases of 

transportation-related goods and services, such as car rental and leasing, travel 

reservation services, and fuel.34 Other private services sectors that experienced 

moderate export growth in 2012 were business, professional, and technical 

 27 Business, professional, and technical services are characterized as labor-intensive services 

employing highly skilled and highly educated individuals who fill positions that frequently require 

specialized licensing or training. USITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2011 Annual 

Report, July 2011, iii. 28 Travel services comprise purchases of goods and services by U.S. residents traveling 

abroad (U.S. imports of travel services) and by foreign travelers in the United States (U.S. exports 

of travel services). These goods and services include food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, 

local transportation in the country of travel, and other items incidental to a foreign visit. 29 U.S. exports of royalties and license fees comprise payments by foreigners to U.S. owners 

of intellectual property, such as trademarks, computer software, and industrial processes. 30 Reinsurance refers to a practice in which a primary insurance company transfers a portion 

of its risk, or liability, to a secondary insurer (i.e., a reinsurer). The primary insurance company 

pays the reinsurance firm a fee and, in return, the reinsurance company reimburses the primary 

insurer for losses covered by a reinsurance agreement. While the BEA’s quarterly data do not break 

out U.S. exports of insurance services by subsector, industry sources estimate that net premiums 

underwritten by U.S. reinsurance firms grew nearly 13 percent between 2011 and 2012. 

Reinsurance Association of America, “Reinsurance Underwriting Report,” March 6, 2013. 31 U.S. exports of passenger fares consist of payments by foreigners to U.S. airlines for travel 

between the United States and foreign countries or between foreign destinations. 32 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade in 2011 and Services 

Supplied Through Affiliates in 2010,” October 2012, 23. 33 BLS, “Beyond the Numbers: International Air Passenger Fares Shrug Off the Recession,” 

May 2012, vol. 1, no. 1. 34 USDOC, BEA, “Travel and Tourism Spending Slowed,” December 17, 2012.
1-11

services (4.8 percent), education services (6.0 percent), and telecommunications 

services (7.7 percent).

Imports 

Business, professional, and technical services (26.4 percent of total imports) and 

travel services (20.7 percent) led U.S. cross-border services imports in 2012. 

Among all service categories, U.S. import growth was mixed. U.S. imports of 

passenger fares experienced the largest growth at 10.7 percent (down from 14.1 

percent in 2011), followed by royalties and license fees (9.3 percent). By 

contrast, U.S. imports of port services35 fell by 6.8 percent and insurance 

services, by 5.7 percent. The decrease in U.S. imports of port services likely 

resulted, in part, from a decline in U.S. goods imports in 2012.36 Elsewhere, U.S. 

imports of business, professional, and technical services increased by only 1.9 

percent, compared to 15.7 percent in 2011. Similarly, U.S. imports of financial 

services decreased 0.8 percent in 2012, after posting a gain of 9.8 percent in the 

previous year.

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners

The EU was the United States’ largest export market for, and foreign supplier of,

services in 2012 (table 1.2), accounting for $192.7 billion (31.5 percent) of total 

U.S. services exports and $138.0 billion (34.1 percent) of total U.S. services 

imports (figures 1.7 and 1.8).37 Canada and Japan were the second- and thirdlargest U.S. services trading partners in 2012. The U.S. trade surplus with the EU 

increased to $54.8 billion in 2012, up from $52.0 billion in 2011. The United 

States also maintained large trade surpluses in services with other leading trade

partners, including Canada ($30.5 billion), Japan ($20.1 billion), China ($16.9 

billion), and Brazil ($15.8 billion). In addition, the United States posted modest, 

albeit growing, trade surpluses with Korea ($8.8 billion) and Taiwan ($4.0 

billion). India was the only leading services trade partner with which the United 

States recorded a trade deficit, $5.8 billion, representing a decrease of nearly 1.6 

percent from 2011. Although industry-specific data by trading partner are not yet 

available for 2012, the U.S. services trade deficit with India has been driven for 

the past several years by an increase in U.S. imports of computer and information 

services from that country. In 2011, the U.S. cross-border deficit with India for 

such products was $7.2 billion.38

 35 U.S. imports of port services reflect the value of goods (except fuel) and services procured 

by U.S. air and ocean carriers at foreign ports. USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Services: CrossBorder Trade in 2011 and Services Supplied Through Affiliates in 2010,” October 2012, 32. 36 USDOC, BEA and Census, “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services,” January 

2013, March 7, 2013, 1. 37 In terms of single countries, the United Kingdom (a member of the EU) was the United 

States’ largest export market and largest import supplier of private services in 2012. 38 USDOC, BEA, “U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade in 2011 and Services 

Supplied Through Affiliates in 2010,” October 2012, 51–52.
1-12

TABLE 1.2 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2012,

a billions of dollars

Major trading partner

U.S. 

exports

U.S. 

imports Trade balance

Two-way 

trade (exports 

plus imports)

EU 192.7 138.0 54.8 330.7

Canada 58.1 27.6 30.5 85.7

Japan 46.6 26.5 20.1 73.2

Mexico 26.6 15.0 11.6 41.6

China 29.2 12.3 16.9 41.5

India 11.9 17.7 –5.8 29.5

Brazil 22.5 6.8 15.8 29.3

Korea 18.0 9.3 8.8 27.3

Australia 16.7 6.6 10.1 23.3

Taiwan 11.4 7.4 4.0 18.9

Singapore 12.7 4.9 7.8 17.5

All others 164.7 131.9 32.8 296.6

World 611.2 404.0 207.1 1,015.2

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2013, table 12.

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

 aData are preliminary.

FIGURE 1.7 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2012a

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2013, table 12.

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

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

EU, 32%

Canada, 10%

Japan, 8%

Brazil, 4% Mexico, 4% China, 5%

Korea, 3%

Australia, 3%

Singapore, 2%

India, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

All others, 27%

Total = $611 billion
1-13

FIGURE 1.8 Leading U.S. import sources of private services, by share, 2012a

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2013, table 12.

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

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

EU, 34%

Canada, 7%

Japan, 7% China, 3% Mexico, 4% India, 4%

Korea, 2%

Taiwan, 2%

Brazil, 2%

All others, 33%

Total = $404 billion

2-1

CHAPTER 2

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and 

Regulations

This chapter surveys activities related to the administration of U.S. trade laws during 

2012. It covers import relief laws, laws against unfair trade practices, trade adjustment 

assistance, and tariff preference programs, including the U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Andean Trade 

Preference Act (ATPA), and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), 

including initiatives aiding Haiti.

Import Relief Laws

Safeguard Actions

This section covers safeguard actions under provisions administered by the Commission, 

including the global safeguards provided for in sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 

1974,1 the China safeguards provided for in section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974,2 and 

the safeguards provided for in various bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving 

the United States.

The Commission conducted no new safeguard investigations during 2012. The one 

safeguard measure in effect during part of 2012, with respect to imports of certain 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, expired on September 25, 2012, and 

was not extended. The President imposed the measure in September 2009 following 

receipt of an affirmative determination of market disruption from the Commission under

section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974.3

Laws against Unfair Trade Practices

Section 301 Investigations

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the principal U.S. statute for addressing unfair 

foreign practices affecting U.S. exports of goods or services.4 Section 301 may be used to 

enforce U.S. rights under bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and also may be 

used to respond to unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory foreign government 

practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Interested persons may petition the 

United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate foreign government policies or 

practices, or the USTR may initiate an investigation itself.

 1 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254. 2 19 U.S.C. § 2451. 3 USITC, Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China, July 2009; Proclamation No. 

8414, September 11, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 47861 (September 16, 2009). 4 Section 301 refers to sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–

2420).
2-2

If the investigation involves a trade agreement and consultations do not result in a 

mutually acceptable resolution, section 303 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires the USTR 

to use the dispute settlement procedures that are available under the subject agreement. If 

the matter is not resolved by the conclusion of the investigation, section 304 of the Trade 

Act of 1974 requires the USTR to determine (1) whether the practices in question deny 

U.S. rights under a trade agreement, or (2) whether they are unjustifiable, unreasonable, 

or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. If the practices are determined to 

violate a trade agreement, the USTR must take action; the USTR must also take action if 

the practices are determined to be unjustifiable and to burden or restrict U.S. commerce.5

If the practices are determined to be unreasonable or discriminatory and to burden or 

restrict U.S. commerce, the USTR must determine whether action is appropriate and, if 

so, what type of action to take.6 The time period for making these determinations varies 

according to the type of practices alleged.

Section 301 Cases in 2012

In 2012, there was one ongoing section 301 case, and no new section 301 petitions were 

filed. The ongoing section 301 case concerned the meat hormone directive of the 

European Union (EU).7 In 1999, the United States imposed additional ad valorem duties 

of 100 percent on about $117 million in imports from the EU, following a successful 

World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge of an EU measure prohibiting imports of 

meat from animals that have been treated with certain hormones.8 In January 2009, the 

United States and the EU initiated a series of consultations in an effort to resolve the 

dispute through negotiation. On May 13, 2009, the United States and the EU announced 

the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU).9 Under the MOU, the EU agreed 

to open a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) with an in-quota tariff rate of zero for beef produced 

without growth-promoting hormones (i.e., “high quality beef”)10 in the amount of 20,000 

metric tons,11 and the United States agreed to reduce the scope of the retaliation list.12

The MOU further provided that the parties could enter a second phase under which the 

EU would increase the TRQ to 45,000 metric tons beginning in August 2012, and the 

United States would lift the remaining additional duties.13 In August 2012, the United 

States and the EU entered into the second phase of the MOU, and the EU increased the 

TRQ for high-quality beef to 48,200 metric tons, effective August 1, 2012.14

 5 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)).

6 Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(b)).

7 European Commission, Directorate General on Health and Consumers, “Hormones in Meat—

Introduction,” (accessed March 5, 2013). 8 64 Fed. Reg. 40638 (July 27, 1999); WTO, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and 

Meat Products (DS26, DS48) (accessed February 27, 2013). 9 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the European Commission 

Regarding the Importation of Beef From Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones 

and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the European Communities, May 

13, 2009 (U.S.-EU Beef MOU). For more information on the three-phase MOU, see USITC, The Year in 

Trade 2009, 2010, 5-5. 10 Article VI of the U.S.-EU Beef MOU defines “high quality beef.” 11 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(1). 12 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(3); 74 Fed. Reg. 40864 (August 13, 2009). 13 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Arts. I(2), II(4), and IV(2). The USTR terminated the imposition of the 

remaining additional duties in May 2011. For more background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 

2-3. 14 Regulation (EU) No. 464/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149, June 8, 

2012, 1. The quota was raised to 45,000 metric tons based on the U.S.-EU MOU; the additional 3,200 metric 

tons resulted from a similar case between the EU and Canada.
2-3

Special 301 

The Special 301 law15 requires that the USTR annually identify and issue a list of foreign 

countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), 

or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on IPR protection.16

Under the statute, a country denies adequate and effective IPR protection if the country 

does not allow foreign persons “to secure, exercise, and enforce rights related to patents, 

process patents, registered trademarks, copyrights and mask works.”17

Under the statute, a country denies fair and equitable market access if it denies access to a 

market for a product that is protected by a copyright or related right, patent, trademark, 

mask work, trade secret, or plant breeder’s right through the use of laws and practices 

that violate international agreements or that constitute discriminatory nontariff trade 

barriers.18 A country may be found to deny adequate and effective IPR protection even if 

it is in compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).19

In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify and list so-called priority 

foreign countries.20 Priority foreign countries are countries that have the most onerous or 

egregious acts, policies, or practices with the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) 

on the relevant U.S. products.21 Such countries must be designated as priority foreign 

countries unless they are entering into good-faith negotiations, or making significant 

progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective IPR 

protection. 22 The identification of a country as a priority foreign country triggers a 

section 301 investigation,23 unless the USTR determines that the investigation would be 

detrimental to U.S. economic interests.24

In addition to identifying priority foreign countries as required by statute, the USTR has 

adopted a practice of naming countries to a “watch list” or a “priority watch list” when 

the countries’ IPR laws and practices fail to provide adequate and effective IPR 

protection, but the deficiencies do not warrant identification of the countries as priority 

foreign countries. 25 The priority watch list identifies countries with significant IPR 

problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. If a country on the 

priority watch list makes progress, it may be moved to the watch list or removed from 

 15 The Special 301 law is set forth in section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 

2242).16 “Persons who rely on IPR protection” means persons involved in “(A) the creation, production or 

licensing of works of authorship ... that are copyrighted, or (B) the manufacture of products that are patented 

or for which there are process patents.” Section 182(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 

2242(d)(1)). 17 Section 182(d)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(2)). Section 901(a)(2) 

of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (17 U.S.C. § 901(a)(2)) defines “mask work” as a “series of related 

images, however fixed or encoded—(A) having or representing the predetermined, three-dimensional pattern 

of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip 

product; and (B) in which series the relation of the images to one another is that each image has the pattern of 

the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.” 18 Section 182(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(3)). 19 Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(4)). 20 Section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(a)(2)). 21 Section 182(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)). 22 Section 182(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)). 23 Section 182(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(f)(2)). 24 Section 302(b)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2)(B)). See also 

USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, March 2012, 178. 25 USTR, “2012 Special 301 Review,” 76 Fed. Reg. 81555 (December 28, 2011).
2-4

any listing. On the other hand, a country that fails to make progress may be elevated from 

the watch list to the priority watch list, or from the priority watch list to the list of priority 

foreign countries.

In the 2012 Special 301 review, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of 

IPR protection in 77 countries.26 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a wide 

range of issues and policy objectives relating to IPR protection and enforcement, 

including copyright piracy over the Internet and digital piracy; trademark counterfeiting 

and copyright piracy of goods, including counterfeit medicines and health care products; 

transshipment of pirated and counterfeit goods; strengthened criminal and border 

enforcement; IPR training, resources, and prosecutions; criminal prosecutions and 

deterrent sentencing; ensuring that foreign government ministries only use legally 

authorized and properly licensed business software; market access barriers faced by U.S. 

pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers; adequate implementation of the 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties; 27 and proper 

implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developed and developing countries.

In the 2012 Special 301 review, no countries were identified as priority foreign countries. 

The 2012 Special 301 report identified 13 countries on the priority watch list: Algeria, 

Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, 

Ukraine, and Venezuela. The report highlighted the need for greater protection and 

enforcement of all forms of IPR in China, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade 

secrets, and the protection of pharmaceutical test data. It noted U.S. concerns about 

compulsory licensing, trade secret theft, the persistence of “notorious” physical and 

online markets selling IPR-infringing goods, and “indigenous innovation” policies and 

related industrial policies in China that may disadvantage U.S. rights holders. Ukraine 

was elevated to the priority watch list in the 2012 Special 301 review because, according 

to the review, it made only minimal progress implementing its 2010 IPR action plan 

commitments; it failed to address adequately the government’s use of unlicensed 

software, to strengthen its copyright law, and to increase enforcement efforts against the

widespread availability of counterfeit and pirated goods. Although Russia remained on 

the priority watch list, the Special 301 report noted that Russia had made important 

progress in improving IPR protection and enforcement.28 The 2012 Special 301 Report 

also identified 26 countries on the watch list, 29 and noted that Malaysia and Spain had 

made progress and were removed from the watch list.

In September 2012, the USTR announced that Israel was being removed from the priority 

watch list and placed on the watch list because Israel introduced three bills to improve its 

pharmaceutical patent regime.30 Under a MOU between the United States and Israel that 

 26 USTR, “USTR Releases Annual Special 301 Report,” April 30, 2012; USTR, 2012 Special 301 

Report, April 30, 2012. 27 The WIPO Internet treaties include the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), adopted in Geneva on 

December 20, 1996, and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), adopted in Geneva on 

December 20, 1996. See USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2012, Annex 2. 28 On December 21, 2012, the USTR announced that the United States and Russia had agreed to an 

Intellectual Property Rights Action Plan to improve IPR protection and enforcement in Russia. USTR, 

“United States and Russian Federation Agree on Action Plan,” December 21, 2012. 29 The countries on the 2012 watch list are Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, 

Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, 

Lebanon, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, 

Vietnam. USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 30, 2012. 30 USTR, “United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces Removal of Israel,” September 24, 

2012.
2-5

was signed in February 2010, the USTR had agreed to lower Israel to the watch list when 

such legislation was introduced.31

Since 2006, the USTR has also identified so-called notorious markets in the annual 

Special 301 Report. In 2010, the USTR announced that the agency would begin issuing a 

list of these markets separately.32 In February 2011, the USTR published the first separate 

Notorious Markets List, which includes examples of both Internet and physical 

marketplaces that deal in infringing goods and help sustain global piracy and 

counterfeiting.33 Such markets have been the subject of enforcement actions or may merit 

further investigations for possible IPR infringement. In August 2012, the USTR solicited 

public comments for the 2012 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,34

and issued the list itself in December 2012.35 The Notorious Markets List is not intended 

by the USTR to be exhaustive, but to highlight some of the most prominent markets, 

including ones on the Internet, where pirated and counterfeit goods are reportedly 

available.36 The USTR identified more than 30 Internet and physical markets that deal in 

goods and services that infringe IPR and can cause economic harm to U.S. and other IPR 

holders.

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews

Antidumping Duty Investigations

The U.S. antidumping law is contained in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended.37 This law offers relief to U.S. industries that are injured by dumping, which is 

the sale of imported goods at less than their “fair value” (see below). The U.S. 

government provides relief by imposing a special additional duty on an underpriced 

import in order to offset its “dumping margin”—the amount by which its sale price is less 

than its fair value. Antidumping duties are imposed when (1) the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (USDOC), the administering authority, has determined that imports are being, 

or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value (LTFV) in the United States, and (2) the 

Commission has determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially 

retarded by reason of such imports. (Such a conclusion is called an “affirmative 

determination.”) Most investigations are conducted on the basis of a petition filed with 

the USDOC and the Commission by or on behalf of a U.S. industry. The USDOC and the 

Commission each conduct preliminary and final antidumping duty investigations in 

making their separate determinations.

 31 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel, signed February 18, 2012, 

available at http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3540. 32 75 Fed. Reg. 60854 (October 1, 2010). The decision was made in coordination with the office of the 

Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and in accordance with the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on 

Intellectual Property Enforcement (June 2010), page 9, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/intellectualproperty_strategic_p

lan.pdf.

33 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets,” February 28, 2011; 

USTR, “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” February 28, 2011. 34 77 Fed. Reg. 48583 (August 14, 2012). 35 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets,” December 13, 

2011; USTR, “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” December 13, 2012. 36 USTR, “USTR Announces Results of Special 301 Review of Notorious Markets,” December 13, 

2012. 37 19 U.S.C. § 1673 et seq.
2-6

In general, imports are considered to be sold at LTFV when the U.S. price (i.e., the 

purchase price or the exporter’s sales price, as adjusted) is less than the foreign-market 

value, which is usually the home-market price; or, in certain cases, the price in a third 

country; or a constructed value, calculated as set out by statute.38 The antidumping duty 

is calculated to equal the difference between the U.S. price and, generally, the foreignmarket value.39 The duty specified in an antidumping duty order reflects the weighted 

average dumping margins found by the USDOC both for specific exporters it has 

examined and for all other exporters.40 This rate of duty will be applied to subsequent 

imports from the specified producers/exporters in the subject country, but it may be 

adjusted if the USDOC receives a request for an annual review.41

The Commission instituted 5 new preliminary antidumping investigations and completed 

16 final investigations in 2012.42 Antidumping duties were imposed in 2012 as a result of 

affirmative Commission determinations in 7 of those completed investigations on six 

products from four countries (table 2.1).

The status of all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 2012 is

presented in appendix table A.7. A list of all antidumping duty orders, including 

suspension agreements,43 in effect as of the end of the year is presented in appendix table 

A.8.

TABLE 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2012a

Country Product Range of dumping margins (percent)

China CSPV Cells and Modules 18.32–249.96

China High Pressure Steel Cylinders 6.62–31.21

China Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 61.04–106.17

Korea Large Power Transformers 14.95–29.04

Taiwan Steel Wire Garment Hangers 69.98–125.43

Taiwan Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 6.19

United Arab Emirates Steel Nails 2.51–184.41

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.

 aAntidumping duty orders become effective subsequent to final affirmative determinations by USDOC and 

the Commission.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1677b; 19 C.F.R. part 353, subpart D. 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c). 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). 42 Data reported here and in the following two sections (“Countervailing Duty Investigations” and 

“Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders/Suspension Agreements”) reflect the 

total number of investigations. In other Commission reports these data are grouped by product because the 

same investigative team and all of the parties participate in a single grouped proceeding, and the Commission 

generally produces one report and issues one opinion containing its separate determinations for each 

investigation. 43 An antidumping investigation may be suspended if exporters accounting for substantially all of the 

imports of the merchandise under investigation agree either to eliminate the dumping or to cease exports of 

the merchandise to the United States within six months. In extraordinary circumstances, an investigation may 

be suspended if exporters agree to revise prices to completely eliminate the injurious effect of exports of the 

merchandise in question to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if LTFV sales recur. 

See 19 U.S.C. § 1673c.
2-7

Countervailing Duty Investigations

The U.S. countervailing duty law is also set forth in title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. It provides for the imposition of special additional duties to offset 

(“countervail”) foreign subsidies on products imported into the United States. 44 In 

general, procedures for such investigations are similar to those under the antidumping 

law. Petitions are filed with the USDOC (the administering authority) and with the 

Commission. Before a countervailing duty order can be issued, the USDOC must find

that a countervailable subsidy exists and the Commission must make an affirmative 

determination that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, 

or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded because of the subsidized 

imports.

The Commission instituted 9 new preliminary countervailing duty investigations and 

completed 9 final investigations during 2012. Countervailing duties were imposed in 

2012 as a result of affirmative Commission determinations in 2 of the completed 

investigations on two products from one country—China (table 2.2). The status of all 

countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2012 is presented in 

appendix table A.9, and a list of all countervailing duty orders (including suspension 

agreements)45 in effect at the end of the year is presented in appendix table A.10.

Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders/Suspension Agreements

Section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires the USDOC, if requested, to conduct 

annual reviews of outstanding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to 

ascertain the amount of any net subsidy or dumping margin and to determine whether

suspension agreements are being complied with. 46 Section 751(b) also authorizes the 

USDOC and the Commission, as appropriate, to review certain outstanding 

determinations and agreements after receiving information or a petition that shows 

changed circumstances. 47 In these instances, the party that is asking to have an

TABLE 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2012a

Country Product

Range of countervailable subsidy 

rates (percent)

China CSPV Cells and Modules 14.78–15.97

China High Pressure Steel Cylinders 15.81

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.

 aCountervailing duty orders become effective subsequent to final affirmative determinations by USDOC 

and the Commission.

 44 A subsidy is defined as a bounty or grant bestowed directly or indirectly by any country, dependency, 

colony, province, or other political subdivision on the manufacture, production, or export of products. See 19 

U.S.C. § 1677(5) and 1677-1(a). 45 A countervailing duty investigation may be suspended if the government of the subsidizing country 

or exporters accounting for substantially all of the imports of the merchandise under investigation agree to 

eliminate the subsidy, to completely offset the net subsidy, or to cease exports of the merchandise to the 

United States within six months. In extraordinary circumstances, an investigation may be suspended if the 

government of the subsidizing country or exporters agrees to completely eliminate the injurious effect of 

exports of the merchandise in question to the United States. A suspended investigation is reinstituted if 

subsidization recurs. See 19 U.S.C. § 1671c. 46 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b).
2-8

antidumping duty order, countervailing duty order, or suspension agreement revoked or 

modified has the burden of persuading the USDOC and the Commission that 

circumstances have changed enough to warrant review and revocation. On the basis of 

either the USDOC’s or Commission’s review, the USDOC may revoke an antidumping 

duty or countervailing duty order in whole or in part, or may either terminate or resume a 

suspended investigation. No changed-circumstances investigations were conducted at the 

Commission during 2012.

Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires both the USDOC and the Commission 

to conduct sunset reviews of outstanding orders and suspension agreements five years 

after their publication to determine whether revocation of an order or termination of a

suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy and material injury.48 During 2012, the USDOC and the 

Commission instituted 42 sunset reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing

duty orders and suspension agreements,49 and the Commission completed 46 reviews. As 

a result, 38 antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders were continued for five 

more years.

50 Appendix table A.11 shows completed reviews of antidumping duty and 

countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in 2012.51

Section 337 Investigations

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,52 prohibits certain unfair acts in the 

importation of goods into the United States. Most section 337 investigations involve 

allegations of patent infringement—specifically, whether products that infringe a valid 

and enforceable U.S. patent are being imported into the United States, sold for 

importation, or sold after importation. In order to find a violation of section 337 based on 

patent infringement, the Commission must also determine that an industry in the United 

States relating to articles protected by the patent exists or is in the process of being 

established. Similar standards govern investigations involving infringement of registered 

trademarks, registered copyrights, registered mask works, and registered vessel hull 

designs. In addition, the Commission has broad authority to investigate other unfair 

methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation and sale of products in the 

United States (such as products manufactured abroad by use of stolen U.S. trade secrets), 

the threat or effect of which is to destroy or injure a U.S. industry, to prevent the 

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c). 49 During 2012, two antidumping reviews and one countervailing duty review were subsequently 

terminated and the outstanding order/finding revoked because a domestic industry did not request that they be 

continued. These reviews were honey from Argentina (antidumping and countervailing duty reviews) and 

folding tables and chairs from China (antidumping review). 50 USDOC’s final determination was pending at yearend for the review on folding gift boxes from 

China.51 For detailed information on reviews instituted, as well as Commission action in all reviews, see the 

Commission’s website section “Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,” at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF. 52 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
2-9

establishment of a U.S. industry, or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the 

United States. 53 The Commission may institute an investigation on the basis of a 

complaint or on its own initiative.

If the Commission determines that a violation exists, it can issue an exclusion order 

directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to exclude the subject imports 

from entry into the United States, and a cease and desist order directing the violating 

parties to stop engaging in the unlawful practices. The orders enter into force unless 

disapproved for policy reasons by the USTR54 within 60 days of issuance.55

During calendar year 2012, there were 127 active section 337 investigations and ancillary 

proceedings, 52 of which were instituted in 2012. Of these 52 new proceedings, 40 were 

new section 337 investigations and 12 were new ancillary proceedings relating to 

previously concluded investigations. In all but 4 of the new section 337 investigations 

instituted in 2012, patent infringement was the only type of unfair act alleged. Of the 

remaining 4 investigations, 1 involved only allegations of trademark infringement, and 1

involved only allegations of trade secret misappropriation. The third investigation 

involved allegations of patent infringement, trademark infringement, passing off, 

trademark dilution, and trade dress infringement, and the fourth involved allegations of 

misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, breach of contract, and tortious

(wrongful and injurious) interference with contract.

The Commission completed a total of 71 investigations and ancillary proceedings under 

section 337 in 2012, including 2 remand proceedings, 2 advisory proceedings, 2 

modification proceedings, 4 bond-related proceedings, and 1 enforcement proceeding. In 

addition, 8 exclusion orders, including 6 general exclusion orders, and 33 cease and desist 

orders were issued during 2012. The Commission terminated 42 investigations without 

determining whether there had been a violation. Twenty-six of these investigations were 

terminated on the basis of settlement agreements and/or consent orders.

The section 337 investigations active in 2012 involved a broad spectrum of products. 

Approximately 40 percent of the proceedings involved telecommunications and computer 

equipment, such as cellular telephones; integrated circuits, such as memory chips; and 

display devices, such as digital televisions. Another approximately 10 percent of the 

proceedings involved accessories for such devices, ranging from USB connectors to 

protective cases. Slightly less than 10 percent of the proceedings involved lighting 

products. The remaining 40 percent of the proceedings involved a wide variety of other 

types of goods, including medical and pharmaceutical products, video games systems, 

 53 Other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts have included common-law trademark 

infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising, and false designation of origin. 

(“Trade dress,” in general terms, is a product’s total appearance and image, which may be unfairly imitated 

by competitors. Examples might be the shape of a shampoo bottle, the color scheme of a book series, or the 

distinctive architecture of a fast-food chain.) Unfair practices that involve the importation of dumped or 

subsidized merchandise must be pursued under antidumping or countervailing duty provisions, not under 

section 337. 54 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j). Although the statute reserves the review for the President, since 2005 this 

function has been officially delegated to USTR. 70 Fed. Reg. 43251 (July 26, 2005). 55 Section 337 investigations at the Commission are conducted before an administrative law judge in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. The judge conducts an 

evidentiary hearing and makes an initial determination, which is transmitted to the Commission. The 

Commission may adopt the determination by deciding not to review it, or it may choose to review it. In either 

case, if the Commission finds a violation, it must determine the appropriate remedy, the amount of any bond 

to be collected while its determination is under review by USTR, and whether public interest considerations 

preclude issuing a remedy.
2-10

global positioning systems (GPS), video analytics software, solar panels, wind turbines, 

automobile wiper blades, and rare-earth magnets.

At the close of 2012, 56 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending 

at the Commission. Commission activities involving section 337 actions in 2012 are 

presented in appendix table A.12. As of December 31, 2012, there were 90 exclusion 

orders based on violations of section 337 in effect. Appendix table A.13 lists the 

investigations in which these exclusion orders were issued.

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

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

farmers, and firms in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico adversely 

affected by import competition or by U.S. production moving to foreign countries.56 The 

three main TAA programs in effect in 2012 were TAA for Workers, administered by the 

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL); TAA for Farmers, administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA); and TAA for Firms, administered by the USDOC.57

Selected developments in these TAA programs during fiscal year (FY) 2012 are 

summarized below. The most current information on each of the TAA programs, 

including the status of authorizing legislation and program funding, is available from the 

respective administering agencies cited in this report.

Assistance for Workers 

The TAA for Workers program provides federal assistance (including training and 

reemployment services, income support, and a tax credit for health care) to eligible 

workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade. Although funded by the 

federal government, benefits are largely administered by the states.58 The most current 

information on provisions of the TAA for Workers program as well as detailed 

information on program eligibility requirements, benefits, and available services, is 

available at the USDOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) website for 

TAA, http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/.

To be certified by USDOL as being eligible for TAA, a group of workers must establish 

that they were separated from their employment either because their jobs moved outside 

the United States or because of an increase in directly competitive imports. Workers at 

firms that are suppliers to or downstream users of the output of TAA-certified firms may 

 56 TAA was first established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-793) and subsequently 

expanded and reauthorized numerous times. The most recent extension and modification of TAA was made 

by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-40), which was signed 

into law on October 21, 2011. The TAAEA generally extends most TAA provisions through December 31, 

2013. CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, January 9, 2013, 14. 57 A TAA program for communities adversely impacted by trade was mostly discontinued by 

legislation in 2011 because it was considered duplicative of other federal programs. One component of that 

program, the trade adjustment assistance community college and career training grants, was retained and is 

administered by the USDOL in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. CRS, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, January 9, 2013, 14. The college and career training 

grants program is not further discussed in this report, but information is available from USDOL, Employment 

and Training Administration, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training 

(TAACCCT) Grant Program,” http://www.doleta.gov/taaccct/. 58 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, December 17, 2012, 6.
2-11

also be eligible for TAA benefits.59 Under current law, both manufacturing and service 

workers (except those in the public sector) are eligible for TAA.60

As of April 2013, the ETA database61 reported that groups of workers submitted 1,427 

petitions for TAA in FY 2012. ETA certified 1,144 petitions as eligible for TAA and 

denied 183 that year.

62 ETA estimated that 57.4 percent of TAA petitions certified during 

FY 2012 were in goods-producing industries and covered 55,132 workers.63 Nearly all of 

the goods-producing industries were in the manufacturing sector. ETA estimated that 

42.6 percent of TAA petitions certified during FY2012 were in service sectors and that 

they covered 26,212 workers.64 Among the service sector petitions, 12 percent were in 

professional, scientific, and technical services (3,780 workers); 10.1 percent in 

information service (5,294 workers), and 9.3 percent in finance and insurance (3,304 

workers). The greatest number of new TAA-certified workers in FY 2012 was recorded 

by California (7,214 workers), followed by Ohio (7,082 workers), New York (4,262 

workers), Arkansas (4,169 workers), and Pennsylvania (4,013 workers). Regionally, the 

South census region65 had the largest number of petitions certified during FY 2012 (400 

petitions certified covering 30,821 workers), followed by the Northeast (260 petitions 

certified covering 15,702 workers),66 the West (240 petitions certified covering 15,842 

workers),67 and the Midwest (230 petitions certified covering 18,692 workers).68

Assistance for Farmers 

The TAA for Farmers program provides technical training and cash benefits to eligible 

U.S. producers of raw agricultural commodities and eligible fishermen whose crops or 

catch have been adversely affected by imports. The most current information on 

provisions of the TAA for Farmers program, along with detailed information on program 

eligibility requirements, benefits, and available services, is available at the USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) website for TAA, http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/taa/.

To be eligible for training and benefits, a group of agricultural producers (“producer 

group”) must show that imports were a significant cause for at least a 15 percent decline 

in one of the following factors: the price of the commodity, the quantity of the 

commodity produced, or the production value of the commodity. Once a producer group 

is certified for program eligibility, an individual producer within that group must meet 

certain requirements to be approved for program benefits. A training component is 

 59 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, January 9, 2013, 14. 60 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, December 17, 2012, 2. 61 ETA’s petition database may be found at http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm. 

The database was last accessed for this report on April 8, 2013. 62 Petitions are accepted and investigated on a rolling basis throughout the year, and petitions may be 

withdrawn and investigations terminated at any point. For these reasons, the number of petitions certified and 

denied for TAA in any fiscal year may not equal the total number of petitions filed in that year. USDOL, 

ETA, “Petition Filing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ),” (accessed March 19, 2013). 63 U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Helping Workers, 

December 12, 2012, 3, table 1. 64 Ibid., 3–4. 65 ETA defines the South census region as including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, the District of 

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ibid. 66 ETA defines the Northeast census region as including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Ibid. 67 ETA defines the West census region as including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Ibid. 68 ETA defines the Midwest census region as including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Ibid.
2-12

intended to help the producer become more competitive in producing the same or another 

commodity. Financial assistance (capped, as of this report, at $12,000 over a three-year 

period for an approved producer) is to be used to develop and implement a business 

adjustment plan designed to address the impact of import competition.69

Producers of five commodities were certified for the TAA for Farmers program during 

FY 2012: asparagus, catfish, lobster, shrimp, and wild blueberries. (These commodities

may actually have been certified before FY 2012, as benefits and services provided under 

the program may span multiple years.) More than 9,800 individual farmer applicants 

were approved for benefits as of April 2012 (the most recent period for which data are 

available), including 259 applicants for benefits with respect to asparagus, 743 for catfish, 

3,842 for lobster, 4,754 for shrimp, and 254 for wild blueberries.70

Assistance for Firms 

The TAA for Firms program provides technical and financial assistance to U.S. 

manufacturers and service sector firms adversely affected by imports. The TAA for Firms 

program helps eligible firms that have been certified for benefits to develop a business 

recovery plan (“adjustment proposal”). TAA also provides funds to help certified firms 

expand markets, strengthen their operations, or otherwise increase their global 

competitiveness. The most current information on provisions of the TAA for Firms 

program, as well as detailed information on program eligibility requirements, benefits, 

and available services, is available at the USDOC’s Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) website for TAA, http://www.taacenters.org/.

To be eligible for TAA, firms must show that imports have contributed to declines in 

employment and sales or production. Assistance is in the form of matching funds that can 

be applied toward the cost of hiring consultants, engineers, designers, or industry experts 

for improvement projects in areas such as manufacturing, engineering, marketing, 

information technology, and quality. 71 Under the program, the firm’s management 

receives assistance to help identify the firm’s strengths and weaknesses and develop an 

adjustment proposal to stimulate recovery and growth. Firms generally have up to five 

years to carry out an approved adjustment proposal.72

EDA reported that in FY 2012 it accepted 83 petitions for TAA, with 79 petitions 

certified as eligible for assistance and 3 denied or withdrawn during the year. In 

comparison, EDA accepted 129 petitions in FY 2011, with 149 certified and 22 denied or 

withdrawn.73 Firms located in Illinois received the most certifications in FY 2012 (13 

certifications, or 16 percent of the total), followed by firms in Texas (7 certifications, or 9 

 69 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, September 5, 2012, 2–3. 70 GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance, July 2012, 30. CRS reported that legislation currently in force 

“authorized $90 million in each of FY2012 and FY2013, and $22.5 million for the first quarter of FY2014 

(i.e., October through December 2013),” but noted that the provision, “unlike those in the 2002 and 2009 

authorizations, did not appropriate any funds,” and that “the Obama Administration did not request funds for 

the [TAA for Farmers] program in FY2012 or in its budget proposal for FY2013.” CRS, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Farmers, September 5, 2012, 5 and 11. 71 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: FAQs” (accessed March 1, 2013). 72 USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for 

Firms Program, December 15, 2012, 11. 73 Petitions are certified on a rolling basis throughout the year. Petitions certified in one fiscal year may 

be the result of those received or accepted in the previous fiscal year, while petitions received or accepted in a 

fiscal year may not result in certification in that year. USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report to 

Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, December 15, 2012, 14.
2-13

percent), and New York and Pennsylvania (each with 6 certifications, or 8 percent).74

Manufacturing firms accounted for 90 percent of the firms certified for TAA during FY 

2012, with firms in technical services, transportation, and wholesale trade accounting for 

the remainder.

75 EDA approved 102 adjustment proposals in FY 2012 with a total 

government funding share valued at $5.4 million, down from 183 adjustment proposals 

with a government funding share valued at $11.1 million approved in FY 2011.

76

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.77 Certain additional products are allowed 

duty-free treatment when imported only from countries designated as least-developed 

beneficiary developing countries. The President’s authority to provide duty-free treatment 

under the GSP program expired on December 31, 2010,78 and was renewed retroactively 

only on October 21, 2011, to be effective through July 31, 2013. 79 Because of the 

program’s lapse, USTR did not conduct an annual review of the GSP in 2011; in 2012, 

however, it carried out a condensed review based on 2011 annual trade. For 2012 annual 

trade, USTR is conducting a review with results to be announced on July 1, 2013.

The GSP program aims to accelerate economic growth in developing countries by 

offering unilateral tariff preferences. An underlying principle of the GSP program is that 

the creation of trade opportunities for developing countries encourages broad-based 

economic development and sustains momentum for economic reform and liberalization. 

The GSP program also allows U.S. companies to have access to intermediate products 

from beneficiary countries on generally the same terms that are available to competitors 

in other developed countries that grant similar trade preferences.80

Countries are designated as “beneficiary developing countries” under the GSP program 

by the President, although they can lose this designation based on petitions alleging 

improper country practices, including inadequate protection of IPR or internationally 

recognized worker rights.81 The President also designates the articles that are eligible for 

duty-free treatment, but may not designate articles that he determines to be “importsensitive” in the context of the GSP. Certain articles (for example, footwear, textiles, and 

apparel) are designated by statute as “import-sensitive” and thus not eligible for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program. The statute also provides for graduating countries 

from the program when they become “high income” and for ending the eligibility of 

articles, or of articles from certain countries, under certain conditions.

 74 USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for 

Firms Program, December 15, 2012, Exhibit 11, 17–18. 75 Ibid., Exhibit 12, 19. 76 Ibid., Exhibit 19, 27. 77 The program is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 2461 et seq. 78 Pub. L. 111-124. 79 Pub. L. 112-40. 80 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda, March 2012, 188. 81 The list of current GSP beneficiaries can be found on the USTR’s website at

http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2469
2-14

Competitive need limitations (CNLs) are another important part of the GSP program’s 

structure. CNLs are quantitative ceilings on GSP benefits for each product and 

beneficiary developing country. The GSP statute provides that a beneficiary developing 

country will lose its GSP eligibility with respect to a product if the CNLs are exceeded, 

though waivers may be granted under certain conditions. There are two different CNLs 

that may apply to U.S. imports of a particular product from a beneficiary developing 

country during any calendar year. One CNL applies to imports that account for 50 

percent or more of the value of total U.S. imports of that product, and the other CNL 

applies to imports that exceed a certain dollar value ($155 million in 2012).

82 The act 

extending the GSP program in 2006 provided that a CNL waiver in effect on a product 

for five or more years should be revoked if U.S. imports from a specific supplier meet 

certain “super-competitive” value thresholds.83

The following developments with respect to the U.S. GSP program occurred in 2012:

• On March 26, 2012, the President proclaimed that Argentina would be suspended 

from the GSP program effective 60 days from the date of the proclamation (May 

28, 2012) as a result of not acting in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards in 

favor of a U.S. entity. On the same day, he also proclaimed that South Sudan 

would become a GSP beneficiary effective 20 days from the date of the 

proclamation (April 15, 2012), and a least-developed GSP beneficiary effective 

60 days from the date of the proclamation (May 28, 2012).84

• On June 29, 2012, the President proclaimed that Gibraltar and the Turks and 

Caicos Islands would be graduated from the GSP program for high income 

effective January 1, 2014. The President also proclaimed that Senegal would be 

treated as a least-developed GSP beneficiary effective 60 days from the date of 

the proclamation (September 3, 2012). Effective July 1, 2012, seven HTS 

numbers for cotton fiber products were made eligible for GSP for leastdeveloped beneficiaries only. In addition, Côte d’Ivoire regained eligibility for 

kola nuts, for which it had previously been excluded; 11 products were excluded 

from particular GSP beneficiaries; 3 “supercompetitive” CNL waivers were 

revoked (for products which had had waivers for at least five years, and had 

imports of 150 percent of the CNL level); and 4 new CNL waivers were 

granted.85

• On December 20, 2012, the President proclaimed that St. Kitts and Nevis would 

be graduated from the GSP program for high income, effective January 1, 2014.86

• On December 28, 2012, USTR published a notice in the Federal Register

announcing that it had accepted certain products for annual review for possible 

GSP eligibility or CNL waivers, and announced the final disposition of one 

product based on the 2011 annual review.

87

 82 USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, December 2012, 11. 83 19 U.S.C. § 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii). 84 Proclamation No. 8788 of March 26, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 18899 (March 29, 2012). 85 Proclamation No. 8840 of June 29, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 39885 (July 5, 2012). 86 Proclamation No. 8921 of December 20, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 76799 (December 28, 2012). 87 USTR, “GSP Federal Register Notices,” 77 Fed. Reg. 76594 (December 28, 2012).
2-15

• In addition, country practice reviews continued for a number of GSP 

beneficiaries. These reviews focused on worker rights, IPR, and arbitral awards 

issues.

Duty-free imports entered under the GSP program totaled $19.9 billion in 2012, 

accounting for 5.9 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 0.9 

percent of total imports (table 2.3).88 India was the leading GSP beneficiary in 2012, 

followed by Thailand, Brazil, and Indonesia (appendix table A.14). Appendix table A.15

shows the overall sectoral distribution of GSP benefits, and appendix table A.16 shows 

the top 25 products imported under the GSP in 2012.

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was enacted in 2000 to provide 

unilateral preferential trade benefits to eligible sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries 

pursuing political and economic reform.89 AGOA provides duty-free access to the U.S. 

market for all GSP-eligible products90 and for more than 1,800 additional qualifying tariff 

line-item products from designated SSA countries, and exempts these beneficiaries from 

GSP CNLs. AGOA also provides duty-free treatment for certain apparel articles made in 

qualifying SSA countries. AGOA is scheduled to be in effect until September 30, 2015.91

Each year, the President must consider whether SSA countries92 are, or remain, eligible 

for AGOA benefits based on specific criteria.93 At the end of 2011, a total of 40 SSA

countries were designated as eligible for AGOA benefits in 2012,

94 and 27 of these 

countries also qualified for AGOA textile and apparel benefits.95 On December 20, 2012, 

President Obama proclaimed that South Sudan was eligible for AGOA benefits and that

 88 Imports entering the United States free of duty under preference programs are given duty-free 

preference only upon an importer’s claim for each shipment, supported with documentation. 89 In addition to providing preferential access to the U.S. market for eligible SSA products, AGOA also 

includes a number of trade-facilitating provisions. For more detailed background information about AGOA, 

see the USDOC AGOA website, http://www.agoa.gov/, and the USTR AGOA website, 

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/trade-development/preference-programs/african-growth-and-opportunityact-agoa. 90 The eligibility criteria for GSP and AGOA substantially overlap, and countries must be GSP eligible 

in order to receive trade benefits under AGOA. USDOC, ITA, “AGOA: General Country Eligibility 

Provisions” (accessed March 5, 2013). 91 19 U.S.C. § 3701 note. AGOA provisions that provide preferential treatment for certain textiles and 

apparel also expire on September 30, 2015. 19 U.S.C. § 3721(f). 92 19 U.S.C. § 3706 lists a total of 48 countries, or their successor political entities, as potential AGOA 

beneficiaries. 93 19 U.S.C. § 3703(a). 94The following 40 countries were listed in general note 16 of the HTS as designated AGOA 

beneficiaries during 2012: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, 

Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, 

Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, 

Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, 

Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, HTS 2013, March 3, 2012, 186. 95 The following 27 countries are listed in U.S. Note 7 of the HTS as eligible to receive AGOA apparel 

benefits during 2012: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, 

Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, 

Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, HTS 2012, 

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes, XXII, 98-II-3, U.S. Notes 7(a), March 15, 2012. Also, see 

USDOC, OTEXA, “Trade Preference Programs: AGOA” (accessed July 6, 2012).
2-16

TABLE 2.3 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2010–12

Item 2010 2011 2012

Total imports from GSP beneficiaries (million $) 303,178 365,902 338,138

Total imports under GSP (million $) 22,554 18,539 19,857

Imports from non-LDBDCs (million $)a 17,098 18,036 19,317

Imports from LDBDCs (million $)b 5,455 503 540

Share of total imports under GSP (percent of total) 7.4 5.1 5.9

Source: USDOC.

Note: LDBDC = least-developed beneficiary developing countries. GSP was expired December 31, 2010–

October 21, 2011. This table includes retroactive entries.

 aNon-LDBDC-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty of “free” appears in the special rate 

column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) followed by the symbols “A” or “A*” in 

parentheses. The symbol “A” indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible for duty-free treatment with 

respect to all articles listed in the designated provisions, and the symbol “A*” indicates that certain beneficiary 

countries, specified in general note 4(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to 

any article provided for in the designated provision.

 bLDBDC-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the 

HTS followed by the symbol “A+” in parentheses. The symbol “A+” indicates that all LDBDCs (and only 

LDBDCs) are eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles listed in the designated provisions.

Guinea-Bissau and Mali would no longer be designated as eligible for AGOA benefits 

effective on January 1, 2013.96

In 2012, articles entering the United States free of duty under AGOA were valued at 

$32.7 billion, a 36.9 percent decrease from 2011, and accounted for 68.7 percent of all 

imports from AGOA countries (table 2.4). This decrease in total imports was driven 

primarily by a drop in the value of imports of petroleum-related products, particularly 

from Nigeria, Angola, the Republic of the Congo (Congo ROC), Chad, and Ghana. Dutyfree U.S. imports under AGOA, including under the GSP program, were valued at $34.9 

billion in 2012, accounting for 73.2 percent of total imports from AGOA countries and 

representing a total decline of 35.2 percent over 2011.

The leading suppliers of duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA in 2012 were Nigeria (54.1 

percent of total AGOA imports), Angola (20.3 percent), South Africa (7.3 percent), Chad 

(7.3 percent), Gabon (3.9 percent), and the Congo ROC (3.7 percent). These six countries 

accounted for 96.6 percent of total imports by value under AGOA, a decrease of 0.6 

percentage points from 2011 (appendix table A.17). Of the leading imports under AGOA, 

petroleum-related products fell to $29.5 billion in 2012, down 39.0 percent by value from 

2011, and accounted for 90.0 percent of the total value of AGOA imports in 2012 

(appendix table A.18).97 Imports of apparel remained at approximately $0.7 billion in 

2012 and 2011, but as a percentage of total AGOA imports by value, apparel rose from 

1.3 percent in 2011 to 2.0 percent in 2012.

 96 Proclamation 8921 of December 20, 2012, To Take Certain Actions under the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act and for Other Purposes, 77 Fed. Reg. 76799 (December 28, 2012). 97 The decrease in imports of petroleum and related products primarily reflects a decline in the volume 

of U.S. imports. Petroleum import volumes (HS chapter 27, barrels) from the five leading AGOA petroleum

suppliers (Nigeria, Angola, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, and Gabon) decreased by 41 percent between 

2011 and 2012, while the value per barrel (landed duty-paid value) of these imports increased by 3.5 percent. 

DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 25, 2013).
2-17

TABLE 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA beneficiaries, 2010–12

Item 2010 2011 2012

Total imports from AGOA countries (million $) 60,531 72,198 47,638

Total under AGOA, including GSP (million $)a 44,270 53,840 34,892

Total under AGOA, excluding GSP (million $) 38,665 51,883 32,748

Share of total imports under AGOA (percent of total) 67.1 74.6 73.2

Source: USDOC.

 aAGOA-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the 

HTS followed by the symbol “D” in parentheses (the symbol “D” indicates that all AGOA beneficiaries are 

eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles listed in the designated provisions). In addition, 

provisions of subchapters II and XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS set forth specific categories of AGOA-eligible 

products, under the terms of separate country designations enumerated in subchapter notes.

Section 105 of AGOA requires the President to establish the U.S.-SSA Trade and 

Economic Cooperation Forum (also known as the AGOA Forum) through which USTR 

and the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and the Treasury meet with senior-level officials 

from AGOA-eligible countries to discuss trade, investment, and development 

relationships. The 11th AGOA Forum, held in Washington, DC, on June 14–15, 2012, 

provided for government-to-government ministerial meetings, as well as meetings of 

representatives from the U.S. and SSA private sectors and civil societies. The theme of 

the forum was “Enhancing Africa’s Infrastructure for Trade.”98

Andean Trade Preference Act 

The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) was enacted in 1991 to promote broad-based 

economic development and viable economic alternatives to coca cultivation and cocaine 

production by offering Andean products broader access to the U.S. market. 99 The 

President’s authority to provide preferential treatment under ATPA first expired on 

December 4, 2001, but was renewed and expanded by the Andean Trade Promotion and 

Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), part of the Trade Act of 2002.100 Preferential treatment 

under ATPA, as amended by ATPDEA, has expired a number of times,101 most recently 

on February 12, 2011. 102 However, on October 21, 2011, ATPA treatment was 

retroactively renewed until July 31, 2013, for Colombia and Ecuador.103 In addition, three 

out of the four original beneficiary countries (Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia) have been

removed from eligibility in recent years. Bolivia lost its eligibility on December 15, 2008, 

 98 USDOS “AGOA Forum 2012,” http://www.state.gov/p/af/rt/agoa/2012/index.htm (accessed March 5, 

2013).99 For a more detailed description of ATPA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, 

Andean Trade Preference Act, September 2012. 100 Pub. L. 107-210, title XXXI. ATPA beneficiaries are not automatically eligible for ATPDEA 

preferences. ATPDEA authorizes the President to designate any ATPA beneficiary as eligible for ATPDEA 

benefits, provided the President determines the country has satisfied certain requirements, including 

protection of IPR and internationally recognized workers’ rights. The President designated all four ATPA 

beneficiaries as ATPDEA beneficiaries on October 31, 2002. Presidential Proclamation—To Implement the 

Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, Proclamation No. 7616, 67 Fed. Reg. 67283 (October 31, 

2002).101 Pub. L. 109-432, § 7001 et seq.; Pub. L. 110-42; Pub. L. 110-191; Pub. L. 110-436; Pub. L. 111-124,

§ 2; Pub. L. 111-344, § 201. 102 Pub. L. 111-344, § 201. 103 Pub. L. 112-42, § 501. Importers had 180 days to claim retroactive refunds. USCBP, Memorandum 

on the Renewal of ATPA, October 24, 2011, 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/trade_programs/international_agreements/special_trade_program

s/atpa/atpdea.ctt/atpdea.pdf.
2-18

for failing to meet ATPA’s counternarcotics cooperation criteria. 104 Peru lost its 

eligibility effective January 1, 2011, due to the implementation of the U.S.-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement (TPA). Most recently, Colombia lost its eligibility when the U.S.-

Colombia TPA entered into force on May 15, 2012.105 As a result, Ecuador is the only 

ATPA beneficiary country remaining.

A wide range of products were eligible for duty-free entry under ATPA as originally 

enacted. ATPDEA amended ATPA to provide duty-free treatment for certain products 

previously excluded from ATPA, including certain textiles and apparel, certain footwear, 

tuna in foil or other flexible airtight packages (not cans), crude petroleum and petroleum 

products, and watches and watch parts assembled from components originating in 

countries not eligible for U.S. normal trade relations (NTR) rates of duty. Products that 

continue to be excluded from ATPA preferential treatment include textile and apparel 

articles not otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under ATPDEA (primarily textile 

articles), certain footwear, canned tuna, rum and tafia, and above-quota imports of certain 

agricultural products subject to tariff-rate quotas (primarily sugar, beef, and dairy 

products).

Total (dutiable and duty-free) U.S. imports from the ATPA-eligible countries were 

valued at $20.2 billion in 2012. This represented a decrease of 36.6 percent from $31.9 

billion in 2011 (table 2.5), reflecting the exit of Colombia from ATPA in May 2012.106

U.S. imports under ATPA increased over 150 percent in 2012 to $11.2 billion because 

the program had lapsed during February–October 2011.

U.S. imports under ATPA represented 55.3 percent of all imports from ATPA countries 

in 2012, compared to 13.7 percent in 2011, when the program had lapsed, and 51.1 

percent in 2010. U.S. imports under ATPDEA accounted for 92.8 percent of imports 

under ATPA in 2012 ($10.4 billion) and U.S. imports under the original ATPA (ATPA 

excluding ATPDEA) accounted for the remaining 7.2 percent, valued at $801 million. 

With the implementation of the U.S.-Colombia TPA, Ecuador became the largest source 

of U.S. imports under ATPA in 2012 (appendix table A.19).

Crude petroleum and petroleum products accounted for 91.5 percent of U.S. imports 

under ATPA in 2012 and represented 5 of the top 25 U.S. imports under the program 

(appendix table A.20). Fresh cut flowers was the next-largest category of imports under 

ATPA, accounting for 4.2 percent of such imports and 6 of the 25 leading imports under 

ATPA. The share of U.S. imports under ATPA accounted for by the other 14 leading

imports was only 4.3 percent. Together, these 25 leading imports accounted for 97.9 

percent of total U.S. imports under ATPA in 2012.

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) was enacted in 1983 as part of

the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to encourage economic growth and development in 

the Caribbean Basin countries by promoting increased production and exports of 

 104 Proclamation No. 8323 of November 25, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 72677 (November 28, 2008). 105 Proclamation No. 8818 of May 14, 2012, 77 Fed. Reg. 29519–23 (May 18, 2012). 106 Total U.S. imports from Colombia in 2012 only included those months when Colombia was an 

ATPA beneficiary country.
2-19

TABLE 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from ATPA countries, 2010–12a

Item 2010 2011 2012

Total imports from ATPA countries (million $) 28,179 31,891 20,228

Total under ATPA (million $) 14,411 4,380 11,183

Imports under ATDPEA (million $)b 12,960 3,963 10,383

Imports under ATPA, excluding ATPDEA (million $)c 1,451 417 801

Share of total imports under ATPA (percent of total) 51.1 13.7 55.3

Source: USDOC.

Note: ATPA was expired February 12, 2011–October 21, 2011. This table includes retroactive entries.

 aPeru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Therefore, imports from 

Peru are included in this table only through the end of 2010. (Note that duty-free imports from Peru under 

ATPA were officially recorded, even after it was no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary as $4.8 million in 

2011; however, 2011 imports from Peru are not included in this table.) Colombia’s status as an ATPA 

beneficiary country ended effective May 15, 2012. Therefore, imports from Colombia are included in this table 

only through May 2012. (Note that imports from Colombia under ATPA after it was no longer a designated 

ATPA beneficiary were officially recorded as $222 million, but these imports are not included in this table.)

 bATPDEA-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty “free” appears in the special rate column of the 

HTS followed by the symbol “J+” in parentheses. The symbol “J+” indicates that all ATPDEA beneficiary 

countries are eligible for duty-free treatment with respect to all articles listed in the designated provisions.

 cATPA-eligible products (excluding ATPDEA-eligible products) are those for which a special duty rate 

appears in the special rate column of the HTS, followed by the symbols “J” or “J*” in parentheses. The symbol 

“J” indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles 

listed in the designated provisions, and the symbol “J*” indicates that certain articles, specified in general note 

11(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to any article listed in the 

designated provision. In addition, subchapter XXI of chapter 98 sets forth provisions covering specific 

products given duty-free eligibility under the ATPDEA, under the terms of separate country designations 

enumerated in that subchapter.

nontraditional products through duty preferences. 107 The Caribbean Basin Trade 

Partnership Act (CBTPA) amended CBERA in 2000 and expanded the list of qualified 

articles, for eligible countries, to include certain apparel.108 The CBTPA also extended 

NAFTA-equivalent treatment (that is, rates of duty equivalent to those accorded to goods 

under the same rules of origin applicable under NAFTA) to a number of other products 

previously excluded from CBERA, including certain tuna, crude petroleum and 

petroleum products, certain footwear, watches and watch parts assembled from parts 

originating in countries not eligible for NTR rates of duty, and certain handbags, luggage, 

flat goods, work gloves, and leather wearing apparel. Products that continue to be 

excluded from CBERA preferential treatment include textile and apparel products not 

otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under CBTPA (mostly textile products) and 

above-quota imports of certain agricultural products subject to tariff-rate quotas 

(primarily sugar, beef, and dairy products). CBTPA preferential treatment provisions 

were extended in 2010 through September 30, 2020,109 while other parts of CBERA have 

no expiration date. In the section that follows, the term CBERA refers to CBERA as 

amended by the CBTPA.

 107 For a more detailed description of CBERA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, September 2011. 108 Textiles and apparel not subject to textile agreements in 1983 (which includes only textiles and 

apparel of silk or non-cotton vegetable fibers, mainly linen and ramie) are eligible for duty-free entry under 

the original CBERA provisions, which do not have an expiration date. 109 Certain preferential treatment provisions relating to import-sensitive textile and apparel articles from 

CBERA countries and relating to textile and apparel articles imported under special rules for Haiti (see 

section on Haiti below) have been extended to September 30, 2020. This occurred on May 24, 2010, when 

the President signed the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-171, § 3.
2-20

At yearend 2012, 16 countries and dependent territories were eligible for nonexpiring 

CBERA preferences,110 and 7 were eligible for CBTPA preferences.111 Panama lost its 

eligibility for both CBERA and CBTPA preferences when the U.S.-Panama TPA entered 

into force on October 31, 2012.112 In 2012, Aruba, The Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, 

Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines requested eligibility 

to receive benefits under CBTPA.113 Although the Congress identified these countries for 

benefits under CBTPA in 2000, they did not request benefits under CBTPA until 2012.114

While Congress identified the Turks and Caicos Islands as potentially eligible for 

CBERA benefits in 1983, they did not request beneficiary status until July 2012. 

Following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in October 2010, Curaçao and Sint 

Maarten requested CBERA and CBTPA benefits in July and June of 2012, 

respectively.115

U.S. imports under CBERA fell by 13.3 percent, from $3.6 billion in 2011 to $3.1 billion 

in 2012 (table 2.6). This decrease reflected a decline in the value of 2012 U.S. imports of 

crude petroleum, methanol, knitted apparel products, and undenatured ethyl alcohol, 

which are major imports from CBERA countries. U.S. imports under CBERA accounted 

for 26.5 percent of all U.S. imports from CBERA countries in 2012. Trinidad and Tobago 

continued as the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2012, accounting for 

69.2 percent of the total. Haiti and Jamaica were also leading suppliers (appendix table 

A.21). Mineral fuels, methanol, and apparel products dominated the list of imports under 

CBERA in 2012 (appendix table A.22). Of the 25 leading products under CBERA in 

2012, 14 were agricultural and food products, which entered under CBERA (accounting 

for 7.9 percent of total U.S. imports under CBERA in 2012); 4 were knitted apparel 

entered under CBTPA (13.4 percent); 3 were petroleum and fuel products entered under 

CBTPA (38.4 percent), 2 were organic chemicals entered under CBERA (33.3 percent); 

and the remaining 2 were products that qualify for benefits under CBERA provisions. 

Together, these 25 leading imports accounted for 97.5 percent of total U.S. imports under 

CBERA in 2012.

Haiti Initiatives 

Since 2006, three laws have added special provisions to CBERA to expand and enhance 

trade benefits for Haiti and to give Haitian apparel producers exporting to the United

 110 Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, 

Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and the British Virgin Islands. 111 Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. 112 Proclamation No. 8894, 77 Fed. Reg. 66507–11 (November 5, 2012). 113 USTR, “Joint Statement from U.S.-CARICOM Trade and Investment Council Meeting,” March 31, 

2012; 77 Fed. Reg. 61816-17 (October 11, 2012). 114 77 Fed. Reg. 61816-17 (October 11, 2012). 115 77 Fed. Reg. 61816-17 (October 11, 2012). “The Netherlands Antilles, a semi-autonomous territory 

of the Netherlands comprising the islands of Curaçao, Sint Maarten (the Dutch part of the Island of St. 

Martin), Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius, was dissolved on October 10, 2010. As of that date, Curaçao and 

Sint Maarten became autonomous territories of the Netherlands, and Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius were 

placed under the direct administration of the Netherlands. Curaçao and Sint Maarten have requested 

eligibility to receive CBI benefits. The United States is reviewing these requests.” USTR, Ninth CBERA 

Report, December 31, 2011. In addition, Suriname requested beneficiary status under CBERA and CBTPA in 

December 2009. In April 2010, USTR requested public comments regarding granting Suriname eligibility for 

benefits under CBERA and the CBTPA. 75 Fed. Reg. 17198–17200 (April 5, 2010).
2-21

TABLE 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA countries, 2010–12a

Item 2010 2011 2012

Total imports from CBERA countries (million $) 9,936 14,515 11,849

Total under CBERA/CBTPA (million $) 2,893 3,619 3,137

Imports under CBTPA (million $)b 1,671 1,879 1,633

Imports under CBERA, excluding CBTPA (million $)c 1,221 1,740 1,504

Share of total imports under CBERA (percent of total) 29.1 24.9 26.5

Source: USDOC.

 aThe Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on October 10, 2010. Therefore, imports from the Netherlands 

Antilles are included only through October 2010. (Note that duty-free imports from the Netherlands Antilles 

under CBERA were officially recorded after its dissolution as $206,000 in 2010 and $344,000 in 2011; 

however, imports from the Netherlands Antilles from the time after it was no longer designated a beneficiary

are not included in this table.) Also, data for 2012 include U.S. imports from Panama only for the period 

during which Panama was eligible for CBERA benefits before the U.S.-Panama FTA entered into force on 

October 31, 2012.

 bCBTPA-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the special rate column of the 

HTS, followed by the symbol “R” in parentheses. The symbol “R” indicates that all CBTPA beneficiary 

countries are eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles listed in the designated 

provisions. In addition, subchapters II and XX of chapter 98 set forth provisions covering specific products 

eligible for duty-free entry, under separate country designations enumerated in those subchapters (and 

including the former CBTPA beneficiaries).

 cCBERA (excluding CBTPA)-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the 

special rate column of the HTS, followed by the symbols “E” or “E*” in parentheses. The symbol “E” 

indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles 

listed in the designated provisions, and the symbol “E*” indicates that certain articles, specified in general 

note 7(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for special duty rate treatment with respect to any article listed in the 

designated provision.

States more flexibility in sourcing. 116 The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through 

Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE Act)117 amended CBERA to expand the 

rules of origin for inputs to apparel and wire harness automotive components assembled 

in Haiti and imported into the United States.118 Two years later, the Haitian Hemispheric 

Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II Act)119 amended 

the HOPE Act to enhance the existing provisions and provide additional trade preferences 

to attract new investment and jobs in Haiti while also offering incentives to encourage the 

use of U.S. inputs.120 Finally, in 2010, in the wake of the January 12, 2010, earthquake,

the President signed into law the Haiti Economic Lift Program of 2010 (HELP Act).121

Designed to make Haiti more attractive to large-scale manufacturing operations,122 the 

 116 Haiti’s textiles and apparel industry is the largest sector of the country’s economy and considered a 

key growth area. Just-style.com, “Haiti: SAE-A Trading on Track,” September 18, 2012 http://www.juststyle.com/news/sae-a-trading-on-track-to-begin-production_id115580.aspx; U.S. Department of State, U.S. 

Embassy, Port-au-Prince, “Haiti: FY2012 Second Quarter Report on the NEI Initiative,” April 27, 2012. 117 Pub. L. 109-432, § 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2006. 118 There were no U.S. imports of wire harness automotive components from Haiti during 2007–2012. 119 Pub. L. 110-234, § 15401 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 

Encouragement Act of 2008. 120 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Letter to the Honorable Max Baucus and the Honorable 

Dave Camp,” December 14, 2012. For more details on the programs under the HOPE Acts, see USITC, The 

Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 2-21 to 2-22; USITC, Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti,

June 2008, i , ES-1, 1-3 to 1-5. 121 Pub. L. 111-171, § 2, Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. 122 Parc Industriel de Caracol, SONAPI, IDB, and SAE-A Trading Co., Ltd., “Caracol Industrial Park,” 

November 2011, 2. 
2-22

HELP Act expanded and extended existing U.S. trade preferences123 (especially duty-free 

treatment for certain qualifying apparel) for Haiti established under the CBTPA and the 

HOPE Act and HOPE II (collectively referred to as HOPE or the HOPE Acts). The 

HOPE Acts, as well as CBTPA, are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2020.

U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from Haiti totaled $730.1 million in 2012, up 4.1 

percent from $701.5 million in 2011 (table 2.7). 124 Virtually all (99.6 percent) U.S. 

imports of apparel from Haiti entered duty free under trade preference programs in 

2012.125 The modest growth in U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti in 2012 compared with 

the sharp rise in these imports in 2011 (35.5 percent) may be attributed to several factors.

The slow U.S. economic recovery has weakened demand in the U.S. apparel market and 

caused U.S. apparel firms to be cautious.126 Also, Haiti’s current limited port capacity, 

inadequate infrastructure, scarcity of building space, and lack of trained apparel

personnel hamper the Haitian apparel industry’s ability to increase production 

substantially.127

Nevertheless, the trade preferences expanded and extended by HOPE and HELP appear 

to be encouraging new investments in manufacturing and prompting some apparel firms 

to increase their business activity in Haiti. For example, in 2012, some Haitian apparel 

firms added new U.S. customers who in the past would not have considered doing 

business in Haiti, and such interest is reportedly growing. 128 In addition, the October 

2012 opening of the $300 million Caracol Industrial Park in northern Haiti is expected to 

create many manufacturing jobs, particularly for Haiti’s textiles and apparel sector.129 In 

2012, Haiti accounted for nearly all (99.3 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel entering 

under CBTPA.130 Although more than half (58.3 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel from 

Haiti entered under CBTPA provisions in 2012, U.S. imports of apparel entering under

 123 For additional details on the HELP Act, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 2-21 to 2-

22. 124 Haitian apparel production remains concentrated in high-volume commodity garments that have 

reasonably predictable consumer demand and few styling changes. Cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton 

underwear, and cotton trousers and pants dominated U.S. imports from Haiti, accounting for 49 percent, 16 

percent, and 11 percent each, respectively, of total U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti in 2012. 125 Based on data from USDOC, OTEXA, “U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs.” 126 U.S. apparel industry representatives, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 5, 2013 and 

U.S. apparel industry representative, interview by USITC staff, February 13, 2013. In 2012, U.S. imports of 

men’s and boys’ knit cotton shirts and other products that are leading exports from Haiti were also down 

from suppliers worldwide. Based on data from USDOC, OTEXA, “Major Shippers Report: U.S. General 

Imports by Category.” 127 U.S. apparel industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 5, 2013; Haitian 

apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, January 25, 2013. 128 Haitian apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, January 25, 2013. 129 Backed by the governments of Haiti and the United States, the Inter-American Development Bank 

(IDB), and Korea’s largest garment manufacturer, Sae-A Trading Company, the Caracol facility plans to 

boost Haiti’s production capacity by adding numerous sewing programs and by building Haiti’s first textile 

mill with knitting and dyeing facilities. In addition, in December 2012, the IDB approved a loan of up to $1 

million to a new firm, Industrial Revolution II LP, to retrofit and equip a garment factory in Port-au-Prince. 

Workers will be trained to produce higher-quality, high-end apparel to help Haiti’s apparel industry reduce its 

reliance on producing high-volume, low-margin apparel for the mass market, for which worldwide 

competition is intense. U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy, Port-au-Prince, “Port-Au-Prince Scenesetter 

for the Visit of Vice Admiral Parker,” November 8, 2012; Just-style.com, “Haiti: $300M Industrial Park 

Opens for Business,” October 30, 2012 http://www.just-style.com/news/300m-industrial-park-opens-forbusiness_id115965.aspx; “Haiti: Sae-A Trading on Track to Begin Production,” September 18, 2012

http://www.just-style.com/news/sae-a-trading-on-track-to-begin-production_id115580.aspx; IDB, “New

Manufacturing Company in Haiti to Initiate High-End Apparel Production with IDB support,” December 21, 

2012; “Haiti: IDB Approves Loan for New Manufacturing Company in Port-au-Prince,” December 21, 2012. 130 Based on data from USDOC, OTEXA,“U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs.”
2-23

TABLE 2.7 U.S. imports for consumption of apparel from Haiti, 2010–12

Item 2010 2011 2012

Total imports from Haiti (million $) 517.6 701.5 730.1

Imports under trade preference programs (million $) 515.7 689.1 727.1

Under CBERA (CBTPA) (million $) 355.9 461.4 423.6

Under the HOPE and HELP Acts (million $) 159.8 227.7 303.4

Imports under trade preference programs (percent of total imports) 99.6 98.3 99.6

Under CBERA (CBTPA) (percent of total under trade preference programs) 69.0 67.0 58.3

Under the HOPE and HELP Acts (percent of total under trade preference 

programs)

31.0 33.0 41.7

Source: USDOC.

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

the HOPE Acts rose by one-third (33.3 percent), from $227.7 million in 2011 to $303.4 

million in 2012,131 and represented 41.7 percent of total U.S. apparel imports that entered 

free of duty from Haiti. Most of the apparel imported from Haiti under the HOPE Acts 

entered under tariff preference levels that allow duty-free treatment for certain apparel up 

to established annual quotas (“restraint limits”).132 In 2012, about 40.1 percent ($121.7 

million) of these U.S. imports of apparel entered under the Hope Acts entered under the 

woven apparel restraint limit, and close to half ($134.4 million) of the imports of apparel 

from Haiti entered under the knit apparel and value-added restraint limits.133

Virtually all of the remaining U.S. imports ($34.7 million) under the HOPE Acts in 2012 

entered under the Earned Import Allowance Program (EIAP), a special trade provision

created under HOPE II. The HELP Act reduced the EIAP exchange ratio from 3-for-1 to 

2-for-1 in an effort to encourage the program’s use, since no apparel from Haiti was 

exported to the United States under the original 3-for-1 program.134 The sharp rise in U.S. 

imports of apparel from Haiti under the EIAP, from $8.9 million in 2011 to $34.7 in 2012,

can likely be attributed to the increased awareness of firms already producing clothing in 

Haiti that their apparel trade may also qualify for benefits under the EIAP.135 In 2012, no 

U.S. imports entered under the HELP provisions added in 2010, i.e., HTS 9820.61.45 

(certain knit apparel—unlimited) and HTS 9820.63.05 (home goods).

 131 Data on trade under the HOPE Acts are from USDOC, OTEXA, “U.S. Imports under Trade 

Preference Programs.” 132 The tariff preference limits allow certain knit and woven apparel (both of which must be wholly 

assembled in Haiti) as well as certain apparel for which the export value added must have a minimum of 

inputs from Haiti, the United States, or an FTA country of 50 to 60 percent, to enter the United States free of 

duty regardless of the source of the fabric. 133 The fill rates for the woven apparel restraint limit (HTS subheading 9820.62.05), knit apparel 

restraint limit (HTS subheading 9820.61.35), and value-added restraint limits (HTS subheadings 9820.61.25 

and 9820.61.30) were 42.2 percent, 34.7 percent, and 5.4 percent respectively, for the preferential treatment 

period October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012. 134 The HELP Act liberalized the earned import allowance rule by allowing the duty-free importation of 

one square meter equivalent of apparel wholly assembled or knit-to-shape in Haiti, regardless of the origin of 

the inputs, for every two square meter equivalents (previously it was for every three square meter equivalents) 

of qualifying fabric from the United States. 135 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Letter to the Honorable Max Baucus and the Honorable 

Dave Camp,” December 14, 2012.

3-1

CHAPTER 3 

Selected Trade Developments in the WTO, 

OECD, and APEC

This chapter covers 2012 developments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), 

including the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations; the work programs, 

decisions, and reviews of the General Council (the council); plurilateral agreements; and 

dispute settlement. The chapter also covers activities in other multilateral groups, 

including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and 

the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

World Trade Organization 

Doha Development Agenda

In 2012, the WTO Director-General (DG)––in his capacity as chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee (TNC)––reported on developments in the Doha Development 

Agenda (DDA or Doha Round) to members at each council session, and at informal 

meetings of WTO Heads of Delegations in June and July. The council held five meetings 

in 2012: February 14 and 24; May 1; July 25–26; October 3–4; and December 11–12.

In February, the DG highlighted the tasks arising out of the WTO Eighth Ministerial 

Conference held in December 2011,1 and in May, he noted that the situation overall had 

not evolved much since February.2 In July, the DG summed up the results of discussions 

held during the first half of 2012 as meager.3 By October, he noted signs of momentum in 

talks under the DDA, where negotiating group chairs were consulting with delegations on 

how to advance work on various issues.4

By the yearend council meeting on December 11, the DG reported to WTO members that 

“the discussion was encouraging” at the formal meeting of the TNC held December 7, 

2012. He remarked that members appeared “committed to achieving a credible outcome”

at the WTO Ninth Ministerial Conference, scheduled for December 2013. Nonetheless,

he noted that members at the December TNC meeting did not seem to consider the 2013 

ministerial meeting as the end point for the Doha Round, but rather as a stage along the 

way in a longer-term process toward a conclusion whose framework was yet to be 

agreed.5

 1 WTO, General Council, “Tuesday, 14 February 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/17, February 14, 2012, 1. 2 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 1 May 2012,” 

WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012. 3 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 25–26 July 

2012,” WT/GC/M/137, September 13, 2012. 4 WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 1–3. 5 WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––11 December 2012––General Council––Lamy Says Members’ 

Negotiating Outlook for 2013 ‘Encouraging,’” December 11, 2012.
3-2

In regard to the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, the DG reported that 

members near yearend were reengaged in dialogue with the introduction of two new 

proposals by the Group of 20 (G-20) developing countries6 at an “Informal Open-Ended 

Special Session” of the full membership of the Agriculture Committee on September 28, 

2012. 7 One proposal addressed the administration of agricultural tariff-rate quotas,

focused in particular on how imports are shared among importers within the quota limit. 

The other called for several WTO Secretariat studies on tariff quota administration and 

on possible hidden export subsidies in areas such as export credit and insurance, state 

trading enterprises, and food aid. Nonetheless, the DG noted that the 10 outstanding 

issues8 identified in 2011 remained the key political issues requiring resolution.9

The DG reported that the Negotiating Group on Market Access had met on several 

occasions in 2012 in regard to advancing its work on tariffs and nontariff measures.10 In 

July 2012, the outgoing chairman of this negotiating group gave his assessment that the 

group was “facing a logjam in the tariff negotiations” with several unsuccessful attempts 

made “to break the stalemate.”11 He reported that the group had accomplished substantial 

work regarding nontariff measures since 2009, in particular on the Horizontal 

Mechanism,12 but that opposition to the mechanism remained stiff. He described the main 

objections as revolving around possible linkages between the mechanism and WTO 

dispute settlement procedures, the possible dilution of the role of the Committee on 

Market Access as a forum for addressing specific trade concerns, and whether the scope 

of the mechanism would encompass measures under the WTO Agreement on the 

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and cover agricultural goods.13 The 

chairman also reported on the developments for other major subjects under discussion in 

the group, including textile labeling; transparency, in particular concerning technical 

regulations and standards; remanufactured goods; appropriate standards-setting 

 6 The 23 members of the “G-20” coalition of developing countries are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 

China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the 

Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. The G-20 coalition of 

developing countries is separate from the G-20 group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 

the world’s major economies. 7 “WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––28 September 2012––Agriculture Negotiations: Informal 

Meeting––Agricultural G-20 Proposals Could Revive Negotiators’ Engagement,” September 28, 2012. 8 The chairman of the special session identified these issues in 2011 as the bracketed or otherwise 

annotated items in the session’s draft modalities text: (1) product-specific limits under the “Blue Box” 

subsidy category; (2) cotton; (3) longstanding preferences and preference erosion; (4) the designation of 

sensitive products; (5) special products; (6) the special safeguard mechanism; (7) tariff caps; (8) tariff-rate 

quota creation; (9) tariff simplification; and (10) tropical and diversification products. WTO, Committee on 

Agriculture Special Session, “Negotiating Group on Agriculture––Report by the Chairman, H.E. Mr. David 

Walker, to the Trade Negotiations Committee––21 April 2011.” TN/AG/26, April 21, 2011. 9 WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 3; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of 

Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 15, 2012. 10 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 25–26 July 

2012,” WT/GC/M/137, September 13, 2012; WTO, “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––

Tuesday, 17 July 2012,” JOB/GC/20, July 17, 2012, 3. 11 WTO, Negotiating Group on Market Access, “Negotiating Group on Market Access––Report by the 

Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha––18 July 2012,” TN/MA/23, July 18, 2012, par. 4. 12 The NAMA (Nonagricultural Market Access) Horizontal Mechanism—formally, the draft 

Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions on Non-Tariff Barriers—is a proposal in 

the negotiations aimed at providing a process through which WTO members can identify, reduce, eliminate, 

or otherwise resolve nontariff barriers (NTBs) so as to increase market access opportunities, in particular 

NTBs on products of export interest to developing country members. WTO, Negotiating Group on Market 

Access, “Draft Modalities for Non-agricultural Market Access––Third Revision––10 July 2008,” July 10, 

2008. 13 WTO, Negotiating Group on Market Access, “Negotiating Group on Market Access––Report by the 

Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha––18 July 2012,” TN/MA/23, July 18, 2012, par. 11–13.
3-3

procedures for international standards; and various sectoral topics, such as automobiles 

and electronics.14

For the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services, the DG reported that the 

Working Party on Domestic Regulation and the Working Party on General Agreement on 

Trade in Services (GATS) Rules held consultations during the year on how to advance 

negotiations, but made no progress. 15 The DG said, however, that greater progress 

appeared to be underway in talks among some members on alternative means to further 

open trade in services. 16 These alternative discussions followed technical-level 

discussions in 2011 among approximately 30 negotiators from both services-exporting

and services-importing countries on how to advance services negotiations. These 

discussions subsequently narrowed to a group of 16 participants––the so-called Really 

Good Friends of services group. The group included Australia; Canada; Chile; Colombia; 

the European Union (EU); Hong Kong, China; Japan; the Republic of Korea (Korea); 

Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Singapore; Switzerland; Taiwan; and the 

United States. The group met February 15–16, 2012, to consider aspects of a possible

plurilateral services agreement under the WTO. On July 5, 2012, the group issued a 

media release, “Advancing Negotiations on Trade in Services,” citing plans for 

discussions to define an agreement on trade in services that would build on progress 

already made in the WTO GATS as well as building on other services trade agreements

already notified to the WTO. The group noted that the agreement should (1) be 

comprehensive in scope, with substantial sectoral coverage and no automatic exclusion of 

either sector or mode of supply; (2) include negotiated market access commitments that 

correspond to actual practice and provide new opportunity for improved market access; 

and (3) contain new and enhanced rules developed through negotiations. Discussions 

advanced during the second half of 2012 and continued into 2013.17

In regard to other negotiating groups, the DG noted that the Negotiating Group on Rules 

continued to look for ways to move forward in meetings of the Technical Group, seeking 

to share members’ practices in the area of rulemaking.18 He reported, however, that no 

overall interest had been expressed in resuming negotiations in the short term.19 Similarly, 

he reported that, despite bilateral consultations with several delegations, there appeared to 

be no interest in the Special Session of the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for negotiations over a register for geographical 

 14 WTO, Negotiating Group on Market Access, “Negotiating Group on Market Access––Report by the 

Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha––18 July 2012,” TN/MA/23, July 18, 2012, par. 15–19. 15 WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 3. 16 Ibid. 17 On January 15, 2013, the United States Trade Representative notified the U.S. House of 

Representatives of the administration’s intent to enter into negotiations for a new trade agreement to promote 

international trade in services. The letter cited the following trading partners as the initial group conducting 

negotiations for an international services agreement (revised from the July 2012 participants): Australia; 

Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; the EU; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Korea; Mexico; 

New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Peru; Switzerland; Taiwan; Turkey; and the United States. USTR, 

Letter from Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative, to the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, January 15, 2013; Inside Washington Publishers, “U.S., EU among 

Organizers of Doha Services Market Access Meeting,” February 11, 2011; Inside Washington Publishers, 

“WTO Members Brainstorm Services Plurilateral Options, No Decision Yet,” February 24, 2012; USTR, 

“WTO Members Announce New Phase in Services Talks,” July 5, 2012. 18 WTO, General Council, “Tuesday, 1 May 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/18, May 1, 2012, 2; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting–

–Held in the Centre William Rappard on 1 May 2012,” WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012. 19 WTO, “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 July 2012,” JOB/GC/20, 

July 17, 2012, 2.
3-4

indications for wine and spirits, given members’ positions on the issues.

20 Bilateral 

consultations were also held between delegations and the chair of the Special Session of 

the Committee on Trade and Environment on how to advance negotiations, but without 

progress.

21

During 2012, negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 

Development continued its three areas of work on (1) a group of six agreement-specific 

proposals,22 (2) a monitoring mechanism on special and differential treatment, and (3) the 

28 agreement-specific proposals arising out of the 2003 Cancún ministerial conference.

23

The Special Session held three formal meetings during July and November 2012, in 

addition to frequent informal meetings held to consider the agreement-specific proposals. 

Despite significant engagement during the year, the DG did not report any conclusive

progress in the session during 2012.24

At yearend, the DG reported that talks within the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation 

continued through the primary track known as the “facilitator” process, as well as through 

a secondary track of bilateral and plurilateral meetings. Issues covered through the 

facilitator process included special and differential treatment, capacity building, customs 

cooperation, and expedited shipments, as well as cross-cutting issues. Work also 

advanced in the area of technical assistance, aimed at helping developing and leastdeveloped countries to identify their trade facilitation needs and priorities25 under section 

II of the trade facilitation group’s Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text.26 Participants in 

the trade facilitation group also touched on topics that might form part of any agreed 

 20 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 1 May 2012,” 

WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012; WTO, “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 

July 2012,” JOB/GC/20, July 17, 2012, 3. 21 WTO, “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 July 2012,” JOB/GC/20, 

July 17, 2012, 3. 22 WTO, “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 July 2012,” JOB/GC/20, 

July 17, 2012, 2; WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the 

Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 23; WTO, General Council, 

“Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 

15, 2012. This group of six proposals addresses matters concerning Article 10.2 and Article 10.3 of the 

Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article 3.5 of the Agreement on 

Import Licensing. WTO, Committee on Trade and Development––Special Session, “Special Session of the 

Committee on Trade and Development––Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Thawatchai Sophastienphong 

(Thailand),” TN/CTD/25, March 22, 2010; USTR, 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report, 

March 2011, II.18–II.19. 23 This group of 28 proposals addressed matters concerning the Agreement on Agriculture (Article 

15.2); Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Article 1.2); Agreement on Rules of Origin; Decision on 

Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries (Paragraph 2); Differential and More Favourable 

Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (the so-called Enabling Clause); 

GATS (Articles IV, IV.3, XXV, Annex on Telecommunications); GATT 1994 (Articles XVIII:B, XVIII:C, 

XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII; PSI (Pre-shipment Inspection) Agreement (Article 3.3); Review of Progress on 

Market Access for Least-Developed Countries; Rules Relating to Notification Procedures; TRIPS Agreement 

(Articles 66.2, 67, 70.9); Understanding on Balance-of-Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994 (Paragraph 

8); Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Article 8.10); and 

Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the GATT 1994. WTO, “Informal Meeting at the 

Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 July 2012––Statement by the Director-General,” JOB/GC/20, 

July 17, 2012, 2; WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the 

Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 2; WTO, General Council, 

“Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 

15, 2012. 24 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 1, 2013, II.14. 25 WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012, 2. 26 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 

2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 15, 2012.
3-5

“deliverable package,” such as items concerning tariff-rate quota administration in 

agriculture, the special and differential treatment monitoring mechanism, or expansion of 

the Information Technology Agreement.27

The DG reported at yearend that the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body 

continued efforts toward a possible revised chairman’s document, addressing the 12 

dispute settlement issues under consideration in the group.28 During the year, the group 

focused in particular on third-party rights, panel composition, member control and 

flexibility, and “strictly confidential” information,29 as well as the issues of remand and 

developing-country interests.30

General Council 

As noted earlier, the WTO General Council held five meetings in 2012, hearing at each 

session an update on the status of the DDA from the WTO’s DG.

31 Concerning its direct 

matters, the council noted progress in addressing the subjects of small and vulnerable 

economies, aid for trade, and the development aspects of cotton. Other subjects 

considered by the council included electronic commerce, issues regarding the WTO 

Agreement on TRIPS, and various waivers from WTO obligations, as well as standard 

administrative matters. During the year, the council welcomed four new members 

acceding to the WTO: Montenegro, Samoa, Russia, and Vanuatu. The council was also 

informed about plans for the 2013 WTO Ministerial Conference in Indonesia, as well as 

the process of selection of a new WTO DG for an appointment starting on September 1, 

2013.

Work Programs, Decisions, and Reviews 

Regarding ongoing General Council programs, the council heard from the Committee on 

Trade and Development about activities under the Work Program on Small Economies. 

Activities under the program focused in 2012 on the identification of nontariff measures 

and their effects on small economies. The DG reported on preparations for the Fourth 

Global Review of Aid for Trade, scheduled for July 2013, to include submissions from 

 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 WTO, General Council, “Tuesday, 1 May 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/18, May 1, 2012, 3. 30 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 1 May 2012,” 

WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012. 31 WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14 and 24 

February 2012,” WT/GC/M/135, March 27, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in 

the Centre William Rappard on 1 May 2012,” WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012; WTO, General Council, 

“Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 25–26 July 2012,” WT/GC/M/137, September 

13, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 

2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 15, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the 

Centre William Rappard on 11 December 2012,” WT/GC/M/141, February 19, 2013; WTO, General Council, 

“Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2012,” WT/GC/M/138, November 

15, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Tuesday, 1 May 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the 

Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/18, May 1, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 25 July 

2012––Agenda Item 2––Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/21, July 25, 

2012; WTO, General Council, “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of 

the Trade Negotiations Committee,” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012; WTO, General Council, “Tuesday, 11 

December 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee,” 

JOB/GC/27, December 11, 2012.
3-6

the private sector for the first time. The DG also presented his Fifth Periodic Report on 

the Development Assistance Aspects of Cotton to the council.

32

During the year, the council reviewed activities under the Work Program on Electronic 

Commerce to renew attention to the development dimension of electronic commerce. The 

council also was apprised of an informal discussion addressing e-commerce cross-cutting 

issues, and of plans for a Workshop on E-Commerce, Development, and Small and 

Medium-Sized Enterprises, to be held April 8–9, 2013.33

Concerning TRIPS matters, the council agreed to extend the period for acceptance of the 

Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement through the end of 2013. The council further

noted the annual review of the decision concerning the TRIPS Agreement and Public 

Health that took place on November 6–7, 2012.

34

The council acted on a variety of waiver matters during 2012, such as extending waivers 

for exchange arrangements for Cuba; broadening autonomous trade preferences granted 

by the EU to Pakistan; and extending the adoption period for members to introduce 

nomenclature changes under the Harmonized System 2002, 2007, and 2012, to their 

WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions, among others. Most of these waivers fell under 

WTO Article IX:4 (Decision-making).35

Finally, the council dealt with the budget and other administrative matters, efforts to 

streamline procedures, and election of chairpersons. In 2012, the council also heard about 

progress toward the selection and appointment of the next WTO DG, whose appointment 

is to start September 1, 2013, following expiration of the current DG’s term on August 

31.

36 In addition, the council reviewed plans for the upcoming Ninth Session of the WTO 

Ministerial Conference, presently slated for the first week of December 2013 in Bali, 

Indonesia.

 32 The Director-General noted progress in the areas of cotton-specific development assistance, as well 

as the broader category of agriculture and infrastructure-related development assistance. These categories are 

found in the evolving table on cotton development assistance, which provides a framework structure for the 

project. 33 WTO, “Development: Workshop––8–9 April 2013––Workshop on E-Commerce, Development and 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs).” 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/wkshop_apr13_e/wkshop_apr13_e.htm (accessed February 26, 

2013).34 Formally, the Decision on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS 

Agreement and Public Health. 35 The WTO Article IX:4 waivers include a number that are granted to the United States, which––

although not up for renewal in 2012––include waivers for the Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 

(granted from July 27, 2007 through December 31, 2016, see WT/L/857); Caribbean Basin Economic 

Recovery Act (May 27, 2009–December 31, 2014, see G/C/W/611); African Growth and Opportunity Act 

(May 27, 2009–September 30, 2015, see G/C/W/612); and Andean Trade Preference Act (May 27, 2009–

December 31, 2014, see G/C/W/613). 36 In January 2013, the General Council heard presentations from each of the nine candidates for the 

post of WTO Director-General: Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil), Taeho Bark (Korea), Herminio 

Blanco (Mexico), Anabel González (Costa Rica), Tim Groser (New Zealand), Ahmad Thougan Hindawi 

(Jordan), Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen (Ghana), Amina C. Mohamed (Kenya), and Mari Elka Pangestu 

(Indonesia). WTO, “WTO: 2013 News Items––29 to 31 January 2013––Director-General Selection Process–

–WTO Members Meet the DG Candidates,” January 29, 2013. At the General Council meeting on May 14, 

2013, members approved the appointment of Ambassador Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo as the next WTO 

Director-General, to begin his 4-year term on September 1, 2013. WTO, “WTO: 2013 News Items—14 May 

2013—General Council Appoints Azevêdo as Next Director General,” May 14, 2013.
3-7

Accessions 

Four countries acceded to the WTO during 2012, bringing total WTO membership to 157 

by yearend (table 3.1). On April 29, the WTO welcomed Montenegro as its 154th 

member. On May 10, Samoa joined as the 155th WTO member. Completing an accession 

process that started in June 1993, Russia became the 156th WTO member on August 

22.37 On August 24, the WTO welcomed Vanuatu as its 157th member. During 2012, 

WTO accession negotiations also were concluded for Laos and Tajikistan, with the 

council inviting Laos to accede on October 26, 2012.

38 In addition, the WTO had 26 

observers to the WTO by the end of 2012 (table 3.2). 

In a related matter, the council adopted a revision of the Decision on Accession of LeastDeveloped Countries39 aimed at making WTO accession easier for the least-developed

countries. The original decision was adopted in 2002 to assist the least-developed 

countries in matters concerning market access, WTO rules, the WTO accession process, 

as well as issues concerning trade-related technical assistance and capacity building.

Selected Plurilateral Agreements 

Agreement on Government Procurement 

The Committee on Government Procurement held four formal meetings during 2012, on 

March 30, July 18, October 31, and December 5.40 As of December 6, 2012, there were 

15 parties41 to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), and 26 observer 

governments42 to the committee, following the acceptance in 2012 of Malaysia, Indonesia, 

Montenegro, and Vietnam as new observers. There were 10 WTO members in the 

process of acceding to the GPA in 2012,

43 and a further 6 WTO members have provisions 

in their WTO accession protocols to eventually accede to the GPA.44

 37 For a summary of Russia’s WTO commitments, see chapter 5, box 5.1. 38 On February 2, 2013, Laos acceded as the 158th WTO member. 39 WTO, “Accession of Least-developed Countries––Decision of 10 December 2002,” WT/L/508, 

January 20, 2003; WTO, “Accession of Least-developed Countries––Decision of 25 July 2012––Addendum,” 

WT/L/508/Add.1, July 30, 2012. 40 WTO, “Report (2012) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” GPA/116, December 6, 2012; 

WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of the Committee on 

Government Procurement, at Heads of Delegations’ Level, of 30 March 2012,” GPA/M/46, August 13, 2012; 

WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of 18 July 2012,” 

GPA/M/47, August 20, 2012; WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Minutes of the Formal 

Meeting of 31 October 2012,” GPA/M/48, November 19, 2012. 41 At yearend 2012, parties to the Agreement on Government Procurement were Armenia; Aruba; 

Canada; the EU; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; Norway; Singapore; 

Switzerland; Taiwan; and the United States. 42 Observers to the GPA Committee in 2012 were Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Cameroon, 

Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Moldova, 

Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Ukraine, and 

Vietnam. 43 WTO members in the process of acceding to the GPA are Albania, China, Georgia, Jordan, 

Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, and Ukraine. 44 The following countries have commitments in the WTO accession protocols to join the GPA: Croatia, 

Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
3-8

TABLE 3.1 WTO membership in 2012

Albania Georgia Niger

Angola Germany Nigeria

Antigua and Barbuda Ghana Norway

Argentina Greece Oman

Armenia Grenada Pakistan

Australia Guatemala Panama

Austria Guinea Papua New Guinea

Bahrain Guinea-Bissau Paraguay

Bangladesh Guyana Peru

Barbados Haiti Philippines

Belgium Honduras Poland

Belize Hong Kong, China Portugal

Benin Hungary Qatar

Bolivia Iceland Romania

Botswana India Russia

Brazil Indonesia Rwanda

Brunei Darussalam Ireland Saint Kitts and Nevis

Bulgaria Israel Saint Lucia

Burkina Faso Italy Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Burma (Myanmar) Jamaica Samoa

Burundi Japan Saudi Arabia

Cambodia Jordan Senegal

Cameroon Kenya Sierra Leone

Canada Korea, Republic of Singapore

Cape Verde Kuwait Slovakia

Central African Republic Kyrgyz Slovenia

Chad Latvia Solomon Islands

Chile Lesotho South Africa

China Liechtenstein Spain

Colombia Lithuania Sri Lanka

Congo, Republic of the Luxembourg Suriname

Congo, Democratic Republic of the Macao, China Swaziland

Costa Rica Macedoniaa Sweden

Côte d’Ivoire Madagascar Switzerland

Croatia Malawi Taiwanb

Cuba Malaysia Tanzania

Cyprus Maldives Thailand

Czech Republic Mali Togo

Denmark Malta Tonga

Djibouti Mauritania Trinidad and Tobago

Dominica Mauritius Tunisia

Dominican Republic Mexico Turkey

Ecuador Moldova Uganda

Egypt Mongolia Ukraine

El Salvador Montenegro United Arab Emirates

Estonia Morocco United Kingdom

European Union Mozambique United States of America

Fiji Namibia Uruguay

Finland Nepal Vanuatu

France Netherlands Venezuela

Gabon New Zealand Vietnam

Gambia Nicaragua Zambia

Zimbabwe

Source: WTO, “Membership of the World Trade Organization.”

Note: On February 2, 2013, Laos acceded as the 158th WTO member.

 aIn the WTO, Macedonia is known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

 bIn the WTO, Taiwan is known as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, informally 

referred to as “Chinese Taipei.”
3-9

TABLE 3.2 WTO observers in 2012

Afghanistan Equatorial Guinea Serbia

Algeria Ethiopia Seychelles

Andorra Iran Sudan

Azerbaijan Iraq Syria

Bahamas Kazakhstan Tajikistan

Belarus Lebanon Uzbekistan

Bhutan Liberia Vatican (Holy See)

Bosnia and Herzegovina Libya Yemen

Comoros São Tomé and Príncipe

Source: WTO, “Understanding the WTO: the Organization––Members and Observers.” 

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm.

On March 30, 2012, the parties to the GPA formally adopted a revised agreement 

containing the negotiated offers agreed to in December 2011, as well as related items.45

The decision adopting the outcome of negotiations46 is composed of two appendixes. 

Appendix 1 contains the decision of the committee47 to adopt the protocol amending the 

agreement; the protocol,

48 which amends the agreement; an annex to the protocol, which 

establishes definitions, scope and coverage, exceptions, general principles, and similar 

items; and two appendixes. Appendix 1 to the protocol also contains the 15 final offers on 

coverage negotiated by each party to the agreement. Appendix 2 contains a number of 

decisions by the committee, set out in annexes (Annexes A–G). Five of these annexes 

establish work programs on small and medium-sized enterprises, collection and reporting 

of statistical data concerning procurement, sustainable procurement, exclusions and 

restrictions by parties to the agreement, and safety standards in international 

procurement.49

The revised GPA expands the market access commitments of the parties, estimated by the 

WTO Secretariat to be in the range of $80–$100 billion annually. Extended coverage by 

parties includes at least 400 additional procuring entities; additional coverage of services 

procurement by the majority of parties, in particular for telecommunications services; and 

additional coverage of construction services, where all parties will now cover 

construction services in full, as well as additional market access liberalization offered by 

various parties. The revised agreement now takes into account the widespread use of 

electronic procurement tools by the GPA parties and other WTO members. Transitional 

measures to assist developing countries to accede to the agreement have been clarified

and improved to provide them with special and differential treatment. The text of the 

agreement also contains a new requirement that participating governments and 

 45 WTO, Committee on Government Procurement, “Adoption of the Results of the Negotiations under 

Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement on Government Procurement,” GPA/113, April 2, 2012. 46 WTO, Decision on the Outcomes of the Negotiations under Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement on 

Government Procurement––Decision of 30 March 2012, 3. 47 WTO, Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on Adoption of the Text of “The 

Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement––Decision of 30 March 2012,” 5. 48 WTO, Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement, 6. 49 The appendix 2 decisions are formally titled: (1) Decision of the Committee on Government 

Procurement on Notification Requirements under Articles XIX and XXII of the Agreement (Annex A); (2) 

Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on Adoption of Work Programmes (Annex B); (3) 

Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on a Work Programme on SMEs (Annex C); (4) 

Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on a Work Programme on the Collection and 

Reporting of Statistical Data (Annex D); (5) Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on a 

Work Programme on Sustainable Procurement (Annex E); (6) Decision of the Committee on Government 

Procurement on a Work Programme on Exclusions and Restrictions in Parties’ Annexes (Annex F); and (7) 

Decision of the Committee on Government Procurement on a Work Programme on Safety Standards in 

International Procurement (Annex G).
3-10

procurement entities avoid conflicts of interest and prevent corrupt practices. Entry into 

force of the revised GPA remains subject to submission of formal instruments of 

acceptance by two thirds of parties to the agreement, although the majority of parties 

have confirmed their intention to do so as soon as possible in 2013.50

China, as part of its 2001 WTO Protocol of Accession, committed to begin negotiations 

for accession to the GPA, submitting its initial procurement coverage offer in December 

2007. China submitted its first revised GPA offer in July 2010, and a second revised offer 

in November 2011, the latter including several subcentral entities. China submitted a 

third revised GPA offer to the committee on November 29, 2012.

51

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aviation 

By yearend 2012, there were 32 signatories 52 to the WTO plurilateral Agreement on 

Trade in Civil Aircraft, with Montenegro becoming the 32nd signatory on November 10, 

2012.53 In addition, there were 24 observer governments to the committee by yearend.54

The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft held one meeting on November 8, 2012, where

it discussed continued work on bringing the agreement’s Product Coverage Annex into 

line with 2007 Harmonized System nomenclature.

Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products 

At the end of 2012, there were 48 participants 55 in the Information Technology 

Agreement (ITA), covering 74 countries and states, and representing approximately 96 

percent of world trade in information technology products. The Committee of 

Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products continued to 

work on its Nontariff Measures Work Program, a pilot project to survey participants 

concerning electromagnetic compatibility/electromagnetic interference (EMC/EMI) 

properties affecting information technology equipment. It also continued work on its 

 50 WTO, “Report (2012) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” GPA/116, December 6, 2012, 

par. 7, 8, 12. 51 USTR, “China,” 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Draft, March 

2013. USTR, 2012 Report to Congress On China’s WTO Compliance, December 2012, 71–72. 52 At yearend 2012, signatories to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft were Albania; Canada; 

Egypt; the EU; Georgia; Japan; Macao, China; Montenegro; Norway; Switzerland; Taiwan; and the United 

States. In addition, the following 20 EU member states are signatories to the agreement in their own right: 

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 53 WTO, “Report (2012) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft,” WT/L/869, November 26, 2012; 

WTO, “Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft Done at Geneva on 12 April 1979,” WT/Let/865, October 23, 

2012. 54 Observers to the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft at the end of 2012 were Argentina, Australia, 

Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Mauritius, 

Nigeria, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, and 

Ukraine. 55 The EU signs on behalf of its 27 member states, making them participants in the agreement. Other 

participants are Albania; Australia; Bahrain; Canada; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Croatia; Dominican 

Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; Georgia; Guatemala; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; India; Indonesia; 

Israel; Japan; Jordan; Korea; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Macao, China; Malaysia; Mauritius; Moldova; 

Montenegro; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Norway; Oman; Panama; Peru; the Philippines; Saudi 

Arabia; Singapore; Switzerland (Customs Union of Switzerland and Liechtenstein); Taiwan; Thailand; 

Turkey; Ukraine; the United Arab Emirates; the United States; and Vietnam. Counting individual countries––

the 27 EU member states, but without the European Union as a separate signatory––there were 74 countries 

participating in the agreement, who together represent the great majority of world trade in these technology 

items.
3-11

program on classification divergences––in particular for products under List I(A) items.56

The committee held two formal meetings in 2012, on May 15 and November 1.57

Colombia and Montenegro became the 73th and 74th countries in the ITA on March 28 

and May 30, respectively, upon completing their negotiations and committing to a 

schedule of liberalization.58 During the year, Russia said that it intended to fully join the 

ITA once it has completed its WTO accession, and its draft ITA schedule was circulated 

to the committee’s participants on August 1, 2012.59

On May 14–15, 2012, participants in the agreement held a symposium to mark the 15th 

anniversary of the ITA. The purpose of the symposium was to review the evolution of 

information and communications technology (ICT) products and their impact on 

developing countries; take an overview of the latest developments in the ICT sector,

including new technology, technological innovation, and global supply chains; and look

at the prospects for further expansion of trade in ICT products.60 In preparation for the 

symposium, the United States and other co-sponsors––Canada, Japan, Korea, Singapore,

and Taiwan––introduced a paper calling for negotiations to expand the ITA.

61

At their committee meeting on November 1, 2012, ITA participants reported progress in 

technical discussions on expanding product coverage under the agreement, with 17 

participants moving to compile a revised consolidated list of products for future 

circulation.62 These participants––Australia; Canada; China; Costa Rica; the EU; Hong 

Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; New Zealand; Norway; the Philippines; Singapore; 

Switzerland; Taiwan; Thailand; and the United States––began with an examination of the 

 56 WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 

“Report (2012) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology 

Products––Draft 1,” G/IT/W/37, November 1, 2012. List I(A) contains products where divergences have 

been narrowed to one classification option, whereas List I(B) contains products where divergences have been 

narrowed to two or more classifications, but where participants have nonetheless agreed upon a product’s 

classification. 57 WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 

“Report (2012) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology 

Products––Draft 1,” G/IT/W/37, November 1, 2012; WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 

Trade in Information Technology Products, “Minutes of the Meeting of 15 May 2012,” G/IT/M/55, October 

19, 2012; WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 

“Minutes of the Meeting of 15 May 2012,” G/IT/M/55, October 19, 2012. 58 WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––28 March 2012––Information Technology Agreement––Colombia 

Joins WTO’s Information Technology Agreement,” March 28, 2012; WTO, Committee of Participants on the 

Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, “Report (2012) of the Committee of Participants on 

the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products––Draft 1,” G/IT/W/37, November 1, 2012. 59 WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––15 May 2012––Information Technology Agreement––Informal 

Talks Set to Begin on Expanding the Information Technology Agreement,” May 15, 2012; WTO, Committee 

of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, “Report (2012) of the 

Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products––Draft 1,” 

G/IT/W/37, November 1, 2012. 60 WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––4 May 2012––Information Technology Agreement––Information 

Technology Agreement Marks 15th Anniversary with Two-Day Symposium,” May 4, 2012. 61 WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, 

“Concept Paper for the Expansion of the ITA,” G/IT/W/36, May 2, 2012. 62 WTO, “WTO: 2012 News Items––1 November 2012––Information Technology Agreement––

Information Technology: Progress Reported on Expanding Product Coverage,” November 1, 2012; Inside 

Washington Publishers, “ITA Negotiations Could Start In Early 2013,” November 9, 2012.
3-12

current list of over 400 products covered, and began to develop a more concise list that 

could serve as a basis for more formal negotiations in 2013 to expand coverage.63

Dispute Settlement Body

This section focuses on complaints filed before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 

(DSB), and on panel and Appellate Body findings and recommendations adopted under 

the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) during calendar year 2012 that 

involve the United States.64 Appendix table A.23 shows developments during 2012 in the 

WTO dispute settlement proceedings in which the United States was either a complainant 

or respondent. Box 3.1 provides an overview of the WTO dispute settlement process. The 

summaries in this section are intended to identify key issues raised in the complaints, 

note key procedural events as the disputes move forward, and indicate the panel or 

Appellate Body rulings. The summaries should not be regarded as comprehensive or as 

reflecting a U.S. government interpretation of the issues raised or addressed in the 

disputes or in panel or Appellate Body reports. The summaries are based entirely on 

information in publicly available documents, including summaries published online by 

the WTO and news releases issued by U.S. government agencies.

This section does not generally address matters that arose during the compliance stage of 

disputes after the adoption by the DSB of the panel or Appellate Body report in the 

original dispute. As indicated in box 3.1, dispute settlement litigation does not necessarily 

end when the DSB adopts a panel or Appellate Body report that addresses the matters 

raised in the original dispute. Rather, the litigation may continue during a compliance 

stage, when the member whose actions were the subject of the adopted report is expected

to comply with any DSB recommendations and rulings. Proceedings at the compliance 

stage can be complex and continue for several years. There were a significant number of 

disputes in the compliance stage during all or part of 2012, including two high-profile 

disputes brought by the United States and the European Communities (EC), 65

respectively, against each other’s large civilian aircraft measures.66

 63 For additional information, see USITC, The Information Technology Agreement––Advice and 

Information on the Proposed Expansion: Part 1, October 2012; USITC, The Information Technology 

Agreement––Advice and Information on the Proposed Expansion: Part 2, February 2013. 64 For additional information on the WTO dispute settlement process, the DSU, and individual dispute 

cases, see the WTO, “Dispute Settlement” at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm. 65 In this report’s WTO dispute settlement section, the term “European Communities” (EC) is used 

rather than “EU” if the source document WTO online summary uses “EC.” 66 See DS316, European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, online 

summary, report adopted by the DSB in June 2011. On December 9, 2011, the United States sought 

authorization from the DSB to take countermeasures against the EU. On December 22, 2011, the EU objected 

to the level of suspension sought by the United States and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration 

under Article 22.6 of the DSU. The matter was referred to arbitration, but on January 19, 2012, the United 

States and the EU requested that the arbitrator suspend its work. The proceedings were then suspended until 

either party requests their resumption. See also DS353, United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large 

Civil Aircraft—Second Complaint, online summary, report adopted in May 2012. On September 23, 2012, 

the United States notified the DSB of the withdrawal of subsidies and removal of adverse effects in this 

dispute and stated that it had fully complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings. On September 25, 

2012, the EU requested consultations pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. On October 11, 2012, the EU 

requested establishment of a compliance panel, which was established on October 23, 2012, and composed 

on October 30, 2012. On January 15, 2013, the chairman of the panel informed the DSB that it expects to 

circulate its report during the first half of 2014. On September 27, 2012, the EU requested authorization from 

the DSB to take countermeasures under Article 22 of the DSU, and on October 22, 2012, the United States 

objected to the proposal and referred the matter to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. The matter 

was referred to arbitration on October 23, 2012. On November 27, 2012, the United States and the EU asked 

the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceedings.
3-13

New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established 

During 2012, WTO members filed 27 new requests for WTO dispute settlement 

consultations, compared with 8 in 2011, 17 in 2010, and 14 in 2009. The United States 

was either the complainant or named respondent in 11 of the 27 requests filed during 

2012, followed by China and Argentina, which were either the complainant or named 

respondent in 10 and 8 of the requests, respectively. The United States filed the most 

requests during 2012 (5), followed by China, Argentina, and Japan (3 each). China was 

the named respondent in the most disputes (7), followed by the United States (6 disputes).

Eleven new dispute settlement panels were established in 2012 (table 3.3), including 3 at 

the request of the United States against China and 2 by China against the United States. 

This compares with 7 panels established in 2011, 7 in 2010, 10 in 2009, and 5 in 2008.

Requests for consultations filed during 2012 in which the United States was the 

complaining party or named respondent 

Three of the five requests for dispute settlement consultations filed by the United States 

during 2012 concerned measures taken by China—China’s measures related to the 

BOX 3.1 Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedures

The WTO DSU establishes a framework for the resolution of disputes that arise between members 

under the WTO agreements.a Under the DSU, a member may file a complaint with the WTO DSB. After 

filing, the member must first seek to resolve the dispute through consultations with the named 

respondent party.b If the parties fail to resolve the dispute through consultations, the complaining party 

may ask the DSB to establish a panel to review the matters raised by the complaint and make findings 

and recommendations.

c Either party may appeal issues of law covered in the panel report and legal 

interpretations developed by the panel to the WTO’s Appellate Body.d

The findings and recommendations of the Appellate Body and of the panel (as modified by the Appellate 

Body) are then adopted by the DSB unless there is a consensus by the members to reject the ruling. 

While the guidelines suggest that panels should complete their proceedings in six months, and the 

Appellate Body should complete its review in 60 days, these periods are often extended.

Once the panel report or the Appellate Body report is adopted, the party concerned must notify the DSB 

of its intentions with respect to implementing the adopted recommendations.e If it is impracticable to 

comply immediately, the party concerned is given a reasonable period of time to comply, with the time to 

be decided either through agreement of the parties and approval by the DSB, or through arbitration. 

Further provisions set out rules for compensation or the suspension of concessions in the event the 

respondent fails to implement the recommendations.f Within a specified timeframe, parties can enter into 

negotiations to agree on mutually acceptable compensation. Should the parties fail to reach agreement, 

a party to the dispute may request the DSB’s authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations 

to the other party concerned. Disagreements over the proposed level of suspension may be referred to 

arbitration.

 

 a

WTO,”Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,” 1995.

 b

WTO DSU, Article 4.

 c

WTO DSU, Article 6.

 d

WTO DSU, Article 17.6.

 e

WTO DSU, Article 21.3.

 f

WTO DSU, Article 22.
3-14

TABLE 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2012

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Panel established

DS420 Korea United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures 

on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Korea

February 22, 2012; 

(on June 12, 2012, 

Korea asked that 

the panel be 

suspended)

DS425 EU China China—Definitive Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on X-Ray Security 

Inspection Equipment from the 

European Union

January 20, 2012

DS426 EU Canada Canada—Measures Relating to the 

Feed-in Tariff Program 

January 20, 2012

DS427 United States China China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler 

Products from the United States

January 20, 2012

DS430 United States India India—Measures Concerning the 

Importation of Certain Agricultural 

Products from the United States

June 25, 2012

DS431, 

DS432, 

DS433 

DS434

United States

EU

Japan

Ukraine

China

China

China

Australia

China—Measures Related to the 

Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten 

and Molybdenum

Australia—Certain Measures 

Concerning Trademarks and Other Plain 

Packaging Requirements Applicable to 

Tobacco Products and Packaging

July 23, 2012, 

single panel for 

DS431, DS432, 

DS433

September 28, 

2012

DS436

DS437

DS440

DS449

India

China

United States

China

United States

United States

China

United States

United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India

United States—Countervailing Duty 

Measures on Certain Products from 

China

China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Automobiles from the United States

United States—Countervailing and Antidumping Measures on Certain Products 

from China

August 31, 2012

September 28, 

2012

October 23, 2012

December 17, 

2012

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed March 

15, 2013).
3-15

exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum, 67 China’s antidumping and

countervailing duties on U.S. automobiles, 68 and China’s measures affecting the

automobile and automotive parts industries.69 The remaining two concerned Argentina’s 

measures affecting the importation of certain goods70 and India’s measures concerning 

importation of certain agricultural goods.71 Panels were established during 2012 in two of 

the five disputes: the dispute with China related to exportation of rare earths, and the 

dispute with India. The issues raised in these two disputes are described in greater detail 

in the next section.

The United States was the named respondent in six disputes filed in 2012, two filed by 

China, two by Argentina, one by Vietnam, and one by India. The two disputes filed by 

China concerned U.S. countervailing duty measures on certain products from China,72

and U.S. countervailing and antidumping measures on certain products from China.73 The 

two filed by Argentina concerned U.S. measures affecting the importation of animals, 

meat, and other animal products from Argentina, 74 and U.S. measures affecting the 

importation of fresh lemons. 75 Vietnam filed a dispute concerning U.S. antidumping 

measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam,76 and India filed a dispute 

concerning U.S. countervailing measures on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 

from India.77 Panels were established in three of the six disputes during 2012: the two 

disputes brought by China and the dispute brought by India. The issues raised in these 

three disputes are described in greater detail in the next section.

Panels established during 2012 at the request of the United States 

As indicated in table 3.3, during 2012 the DSB established four panels at the request of 

the United States. The issues raised and the procedural histories of the four disputes are 

summarized below.

 67 WTO, DSB, DS431: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and 

Molybdenum, online summary (accessed March 12, 2013). 68 WTO, DSB, DS440: China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from 

the United States, online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). 69 WTO, DSB, DS450: China—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile and Automobile-Parts 

Industries, online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). 70 WTO, DSB, DS444: Argentina—Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods, online summary 

(accessed March 6, 2013). A single panel was established on January 28, 2013, to examine this dispute and 

disputes DS438 and DS445, filed by the EU and Japan, respectively. In a press release the USTR cited import 

licensing requirements as well as trade-balancing requirements and other schemes under which companies 

seeking to obtain authorization to import products must agree to (1) export goods of an equal or greater value, 

(2) make investments in Argentina, (3) lower prices of imported goods, and/or (4) refrain from repatriating 

profits. USTR, “United States Challenges Argentina’s Widespread Use of Import Restrictions,” August 21, 

2012. 71 WTO, DSB, DS430: India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products 

from the United States, online summary (accessed March 14, 2013). 72 WTO, DSB, DS437: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, 

online summary (accessed January 8, 2013).

73 WTO, DSB, DS449: United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 

Products from China, online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). 74 WTO, DSB, DS447: United States—Measures Affecting the Importation of Animals, Meat and Other 

Animal Products from Argentina, online summary (accessed March 7, 2013). A panel was established on 

January 28, 2013. 75 WTO, DSB, DS448: United States—Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Lemons, online 

summary (accessed March 6, 2013). 76 WTO, DSB, DS429: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Viet Nam, online summary (accessed March 14, 2013). A panel was established on February 27, 2013. 77 WTO, DSB, DS436: United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India, online summary (accessed March 13, 2013).
3-16

China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products 

from the United States (DS427). In this dispute, filed on September 20, 2011, the 

United States alleged that the measures imposed by China appear to be inconsistent with 

various provisions of Articles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement and

also appear to be inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994, including improper 

reliance on the facts available and insufficient explanation of the basis for the 

determinations. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked 

that a panel be established. A panel was established on January 20, 2012, and composed 

(i.e., panelists were chosen) on May 24, 2012. On November 23, 2012, the chairman of 

the panel notified the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within six months.

The panel expected to conclude its work by the end of June 2013.78

India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products 

from the United States (DS430). In this dispute, filed on March 6, 2012, the United 

States alleged that the Indian Livestock Importation Act, 1898, orders issued under the 

act, and related measures appear to be inconsistent with certain articles of the WTO 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and Articles I and XI of the GATT 1994 and 

appear to nullify or impair U.S. benefits accruing directly or indirectly under those 

agreements. 79 More specifically, the United States challenged India’s prohibition on 

certain American agricultural exports, including poultry meat and chicken eggs. India 

claims that its trade ban is aimed at preventing avian influenza, but the United States 

claims that India has not provided scientific evidence in line with international standards 

on avian-influenza control.80 After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United 

States asked that a panel be established. A panel was established on June 25, 2012, and 

composed on February 18, 2013.81

China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and 

Molybdenum (DS431). In this dispute, filed on March 13, 2012, the United States 

alleged that China, through published and unpublished measures, imposes and 

administers restrictions on the export of various forms of rare earths, tungsten, and 

molybdenum. The United States alleged that these restrictions include export duties, 

export quotas, minimum export price requirements, export licensing requirements, and 

additional requirements and procedures in connection with the administration of the 

quantitative restrictions. The United States claimed that these measures are inconsistent 

with Article VII, VIII, X, and XI of the GATT 1994 and certain specified paragraphs of 

China’s WTO Protocol of Accession. On June 27, 2012, after consultations failed to 

resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be established. As Japan and the 

EU had also requested consultations to address allegations about similar restrictions and 

had also requested establishment of a panel, the DSB on July 23, 2012, established a 

 78 WTO, DSB, DS427: China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products 

from the United States, online summary (accessed February 27, 2013). 79 WTO, DSB, DS430: India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products 

from the United States, online summary (accessed March 14, 2013). 80 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Enforces Rights of U.S. Farmers,” March 6, 2012. 81 WTO, DSB, DS430: India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products 

from the United States, online summary (accessed March 14, 2013).
3-17

single panel to examine the U.S. dispute (DS431), the EU dispute (DS432), and the 

Japanese dispute (DS433). The panel was composed on September 24, 2012.82

China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from the 

United States (DS440). In this dispute, filed on July 5, 2012, the United States alleged 

that the measures imposed by China appear to be inconsistent with various provisions of 

Articles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement and also to be 

inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994, including improper reliance on the facts 

available and insufficient explanation of the basis for the determinations. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be 

established. A panel was established on October 23, 2012, and composed on February 11, 

2013.83

Panels established during 2012 in which the United States was the named respondent 

As indicated in table 3.3, the DSB established four panels during 2012 in which the 

United States was the named respondent. As of the end of 2012, the panel proceedings in 

three of the four disputes were still pending, with the panel proceeding in the fourth 

dispute, brought by Korea, suspended. The issues raised and the procedural histories of 

the four disputes are summarized below.

United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea (DS420). In this dispute, filed in January 31, 2011, Korea alleged 

that a number of U.S. antidumping measures on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products from Korea were inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Article VI of the 

GATT 1994, several provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI of the 

WTO Agreement. More specifically, Korea’s request for consultations concerned several 

U.S. laws, regulations, administrative proceedings, and practices related to the use of 

“zeroing” methodology84 in antidumping determinations concerning the products at issue.

After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, Korea asked on September 15, 2011, that 

a panel be established. On September 27, 2011, before a panel was established, Korea 

withdrew the request. On February 9, 2012, Korea again requested the establishment of a 

panel, and the DSB established a panel on February 22, 2012. On June 12, 2012, before 

 82 WTO, DSB, DS431:China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and

Molybdenum, online summary (accessed March 12, 2013). In a press release issued at the time the dispute 

was filed, the USTR, in noting that the United States had recently won a WTO challenge in DS394 against 

China’s export restraints on nine other industrial inputs, characterized China’s export restraint measures on 

rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum as “appear[ing] to be part of the same troubling industrial policy 

aimed at providing substantial competitive advantages for Chinese manufacturers.” USTR, “United States 

Challenges China’s Export Restraints,” March 13, 2012. 83 WTO, DSB, DS440: China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from 

the United States, online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). In a press release issued at the time the 

dispute was filed, the USTR said that the United States believes that China initiated the investigations 

without sufficient evidence, failed to objectively examine the evidence, and made unsupported findings of 

injury to China’s domestic industry. The USTR also said that China failed to disclosed “essential facts” 

underlying its conclusions, failed to provide an adequate explanation of its conclusions, improperly used 

investigative procedures, and failed to require nonconfidential summaries of Chinese company submissions. 

USTR, “Obama Administration Challenges China’s Unfair Imposition of Duties,” July 5, 2012. 84 Prior to 2006, USDOC engaged in a practice called “zeroing,” in which it treated non-dumped 

transactions as having a zero margin for purposes of computing a weighted average dumping margin for a 

class or kind of subject merchandise. USDOC has changed this practice in response to adverse rulings from 

the WTO. Under the revised practice, USDOC uses the non-dumped transactions as an offset to dumped 

transactions.
3-18

the panel had been composed, Korea requested that the panel proceedings be 

suspended.85

United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India (DS436). In this dispute, filed on April 24, 2012, India alleged that 

the U.S. countervailing duty investigation and countervailing duties imposed on certain 

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India are inconsistent with Articles I and VI of 

the GATT 1994 and with certain articles of the SCM Agreement. After consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, India asked that a panel be established. A panel was 

established on August 31, 2012, and composed on February 18, 2013.86

United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China 

(DS437). In this dispute, filed on May 25, 2012, China challenged various aspects of 

certain identified U.S. countervailing duty investigations, including their opening, 

conduct, and the preliminary and final determinations that led to the imposition of 

countervailing duties. China also challenged the “rebuttable presumption” allegedly 

established and applied by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) that majority 

government ownership is sufficient grounds for treating an enterprise as a “public body.”

China claims that the U.S. measures are inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994, 

Articles 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 of the SCM Agreement, and Article 15 of the Protocol of 

Accession of China. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, China requested that 

a panel be established. A panel was established on September 28, 2012, and composed on 

November 26, 2012.87

United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products 

from China (DS449). In this dispute, filed on September 17, 2012, China challenged the 

following U.S. measures: (1) new U.S. legislation in Public Law 112-99 that explicitly 

allows the application of countervailing measures to non-market economy countries; (2) 

countervailing duty determinations or actions made or performed by U.S. authorities 

between November 20, 2006, and March 13, 2012, with respect to Chinese products; (3) 

antidumping measures associated with the countervailing duty measures involved as well 

as the combined effect of these antidumping measures and the parallel countervailing 

duty measures; and (4) the United States’ failure to give the USDOC the legal authority 

to identify and avoid double remedies connected with investigations or reviews initiated 

on or between November 20, 2006 and March 13, 2012. China claimed that these 

measures are inconsistent with Articles 10, 15, 19, 21, and 32 of the SCM Agreement, 

Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994, and Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping 

Agreement. After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, China requested that a panel 

be established. A panel was established on December 17, 2012, and composed on March 

4, 2013.88

 85 WTO, DSB, DS420: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Korea, online summary (accessed March 5, 2013). 86 WTO, DSB, DS436: United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India, online summary (accessed March 13, 2013). 87 WTO, DSB, DS437: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, 

online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). 88 WTO, DSB, DS449: United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 

Products from China, online summary (accessed March 7, 2013).
3-19

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2012 that 

Involve the United States 

During 2012, the DSB adopted panel and/or Appellate Body reports in original disputes89

in 10 cases in which the United States was the complainant or a respondent (table 3.4).

The reports in 9 of the 10 cases are summarized below. The report in the 10th, which was 

issued in 2011 and adopted in January 2012, was summarized in the 2011 Year in Trade

report.

Reports in which the United States was the complainant 

China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (DS394). A 

more complete description of this dispute, filed in June 2009, can be found in the 

Commission’s report on The Year in Trade 2011. In this dispute, the United States 

alleged that China imposed restraints on exports of various forms of raw materials in 

violation of Articles VIII, X, and XI of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, and 

11.3 of part I of China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO, as well as China’s 

obligations under paragraph 1.2 of part I of China’s Protocol of Accession. The panel was 

charged with examining this dispute, as well as two disputes involving similar issues 

brought by the EU and Mexico (DS395 and DS398). The panel report was circulated to 

members on July 5, 2011.

The dispute concerned four types of export restraints (export duties, export quotas, 

minimum export price requirements, and export licensing requirements) that China

imposes on nine raw materials. The materials include various forms of bauxite, coke, 

fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and

zinc, for almost all of which China is a leading global producer. The complainants90

collectively identified 40 specific Chinese measures in connection with their claims. They 

argued that the use of export restraints creates scarcity and raises the prices of these raw 

materials in global markets, giving the Chinese industry an advantage in the form of a 

sufficient supply of the raw materials and a stable price. The panel found the export 

duties to be inconsistent with China’s commitments in its Protocol of Accession under 

which China agreed to eliminate all export duties (except on certain listed products) and 

agreed not to apply export quotas. The panel also found that the wording of the protocol 

did not allow China to use the general exceptions in Article XX of the GATT 1994 to 

justify its WTO-inconsistent export duties and that, even if the protocol did, China had 

not complied with the requirements for those exceptions. The panel also rejected as 

insufficiently supported certain arguments made by China relating to the conservation of 

exhaustible natural resources and protection of the health of its citizens. The panel also 

found that certain aspects of China’s export licensing regime relating to the products 

were inconsistent with WTO rules.

Both China and the United States appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations 

of the panel report. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to members on 

January 30, 2012, and adopted by the DSB on February 22, 2012 (along with the panel 

report as modified by the Appellate Body report). The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s 

recommendation that China bring its export duty and export quota measures into 

conformity with its WTO obligations. However, the Appellate Body found that the panel

 89 As opposed to panel and Appellate Body reports issued in subsequent compliance proceedings. 90 Other complainants include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the EU, India, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Turkey.
3-20

TABLE 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated or adopted in 2012 in which the 

United States was a party

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name

Date of report 

circulation or adoption

DS353 European 

Communities

United States United States—Measures Affecting Trade 

in Large Civil Aircraft—Second Complaint

AB report adopted 

(March 23, 2012).

DS381 Mexico United States United States—Measures Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna 

and Tuna Products

AB report adopted 

(June 13, 2012).

DS384, 

DS386

Canada, Mexico United States United States—Certain Country of Origin 

Labeling (COOL) Requirements

AB report adopted 

(July 23, 2012).

DS394 United States China China—Measures Related to the 

Exportation of Various Raw Materials

AB report adopted 

(Feb. 22, 2012).

DS403a United States Philippines Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits AB report adopted 

(Jan. 20, 2012).

DS406 Indonesia United States United States—Measures Affecting the 

Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes

AB report adopted 

(April 24, 2012).

DS413 United States China China—Certain Measures Affecting 

Electronic Payment Services

Panel report adopted 

(Aug. 31, 2012).

DS414 United States China China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping 

Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled 

Electrical Steel from the United States

Panel report circulated 

(June 15, 2012); AB 

report adopted (Nov. 

16, 2012).

DS422 China United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on 

Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from 

China

AB report adopted 

(July 23, 2012).

Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed March 20, 

2013).

 aFor a description of DS403, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 3-23.

erred in making findings regarding 37 of the challenged measures because the 

complainants had failed to provide sufficiently clear linkages between these 37 measures 

and the broad range of obligations in the covered agreements that were allegedly violated 

by China. The Appellate Body upheld the panel on several other findings, including that 

China’s Accession Protocol did not allow China to use the exceptions in Article XX of 

the GATT 1994 to justify export duties that are inconsistent with China’s obligations 

under Paragraph 11.3 of China’s Accession Protocol.91

China informed the DSB on March 23, 2012, of its intention to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings, and China and the United States notified the DSB on May 

24, 2012, that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to do so would 

 91 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, online 

summary (accessed January 8, 2013). See also USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces U.S. 

Victory in Challenge to China’s Raw Materials Export Restraints,” January 27, 2012.
3-21

be December 31, 2012. On January 17, 2013, China and the United States informed the 

DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.92

China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services (DS413). In this 

dispute, filed in September 2010, the United States alleged that China appears to be 

acting inconsistently with its obligations under Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS in 

restrictions and requirements pertaining to electronic payment services for payment card 

transactions and the suppliers of those services. The United States alleged that China 

permits only a Chinese entity (China Union Pay) to supply electronic payment services 

for payment card transactions denominated and paid in renminbi (RMB) in China; that 

China requires all payment card processing devices to be compatible with that entity’s 

system, and requires that payment cards bear that company’s logo; and that the Chinese 

entity has guaranteed access to all merchants in China that accept payment cards, while 

services suppliers of other WTO members must negotiate for access to merchants. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be 

established. A panel was established on March 25, 2011, and composed on July 4, 2011.

The panel report was circulated to members on July 16, 2012, and adopted by the DSB on 

August 31, 2012. While the panel rejected the U.S. claim, on the basis of insufficient 

evidence, that China maintains China Union Pay as an across-the-board monopoly 

supplier for the processing of all domestic RMB payment card transactions, the panel 

concluded that China maintains the company as a monopoly supplier for the clearing of 

certain types of RMB-denominated payment card transactions, and that China in this 

regard acted inconsistently with the its mode 3 market access commitment under Article 

XVI:2(a) of the GATS. With respect to the other Chinese requirements, the panel found 

that China maintains a requirement that all payment cards issued in China bear the 

“YinLian”/ “Union Pay” logo and be interoperable with that network; a requirement that 

all terminal equipment in China must be capable of accepting “YinLian”/ “Union Pay”

logo cards; and a requirement that acquiring institutions post the “YinLian”/ “Union Pay”

logo and be capable of accepting all payment cards bearing the “YinLian”/ “Union Pay”

logo. The panel found each of these requirements to be inconsistent with China’s mode 1 

and mode 3 national treatment obligations under Article XVII of the GATS, and that 

China, through these requirements, modifies the conditions of competition in favor of

China Union Pay and therefore fails to provide national treatment to electronic payment 

service suppliers of other members, contrary to China’s commitments.

At the DSB meeting on September 28, 2012, China stated that it intended to implement 

the DSB’s recommendations and ruling in a manner that respects its WTO obligations.

On November 22, 2012, China and the United States informed the DSB that the 

reasonable period of time for doing so would expire on July 31, 2013.93

China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled 

Electrical Steel from the United States (DS414). In this dispute, filed in September 

2010, the United States alleged that China acted inconsistently with its obligations under 

certain articles of the SCM Agreement and the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI 

of the GATT 1994 in imposing countervailing duties and antidumping duties on grainoriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the United States. The U.S. subsidies that China 

 92 WTO, DSB, DS394: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, online 

summary (accessed March 5, 2013). 93 WTO, DSB, DS413: China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services, online 

summary (accessed January 8, 2013). See also USTR, “USTR Requests WTO Dispute Settlement Panels in 

Two Cases against China,” February 11, 2011.
3-22

determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and state government procurement laws. After 

consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States asked that a panel be 

established; the panel was established on March 25, 2011, and composed on May 10, 

2011.

The panel report was circulated to WTO members on June 15, 2012, and it upheld most 

of the claims made by the United States. More specifically, the panel upheld U.S. claims 

(1) with respect to the initiation of certain countervailing duty investigations, (2) with 

respect to the adequacy of nonconfidential summaries, (3) with respect to the use of facts 

available, (4) with respect to the price effects analysis of China’s Ministry of Commerce 

(MOFCOM), and (5) with respect to MOFCOM’s causation analysis. On July 20, 2012, 

China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 

law and legal interpretations covered by the panel report.

The Appellate Body report was circulated to members on October 18, 2012. China’s 

appeal was limited to the panel’s findings in relation to MOFCOM’s price effects finding 

and the related disclosure of underlying facts. The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s 

findings that the MOFCOM’s price effects finding, failure to disclose underlying facts, 

and failure to explain its determination were inconsistent with certain articles of the AntiDumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement.

On November 16, 2012, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, 

as upheld by the Appellate Body. At the DSB meeting on November 30, 2012, China 

stated that it intended to implement the DSB recommendations rulings and that it would 

need a reasonable period of time to do so. On February 8, 2013, the United States 

requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration 

pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On February 28, 2013, the Director-General 

appointed an arbitrator.94

Reports in which the United States was the respondent 

United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint (DS353). In this dispute, the EC alleged that the United States provides 

prohibited and actionable subsidies at the federal, state, and local level to U.S. producers 

of large civil aircraft that are inconsistent with Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the SCM Agreement 

and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The EC cited 10 categories of measures and 

estimated the total amount of the alleged subsidies was $19.1 billion between 1989 and 

2006, with more than half this amount accounted for by alleged research and 

development (R&D) subsidies directed toward the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). A panel was established on February 17, 2006, and composed 

on November 22, 2006. The report of the panel was delayed numerous times due to the 

substantive and procedural complexities of the dispute.

The panel report was circulated to members on March 31, 2011. The panel upheld the 

EC’s claims with respect to some of the measures maintained by the states of 

Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and municipalities therein, the NASA aeronautics R&D 

measures, some of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) aeronautics R&D measures, 

and tax breaks relating to the U.S. Foreign Sales Corporations and Extraterritorial Income 

 94 WTO, DSB, DS414: China—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flatrolled Electrical Steel from the United States, online summary (accessed March 14, 2013). See also USTR, 

“United States Prevails in Steel Dispute with China,” October 18, 2012.
3-23

Exclusion Act and successor acts. The panel estimated the total amount of these subsidies 

between 1989 and 2006 to have been at least $5.3 billion. The panel either rejected other 

EC claims or exercised judicial economy and did not make findings. On April 1, 2011, 

the EU notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 

law covered in the panel report and certain legal interpretations, and on April 28, 2011, 

the United States also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal.

The Appellate Body circulated its report to members on March 12, 2012, and on March 

23, 2012, adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the 

Appellate Body. With regard to measures under the NASA R&D programs and the U.S. 

DOD programs at issue, the Appellate Body found the payments and access to facilities, 

equipment, and employees provided to Boeing constitute financial contributions within 

the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, but took a different approach 

than the panel in reaching that conclusion. Among other things, the Appellate Body 

upheld, for different reasons, the panel’s finding that the payment and access to facilities, 

equipment, and employees provided under the NASA procurement contract, and 

payments and access to facilities provided under the U.S. DOD assistance instruments,

conferred a benefit on Boeing within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM 

Agreement. The Appellate Body also upheld in part and reversed in part certain panel 

findings regarding Washington State tax reductions and Wichita, Kansas, Industrial 

Revenue Bonds and their effects.

On September 25, 2012, the EU requested consultations pursuant to Article 21.5 of the 

DSU, and on October 11, 2012, requested the establishment of a compliance panel. A 

compliance panel was composed on October 30, 2012, and on January 15, 2013, the 

chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the panel, in view of the complexity of the 

dispute, expects to circulate its report with the first half of 2014.

On September 27, 2012, the EU requested authorization by the DSB to take 

countermeasures under Article 22 of the DSU and Articles 4, 10, and 7.9 of the SCM 

Agreement. The United States objected to the level of suspension of concessions or other 

obligations, and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 

22.6 of the DSU. At the DSB meeting on October 23, 2012, it was agreed that the matter 

should be referred to arbitration. On November 27, 2012, the arbitrator received requests 

from the United States and the EU to suspend the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator 

suspended the arbitration proceedings on November 28, 2012.95

United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna 

and Tuna Products (DS381). In this dispute, Mexico challenged the United States’

“dolphin-safe” labeling provisions. Mexico alleged that the U.S. measures—which 

establish the conditions for use of a “dolphin-safe” label on tuna products, and which

condition access to the USDOC label upon the provision of documentary evidence that 

varies depending on the area where the tuna product is harvested and the fishing method

used—are inconsistent with Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 

and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. Mexico asserted that the measures are discriminatory and 

 95 WTO, DSB, DS353: United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft–Second 

Complaint, online summary (accessed March 12, 2013). See also USTR, “United States Prevails in WTO 

Dispute over Large Civil Aircraft,” March 31, 2011; and USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Announces 

U.S. Victory,” March 12, 2012. According to the USTR’s press release, the Appellate Body found between 

$3 billion and $4 billion in U.S. subsidies, in the form of research funded by NASA and the Department of 

Defense and tax breaks granted by the state of Washington and city of Wichita, as well as lost sales of just 

over 100 aircraft.
3-24

also unnecessary. A panel was established on April 20, 2009, and composed on 

December 14, 2009.

The panel report was circulated to members on September 15, 2011. The panel rejected 

Mexico’s first claim, finding that the U.S. labeling provisions do not discriminate against 

Mexican tuna products and are not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 

The panel also rejected Mexico’s claim under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, finding 

that the U.S. labeling requirements are not in violation of this provision, which requires 

that technical regulations be based on relevant international standards where possible. 

(The panel found that international standards identified to the panel by Mexico would not 

be appropriate or effective to achieve the U.S. objectives.) However, with respect to 

Mexico’s claim under Article 2.2, the panel found that Mexico had demonstrated that the 

U.S. provisions are more trade-restrictive than necessary in light of the fact that they only 

partly address the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States and the fact that 

Mexico had provided the panel with a less restrictive alternative that could provide the 

same level of protection. The panel declined to rule on Mexico’s nondiscrimination 

claims under GATT 1994 on judicial economy grounds. After the Mexico and the United 

States were granted an extension of time for filing an appeal, the United States notified 

the DSB on January 20, 2012, of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal 

interpretations developed by the panel, and on January 25, 2012, Mexico did so as well.

The Appellate Body report was circulated to members on May 16, 2012. With respect to 

Mexico’s claim under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body reversed 

the panel’s finding that the U.S. “dolphin-safe” labeling provisions are not inconsistent 

with Article 2.1, and found instead that the U.S. measure is inconsistent. Among other 

things, the Appellate Body reasoned that the U.S. measure modifies the conditions of 

competition to the detriment of Mexican tuna products by excluding most Mexican tuna 

products from access to the “dolphin-safe” label while granting access to most U.S. tuna 

products and tuna products from other countries. With regard to Mexico’s claim under 

Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that 

Mexico had demonstrated that the U.S. “dolphin-safe” labeling provisions are more trade 

restrictive than necessary to fulfill the United States’ legitimate objectives. The Appellate 

Body reasoned that the panel had conducted a flawed analysis and comparison between 

the challenged measure and the alternative measure proposed by Mexico. The Appellate 

Body did not disagree with the panel’s conclusion that the U.S. measure at issue is not 

inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the 

Appellate Body report, at its meeting on June 13, 2012. At the DSB meeting on June 25, 

2012, the United States said that it intends to implement the DSB recommendations and 

ruling, and the United States and Mexico subsequently advised the DSB that a reasonable 

time for the United States to do so is by July 13, 2013.

96

United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements (DS384) 

and United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements (DS386). In 

these disputes, Canada and Mexico, respectively, challenged mandatory country of origin 

labeling (COOL) provisions in U.S. legislation that applied to certain covered agricultural 

commodities, including beef and pork, and were implemented through U.S. Department 

 96 WTO, DSB, DS381: United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of 

Tuna and Tuna Products, online summary (accessed March 11, 2013).
3-25

of Agriculture regulations. 97 These regulations included an obligation to inform retail 

consumers of the country of origin of the covered commodities. It also required that a 

commodity, in order to be labeled as exclusively of U.S. origin, had to be born, raised, 

and slaughtered in the United States. Canada and Mexico variously alleged that the U.S. 

measures were inconsistent with Articles III, IX, and X of the GATT 1994, Articles 2 and 

12 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and Articles 2, 

5, and 7 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement. On November 19, 

2009, the DSB established a single panel to consider both disputes.

The panel report was circulated to members on November 18, 2011. The panel affirmed 

that the United States has the right under WTO rules to adopt COOL requirements and 

also confirmed that the United States had adopted the requirements to provide consumers 

with information about the origin of the meat products. However, the panel disagreed 

with the way in which the United States designed its requirements. The panel found the 

U.S. COOL statutory provisions and regulations violate Article 2.1 of the TBT 

Agreement by according less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs 

and Mexican cattle than to like domestic products, and also found that the requirements 

do not fulfill the legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin, 

and therefore violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The panel also found that a letter 

issued by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on the implementation of the COOL measure 

constitutes unreasonable administration of the measure in violation of Article X:3(a) of 

the GATT 1994. However, the panel determined that Mexico failed to demonstrate that 

the COOL regulations violate Articles 2.4, 12.3, and 12.1 of the TBT Agreement. The 

panel did not find it necessary to rule on certain other claims under Articles III and 

Article XXIII of the GATT 1994. Following an extension of the appeal deadline, the 

United States on March 23, 2012, and Canada and Mexico on March 28, 2012, notified 

the DSB of their respective decisions to appeal certain issues of law covered in the panel 

report and certain legal interpretations developed by the panel.

The Appellate Body report was circulated to members on June 29, 2012, and adopted by 

the DSB on July 23, 2012 (along with the panel report, as modified by the Appellate 

Body report). The appeal concerned primarily the U.S. COOL measure (the U.S. 

statutory provisions and regulations) and the panel’s findings that the measure is 

inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The Appellate Body 

upheld, for different reasons, the panel’s finding that the COOL measure violates Article 

2.1 of the TBT Agreement by according less favorable treatment to imported Canadian 

cattle and hogs and Mexican cattle than to like domestic cattle and hogs. The Appellate 

Body found the panel’s analysis to be incomplete because it did not go on to consider 

whether the de facto detrimental impact stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory 

distinction, in which case it would not violate Article 2.1. The Appellate Body found the 

COOL measure to lack evenhandedness because of its recordkeeping and verification 

requirements, and thus found that the detrimental impact on imported livestock cannot be 

said to stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction. The Appellate Body 

reversed the panel’s finding that the COOL measure violates Article 2.2 of the TBT 

Agreement. The Appellate Body found that the panel had erred both in its analysis and in 

ignoring its own findings, which demonstrated that the COOL measure does contribute, 

at least to some extent, to achieving its objective of providing consumer information on 

origin.

 97 Specifically, provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), 

and as implemented through an interim final rule in 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65.
3-26

On August 21, 2012, the United States informed the DSB that it intended to implement 

the DSB recommendations and rulings and would need a reasonable period of time to do 

so. Canada requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding 

arbitration, and on October 4, 2012, the Director-General appointed an arbitrator. On 

December 4, 2012, the WTO arbitrator issued a determination announcing that the 

reasonable period of time would be until May 23, 2013. 98

United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes 

(DS406). In this dispute, Indonesia challenged a U.S. ban on clove cigarettes. Indonesia 

alleged that section 907 of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act signed into 

law on June 22, 2009,

99 prohibits the production or sale in the United States of cigarettes 

containing certain additives, including clove, but would continue to permit the production 

and sale of other cigarettes, including cigarettes containing menthol. Indonesia alleged 

that section 907 is inconsistent, inter alia, with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, Article 2 

of the TBT Agreement, and various provisions of the SPS Agreement. After consultations 

failed to resolve the dispute, Indonesia requested establishment of a panel. A panel was 

established on July 20, 2010, and composed on September 9, 2010.

The panel report was circulated to members on September 2, 2011. Indonesia made two 

main claims—that the ban is discriminatory, and that it restricts trade more than 

necessary. The panel agreed with Indonesia on the first claim. It found the measure to be 

a technical regulation that falls within the scope of the TBT Agreement and found the 

U.S. ban to be inconsistent with the national treatment obligation in Article 2.1 of the 

TBT Agreement because it accords less favorable treatment to clove cigarettes than to 

menthol cigarettes. The panel found clove and menthol-flavored cigarettes to be “like 

products” within the meaning of the TBT Agreement, based in part on its factual findings 

that both types of cigarettes are flavored and appeal to youth. However, the panel rejected 

Indonesia’s second main claim, indicating that Indonesia had failed to demonstrate that 

the ban is more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective (in this 

case, reducing youth smoking) within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 

The panel also found that the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations 

in several other respects, including failure to notify technical regulations and failure to 

allow a reasonable interval between publication and entry into force of the regulation. 

However, the panel also found that Indonesia had failed to demonstrate that the United 

States acted inconsistently in other respects, such as in its obligations to provide an 

explanation of the draft technical regulation. On January 5, 2012, the United States 

notified the DSB that it would appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered 

in the panel report and legal interpretations.

The Appellate Body report was circulated to members on April 4, 2012, and adopted on 

April 24, 2012 (along with the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body). The 

Appellate Body upheld the panel report but on somewhat different grounds. While 

agreeing with the panel that clove cigarettes and menthol cigarettes are “like products”

within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, it disagreed with the panel’s 

finding that “like products” should be interpreted based on the regulatory purpose of the 

technical regulation at issue. Instead, the Appellate Body concluded that “like products”

in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement should be considered in the context of the 

 98 WTO, DSB, DS384: United States—Certain County of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements; 

WTO, DSB, DS386: United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements, online summary 

(accessed February 27, 2013). 99 Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added by section 101 of the 

Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-31.
3-27

competitive relationship between the products, based on an analysis of the traditional 

“likeness” criteria, such as physical characteristics, end-uses, and consumer tastes and 

habits. It viewed the regulatory concerns, such as health risks, as more appropriately 

considered in the context of the competitive relationship between the products. The 

Appellate Body also found that the design, architecture, revealing structure, operation, 

and application of section 907 of the U.S. statute strongly suggests that the detrimental 

impact on competitive opportunities for clove cigarettes reflects discrimination against 

the like products imported from Indonesia. The Appellate Body also upheld the panel’s 

finding that the United States had not met the minimum six months notification 

requirement in Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement between publication and entry into 

force of a technical regulation.

On May 24, 2012, the United States informed the DSB of its intention to implement the 

DSB recommendations and rulings in a manner that protects public health and respects its

WTO obligations. The United States and Indonesia agreed that a reasonable time to do 

this would be by July 24, 2013. 100

United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from 

China (DS422). In this dispute, China challenged U.S. use of zeroing in the original 

investigation and several administrative reviews in calculating dumping margins on 

imports of shrimp from China and with regard to the U.S. zeroing practice in calculating 

dumping margins on imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. China 

asserted that the U.S. zeroing practices are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under 

Article VI of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China also asserted that the 

USDOC’s reliance, in the sunset review, on the dumping margins calculated in the 

original investigation and administrative reviews is inconsistent with U.S. obligations 

under Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. After consultations failed to resolve 

the dispute, China asked that a panel be established. A panel was established on October 

25, 2011, and the panel was composed on December 21, 2011.

The panel report was circulated to members on June 8, 2012. Before the panel, China 

restricted its claims to the alleged use by the USDOC of zeroing in the antidumping 

investigations at issue. China’s claims concerned (1) the use by USDOC of the zeroing

methodology in the calculation of certain dumping margins in these original 

investigations, and (2) the USDOC’s reliance on the same dumping margins, calculated 

with zeroing, in calculating the separate rate applied to exporter/producers not selected 

for individual examination but who had established that they act independently from the 

Chinese government in the export activities. The United States did not contest the factual 

assertions made by China regarding the USDOC’s use of zeroing in the investigations at 

issue and the USDOC’s reliance upon dumping margins calculated with zeroing to 

establish the separate rate. Nor did the United States contest the legal relevance, to the 

facts in dispute, of the Appellate Body reports cited by China.

The panel upheld China’s claim concerning the USDOC’s use of zeroing in the 

calculation of dumping margins for individually examined exporters/producers, and 

found that the zeroing methodology used by USDOC in calculating the margins of 

dumping for the three antidumping investigations at issue was inconsistent with Article 

2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The panel rejected China’s claim concerning the 

separate rate, but noted that the calculation of the separate rate on the basis of individual 

 100 WTO, DSB, DS406: United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove 

Cigarettes, online summary (accessed March 8, 2013).
3-28

margins calculated with zeroing necessarily incorporated the WTO-inconsistent zeroing 

methodology.

The DSB adopted the panel report on July 23, 2012. On July 27, 2012, China and the 

United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time 

for the United States to implement the DSB recommendation and rulings would be eight

months—by March 23, 2013.101

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a 

forum for member governments to review and discuss economic, social, and other policy 

experiences affecting their market economies, as well as engage with other major 

nonmember economies to address issues facing the global economy. At the end of 2012, 

there were 34 OECD members.102

Ministerial Council Meeting

The meeting of the OECD Council at the ministerial level was held in Paris, France, on

May 23–24, 2012. During its ministerial meeting, the council discussed policies 

addressing economic growth and domestic employment, as well as policy issues focused 

on trade and on OECD development partners.103 In addition, ministers welcomed Russia 

and Colombia as new members of the Working Group on Bribery in International 

Business Transactions, and also welcomed the recent OECD Recommendation on Public 

Governance of Public-Private Partnership.104

Responding to the OECD’s economic outlook––which cited a fragile and uneven 

recovery across different regions even as the world economy seemed to be gaining 

momentum––ministers highlighted the need to move forward with structural reforms as a 

key channel to spur economic growth and raise confidence.

105 Ministers underlined the 

importance of promoting policies that maximize job creation and counter job inequality, 

increase long-term investment and regional integration through structural reforms, and

reform the financial system and make it more resilient.

106

 101 WTO, DSB, DS422: United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades 

from China, online summary (accessed January 8, 2013). 102 The 34 OECD members at yearend 2012 were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. OECD, 

“List of OECD Member Countries––Ratification of the Convention on the OECD.” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/listofoecdmembercountries-ratificationoftheconventionontheoecd.htm (accessed 

March 1, 2013). 103 OECD, Council, “Draft Agenda––Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level: All on Board––

Policies for Inclusive Growth and Jobs,” C/A(2012)7, May 21, 2012. 104 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013). 105 OECD, “Economy: Global Economy Recovering,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/economy/economyglobaleconomyrecoveringbutmajorrisksremainsaysoecd.htm

(accessed April 11, 2013). 106 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013).
3-29

Following discussion of the current economic outlook, the OECD Secretary-General107

addressed the ministers concerning policies aimed at restoring strong, inclusive, and jobsrich growth, in particular those aimed at addressing job and gender inequalities.108 The 

Secretary-General urged the OECD to strengthen its work on policies aimed at new 

sources of growth, such as “green” growth, knowledge-based assets, job skills, gender 

equality, and migration. 109 Ministers encouraged further work under the OECD 

Innovation and Green Growth Strategies, the latter of which in particular looks to expand 

economic growth and job creation through sustainable use of natural resources, greater 

efficiencies in energy use, and development of a framework to value ecosystem services. 

Recognizing that structural policies, green growth, and science, technology, and 

innovation policies can be mutually reinforcing, the ministers called on the OECD to 

prepare an integrated policy report for their meeting in 2013 as one means by which to 

incorporate related policy recommendations into regular policy analysis and 

discussions.

110

Ministers welcomed the launch of the OECD Skills Strategy,111 which is designed to 

promote investment in people and jobs, with particular attention to policies addressing 

the areas of education, entrepreneurship, and employment opportunities that help expand 

gender equality. 112 In this context, ministers stressed the need to help countries and 

governments invest in skills shown to drive growth in their economies. The strategy 

focuses on policy areas intended to develop the necessary skills to respond to labor 

market needs, ensure that existing skills are fully utilized, tackle unemployment by 

helping young people find jobs that make the best use of their skills, and stimulate the 

creation of high-skilled and value-added jobs, as well as exploit linkages to other policy 

fields, such as education, science and technology, employment, economic development, 

migration, and public finance.113 In a related effort, ministers welcomed a report on the 

OECD Gender Initiative, launched in 2010, and called for work to continue in this 

area. 114 The report highlighted that, over the past 50 years, increased education has 

accounted for roughly half of economic growth in OECD countries, and that policies 

directed toward education, employment, and entrepreneurship for women in particular 

can help bring about strong and sustainable economic growth by making best use of all 

available resources.115

 107 OECD, Council, “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––Strategic 

Orientations by the Secretary-General,” C/MIN(2012)1/FINAL, June 15, 2012. 108 OECD, Council, “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––New Approaches 

to Economic Challenges––A Framework Paper,” C/MIN(2012)2/FINAL, June 13, 2012. 109 OECD, Council, “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––Strategic 

Orientations by the Secretary-General,” C/MIN(2012)1/FINAL, June 15, 2012, 2–4. 110 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” undated. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013). 111 OECD, Council, “Better Skills. Better Jobs. Better Lives. The OECD Skills Strategy,” 

C/MIN(2012)4, April 30, 2012. 112 OECD, Council, “Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship––Final Report 

to the MCM 2012,” C/MIN(2012)5, April 27, 2012. 113 OECD, Council, “Better Skills. Better Jobs. Better Lives. The OECD Skills Strategy,” 

C/MIN(2012)4, April 30, 2012, 2, 6. 114 OECD, Council, “Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship––Final Report 

to the MCM 2012,” C/MIN(2012)5, April 27, 2012, 2; OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s 

Summary,” n.d. http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed 

April 11, 2013); OECD, Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers 2012, May 9, 2012, 29. 115 OECD, Council, “Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship––Final Report 

to the MCM 2012,” C/MIN(2012)5, April 27, 2012, 2–7.
3-30

Ministers also discussed relations and initiatives regarding development matters 116

between the OECD and five so-called Enhanced Engagement partners––Brazil, China, 

India, Indonesia, and South Africa. 117 In addition, ministers considered OECD 

involvement with strategic regions, such as the Middle East and North Africa. Ministers 

endorsed the Framework for an OECD Strategy on Development, a strategy intended to 

broaden collaboration and knowledge sharing between the OECD and developing 

countries regarding both policy successes and failures. The strategy will address issues 

such as innovative and sustainable sources of growth; greater mobilization of domestic 

resources for development, including a favorable investment climate; and good 

governance practices, with an emphasis on policies to combat corruption and help correct 

poorly functioning or nontransparent tax systems that pose major barriers to long-term 

growth in many developing countries.118

Finally, ministers addressed the area of trade policy as a driver of jobs-rich growth,119

again stressing the importance of the multilateral trade system and its rules-based 

disciplines as an essential source of sustainable economic growth, development, and job 

creation. They pointed to trade facilitation as a major driver of competitiveness and an 

important tool to increase jobs and growth.120 Ministers renewed their commitment to 

resist protectionism,121 reaffirming their standstill and rollback commitments concerning 

protectionist trade measures.

122 They welcomed the completion of the work done under 

the International Collaborative Initiative on Trade and Employment (ICITE) as a means 

to better understand mechanisms by which trade affects employment patterns. 123

Ministers further encouraged OECD research on trade in services, particularly work 

developing a services trade restrictiveness index (STRI).

124 Ministers stressed that this 

work should include Enhanced Engagement partner countries125 that are or look to be 

major services providers in the world economy, but which are not now OECD 

members.126

 116 OECD, Council, “OECD Strategy on Development,” C/MIN(2012)6, April 27, 2012, 7. 117 OECD, Council, “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––The OECD’s 

Relations with Its Key Partners,” C/MIN(2012)8, April 27, 2012. 118 OECD, Council, “OECD Strategy on Development,” C/MIN(2012)6, April 27, 2012, 2; OECD, 

“Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” undated. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013) ; 

OECD, Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers 2012, May 9, 2012. 30. 119 OECD, Council, “Towards a More Open Trading System and Jobs Rich Growth,” C/MIN(2012)9, 

April 27, 2012. 120 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” undated. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013). 121 OECD, Council, “Towards a More Open Trading System and Jobs Rich Growth,” C/MIN(2012)9, 

April 27, 2012, 3. 122 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” undated. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013). 123 This work was released in OECD, Policy Priorities for International Trade and Jobs, 2012. 124 OECD, Council, “Towards a More Open Trading System and Jobs Rich Growth,” C/MIN(2012)9, 

April 27, 2012, 6–7. 125 The 2012 Ministerial Council Meeting marked the fifth anniversary of the launching of the OECD’s 

Enhanced Engagement program, which is aimed at advancing the OECD’s relationship with five key 

partners––Brazil, China, India, Indonesia. and South Africa. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/theoecdsrelationswithitskeypartners.htm (accessed March 1, 2013). 126 OECD, “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s Summary,” undated. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 11, 2013).
3-31

Trade Committee127

The OECD Trade Committee held its 159th session on May 9–10, 2012. In its plenary 

session, the chair of the Working Party of the Trade Committee presented highlights of 

ongoing work on services, notably agreement on methodology toward the STRI. The 

chair also drew attention to committee work on global value chains, and on trade in 

value-added terms.128 In nonplenary session, the committee heard a post-accession report 

on progress made by Chile in IPR, in particular legal and regulatory reforms, 

enforcement actions, and measures to advance innovation capacity in the Chilean 

economy.129 The committee also took up items related to Russia’s OECD accession, both 

overall and in the context of the Trade Committee. Regarding the accession’s overall 

status, members of the Trade Committee heard a report that most of the 22 OECD 

committees involved in reviewing the accession had opened substantive discussions on 

their issues, with discussions on shipbuilding already concluded. At the time of the 

meeting, the OECD committee reviews were set to be completed by June 2013.130

The OECD Trade Committee held its 160th session on November 7, 2012. In its plenary 

session, members discussed steps to move work on the STRI toward substantive results 

for presentation at the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in spring 2014. They 

welcomed the prospect that a database of measures affecting trade in services covering 

Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa would be ready by the end of June 2013. 

Members also agreed in November that work on financial services should begin directly 

to meet the mandate that all major service sectors be covered in the index by June 2014. 

They further agreed that logistics services were also important, considering their 

connection to global value chains and trade facilitation.

131

In nonplenary session, the committee reviewed ongoing work on cross-border aspects of 

state-owned enterprises, which focuses on such issues as subsides, discriminatory 

regulations, discriminatory procurement practices, and selective law enforcement. The 

committee touched again on Russia’s accession to the OECD, focusing on its market 

openness review, and hearing a status report on Russia’s accession to the WTO. The 

committee also heard concerns from WTO members regarding Russia’s commitments in 

areas such as tariffs, recycling fees on imported vehicles, and Russia’s SPS regime, as 

well as others.132

The Trade Committee also touched on its Global Relations Strategy, a recent activity 

which includes engaging southeast Asian nations in the work of the committee. As part of 

the strategy, committee members agreed to continue meetings with nonmember G20 

economies, and proposed inviting several nonmember countries to become Trade 

Committee observers. The committee discussed continuing Argentina’s participation in 

the committee, and inviting China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa to 

 127 OECD, “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade Committee––Plenary Session––4–5 May 

2011,” TAD/TC/M(2011)1, October 28, 2011; OECD, “Summary Record: 157th Session of the Trade 

Committee––Confidential Session––4–5 May 2011,” TAD/TC/M(2011)1/ANN, October 28, 2011. 128 OECD, TAD, TC, “Summary Record: 159th Session of the Trade Committee––Plenary Session––9–

10 May 2012,” TAD/TC/M(2012)1, August 29, 2012. 129 Chile acceded to the OECD in May 2010. 130 OECD, TAD, TC, “Summary Record: 159th Session of the Trade Committee––Confidential 

Session––9 May 2012,” TAD/TC/M(2012)1/ANN, Confidential, August 29, 2012. 131 OECD, TAD, TC, “160th Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session––Draft Agenda––7 

November, 2012,” TAD/TC/A(2012)2, October 2, 2012. 132 OECD, TAD, TC, “160th Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session––Draft Agenda––

6–7 November 2012,” TAD/TC/A(2012)2/ANN, Confidential, October 2, 2012.
3-32

become observers in different aspects of its work. Lastly, the committee discussed 

scheduling Israel’s initial and subsequent progress reports since its OECD accession on 

the subjects of IPR and taxes on alcoholic spirits.133

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an international organization composed of 

21 Pacific Basin economies seeking to enhance intraregional economic growth and 

cooperation. 134 The organization operates as a cooperative, multilateral economic and 

trade group, where decisions are made by consensus and commitments are undertaken 

voluntarily. Since its inception, APEC has aimed to facilitate economic growth, trade, 

investment, and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.135 APEC pursues progress toward 

greater regional economic integration through annual meetings of heads of state and trade 

ministers, and coordinates capacity-building and liberalization efforts with member 

economies throughout the year. In 1994, member economies committed to the “Bogor 

Goals”––named for the summit meeting in Bogor, Indonesia––which aimed to create a 

free and open trade and investment area in the Asia-Pacific region by 2010 for the 

industrialized member economies and by 2020 for the developing member economies.136

Under the chairmanship of Russia throughout 2012, APEC focused on three goals: 

increasing regional economic integration in the context of a troubled and evolving global 

economy; expanding green economic growth initiatives that began in 2011; and 

improving cooperation on food security.137 In addition, the APEC annual summit, held in 

Vladivostok, Russia, in September 2012, served as a forum for discussing possible 

pathways and progress toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) as well as 

other multilateral commitments. APEC’s various groups worked throughout the year to 

improve the prospects of meeting the Bogor Goals and to develop a coordinated approach 

to the FTAAP.

The Bogor Goals, FTAAP, and Related APEC Commitments

In 2012, APEC ministers and leaders remained committed to achieving the Bogor Goals, 

finding that APEC member economies had moved in the right direction since progress 

toward the goals had previously been assessed in 2010, but that trade barriers between the 

member economies remained. 138 These assessments were based on reports and 

“dashboards” of indicators prepared by the APEC Policy Support Unit, which identified 

qualitative and quantitative achievements and areas for improvement for each country.139

Trade ministers highlighted the role of capacity-building programs as useful instruments 

 133 Israel acceded to the OECD in September 2010. 134 APEC was established in 1989 when ministers from 12 Asia-Pacific governments met in Canberra, 

Australia, to discuss world and regional economic developments, global trade liberalization, and 

opportunities for regional cooperation. Current APEC membership includes Australia; Brunei Darussalam; 

Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua 

New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Taiwan; Thailand; the United States; and Vietnam. 

For further details, see APEC, APEC at a Glance, January 2013, and the APEC website, 

http://www.apec.org/. 135 APEC, APEC at a Glance, January 2013. 136 Ibid. 137 APEC, “2012 Leaders’ Declaration,” September 9, 2012. 138 APEC, “2012 Leaders’ Declaration,” September 9, 2012; APEC, “2012 Ministers’ Joint Statement,” 

September 6, 2012. 139 APEC, PSU, APEC’s Bogor Goals Progress Report, August 2012; APEC, PSU, APEC’s Bogor 

Goals Dashboard, August 2012.
3-33

toward reaching the Bogor Goals.140 In particular, they singled out their support for the 

Capacity Building Needs Initiative, an ongoing APEC program designed to identify and 

build capacity in the trade policymaking tools which will be needed by countries to 

negotiate an eventual FTAAP.141 Recognizing that multiple FTAs are in effect or are 

being negotiated among APEC countries, APEC member economies developed and 

endorsed a model chapter intended to encourage consistent approaches to the design of 

chapters on transparency standards in various FTAs under negotiation. Using the WTO 

rules as the minimum standard for transparency provisions, the model chapter draws on 

existing chapters in FTAs between member countries, Article X of the GATT, and 

Article III of the GATS.

142

The trade ministers of nine countries negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—

one of the stated possible pathways toward the FTAAP—again used the APEC Leaders’

Meeting in September as a forum to announce progress toward reaching an agreement.143

Leaders from the nine TPP countries reaffirmed their commitments (made in the previous 

year) to conclude the regional agreement as a promising pathway for free trade and 

economic integration across the Asia-Pacific. Leaders further welcomed Canada and 

Mexico as new partners in anticipation of their expected participation in TPP negotiations 

later in 2012, and directed negotiating teams to continue discussions with other AsiaPacific partners interested in joining the TPP.144

Russia acceded to the WTO in 2012, making 2012 the first year in which all APEC 

members were also members of the WTO. APEC leaders and ministers reiterated their 

confidence in the underlying institutional strength of the WTO, and reaffirmed support 

for “different, fresh and credible” negotiating approaches aimed at concluding the Doha 

Round, as well as nearer-term possible outcomes such as progress on trade facilitation 

and other development-related issues. 145 In addition, trade ministers encouraged swift

progress in the negotiations to expand product coverage and membership of the WTO 

Information Technology Agreement (ITA), noting that expansion would bolster the 

economy and contribute to APEC’s mission to facilitate regional economic integration. 

Ministers called on all APEC economies to join the agreement.146

Regional Economic Integration, Regulatory Cooperation, and Food 

Security

In addition to providing a forum for leaders to discuss possible pathways toward 

multilateral liberalization, APEC pursues an agenda of regional economic integration that 

relies on developing nonbinding common principles, action plans, workshops, and 

research on best practices. In addition, APEC pursues economic objectives of shared 

importance driven by the needs and interests of member countries. This work ranges from 

technical policy prescriptions, studies, and workshops to more open-ended forums for 

discussion, and is therefore designed to deal practically with known issues as well as 

explore new areas of economic integration. These efforts continue year-round under the 

 140 APEC, “2012 Ministers’ Joint Statement,” September 6, 2012. 141 APEC, CTI, CTI Annual Report to Ministers: 2012, September 2012, appendix 1. 142 APEC, CTI, CTI Annual Report to Ministers: 2012, September 2012, appendix 2. 143 TPP Leaders, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders,” September 9, 2012. 144 TPP Trade Ministers, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Leaders Statement,” September 9, 2012. 145 APEC, “2012 Ministers’ Joint Statement,” September 6, 2012; APEC, “2012 Leaders’ Declaration,” 

September 9, 2012. 146 APEC, “2012 Leaders’ Declaration,” September 9, 2012.
3-34

oversight of the APEC Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) and are guided by the 

outcomes of ministerial and leadership meetings.

Building on an initiative begun in 2011, member economies agreed on a finalized APEC 

List of Environmental Goods and committed to reduce applied tariffs on these products to 

5 percent or less on an MFN basis by the end of 2015. The list includes renewable and 

clean technology products, water and waste water treatment equipment, air pollution 

control equipment, and environmental monitoring assessment equipment.147 Other green 

growth initiatives included a continuation of technical initiatives designed to facilitate 

and encourage trade in remanufactured goods, efforts to disseminate and apply energy 

efficient technologies, and a renewal of commitments to refrain from protectionism in the 

name of green growth promotion.148

The APEC Group on Services made progress on several initiatives, including developing 

an Action Plan on Statistics on Trade in Services, an effort to improve collection methods 

and the quality of services statistics in the region. Member countries also participated in 

expanding the Services Trade Access Requirements (STAR) Database, which is a tool 

businesses can use to facilitate trade in services, and is particularly useful for small and 

medium-sized enterprises.

149 The Electronic Commerce Steering Group took practical 

steps to begin implementation of the Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System, a 

program designed to reduce potential barriers to information flows while simultaneously

enhancing consumer privacy according to the various privacy regimes held by member 

economies. 150 Trade ministers also highlighted the need for discussion on issues of 

potential interoperability between the EU’s Binding Corporate Rules and APEC’s CBPR 

System.151

Food security was a major focal point in APEC’s policy agenda in 2012. Specifically, 

APEC countries were focused on improving agricultural productivity, promoting food 

trade and development of food markets, enhancing food safety, reducing food 

vulnerability for certain groups, and ensuring sustainable management of fisheries.152 In 

Kazan, Russia, in May 2012, APEC countries held the inaugural meeting of the APEC 

Policy Partnership on Food Security, a high-level consultative forum which serves to 

foster policy and technical cooperation as a means of ensuring food security in the 

region.153 APEC also launched the Asia-Pacific Food Security Information Platform in 

March 2012, which is an online system for sharing information on food security in the 

APEC region.154

 147 Ibid., Annex C. 148 APEC, “2012 Leaders’ Declaration,” September 9, 2012; APEC, CTI, CTI Annual Report to 

Ministers: 2012, September, 2012, appendix 4. 149 APEC, CTI, CTI Annual Report to Ministers: 2012, September 2012. 150 Ibid, 36–37. 151 APEC, “2012 Ministers’ Joint Statement,” September 6, 2012. 152 APEC, Outcomes and Outlook, January 2013. 153 APEC, “2012 Ministers’ Joint Statement,” September 6, 2012. 154 Ibid; Asia-Pacific Information Platform on Food Security. http://www.apip-apec.com/ (accessed 

March 5, 2012).
4-1

CHAPTER 4 

U.S. Free Trade Agreements 

This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) 

during 2012. It describes trends in U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, the status 

of U.S. FTA negotiations during the year, and major North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) activities, including NAFTA dispute settlement developments 

during the year.

FTAs in Force during 2012 

The United States was a party to 14 FTAs as of December 31, 2012.1 Three FTAs entered 

into force in 2012: the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) (October 31), 

the U.S.-Colombia TPA (May 15), and the U.S.-Korea FTA (March 15). The other FTAs 

in force during 2012 were the U.S.-Oman FTA (2009); the U.S.-Peru TPA (2009); a 

multiparty FTA with the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic 

(CAFTA-DR) that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

and Nicaragua (entered into force 2006–07), and Costa Rica (2009); the U.S.-Bahrain 

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

Chile FTA (2004); the U.S.-Singapore FTA (2004); the U.S.-Jordan FTA (2001); 

NAFTA with Canada and Mexico (1994); and the U.S.-Israel FTA (1985).

Two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its 20 FTA partners amounted 

to $1.4 trillion or 37.7 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade in 2012 (table 4.1). U.S. 

trade with FTA partners is dominated by trade with the NAFTA countries. In 2012, 

Canada and Mexico accounted for 75.0 percent of total U.S. trade with its FTA partners,

or $1.0 trillion. Two-way trade with Canada and Mexico increased by 4.8 percent in 

2012, with exports expanding by 6.5 percent and imports by 3.7 percent. Strong growth 

in U.S. exports to the NAFTA countries was led by exports of machinery and equipment, 

while U.S. imports of crude petroleum, a major import from both Canada and Mexico, 

increased only slightly in value. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the NAFTA 

partners declined by 2.4 percent in 2012 to $181.0 billion.

Outside of the NAFTA, U.S. two-way trade with those FTA partners with whom FTAs 

were in place in 20112 amounted to $228.8 billion and increased by 4.4 percent in 2012. 

Growth in U.S. exports outstripped that of U.S. imports, with exports rising by 6.0 

percent in 2012 compared to 2.5 percent for imports. The United States registered a 

merchandise trade surplus with these partners of $23.3 billion in 2012, an increase of 

24.6 percent from 2011 and an increase of over 100 percent from the level in 2010. 

Completion of FTAs with Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2012 added an additional 

$110.3 billion (8.8 percent) to 2012 U.S. two-way trade with FTA partners.

 1 Since the U.S.-Singapore FTA in 2004, the modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS) required to implement each FTA can be found at USITC, Tariff Information Center 

website, http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/hts_index.htm. 2 Outside of the NAFTA, there were 15 FTA partners with 10 FTAs in place during 2011, including 

CAFTA-DR (with six FTA partners) and FTAs with Israel, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, 

Bahrain, Oman, and Peru.
4-2

TABLE 4.1 U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2010–12

2010 2011 2012

Million $

Exports:

Israel 6,479 8,084 9,729

NAFTA 337,558 393,684 419,358

Canada 205,956 233,774 244,199

Mexico 131,602 159,910 175,159

Jordan 1,138 1,410 1,645

Chile 9,903 14,498 17,309

Singapore 26,349 28,224 27,013

Australia 20,296 25,491 28,907

Morocco 1,931 2,842 2,237

Bahrain 1,204 1,166 1,146

CAFTA-DR 22,735 28,403 28,204

Oman 1,061 1,369 1,661

Peru 6,079 7,412 8,196

Korea 0 0 33,122

Colombia 0 0 10,038

Panama 0 0 1,687

FTA partner total 434,732 512,584 590,252

World total 1,122,131 1,299,176 1,353,211

FTA partner share of world (percent) 38.7 39.5 43.6

Imports:

Israel 20,975 23,022 22,122

NAFTA 504,360 579,067 600,333

Canada 275,536 316,397 323,925

Mexico 228,824 262,671 276,408

Jordan 974 1,060 1,155

Chile 7,068 9,170 9,385

Singapore 17,345 18,982 20,080

Australia 8,610 10,173 9,575

Morocco 685 991 937

Bahrain 420 518 701

CAFTA-DR 23,701 27,947 30,848

Oman 773 2,184 1,354

Peru 5,173 6,153 6,586

Korea 0 0 48,926

Colombia 0 0 16,411

Panama 0 0 109

FTA partner total 590,083 679,267 768,523

World total 1,898,610 2,186,951 2,251,035

FTA partner share of world (percent) 31.1 31.1 34.1

Trade Balance:

Israel -14,496 -14,938 -12,393

NAFTA -166,802 -185,384 -180,975

Canada -69,580 -82,623 -79,726

Mexico -97,222 -102,761 -101,249

Jordan 164 350 490

Chile 2,835 5,328 7,923

Singapore 9,005 9,243 6,933

Australia 11,685 15,318 19,332

Morocco 1,246 1,851 1,300

Bahrain 784 648 446

CAFTA-DR -966 456 -2,644

Oman 288 -815 307

Peru 906 1,259 1,610

Korea 0 0 -15,804

Colombia 0 0 -6,374

Panama 0 0 1,578

FTA partner total -155,351 -166,683 -178,271

World total -776,479 -887,775 -897,824

FTA partner share of world (percent) 20.0 18.8 19.9

Source: USDOC.

Note: The U.S-Korea FTA entered into force on March 15, 2012 (data reported for March forward); the U.S.-

Colombia FTA entered into force on May 15, 2012 (data reported for May forward); and the U.S.-Panama FTA 

entered into force on October 31, 2012 (data reported for November forward).
4-3

TABLE 4.2 U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2010–12

% change,

FTA partner 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Million $

Israel 2,726 2,661 2,952 10.9

NAFTA 286,131 326,551 343,832 5.3

Canada 145,426 162,734 175,241 7.7

Mexico 140,705 163,817 168,591 2.9

Jordan 606 870 1,012 16.3

Chile 4,429 5,706 5,668 –0.7

Singapore 1,163 1,138 1,068 –6.1

Australia 2,751 3,034 3,419 12.7

Morocco 163 201 166 –17.8

Bahrain 274 326 425 30.3

CAFTA-DR 10,513 11,912 12,610 5.9

Oman 350 1,526 655 –57.1

Peru 2,224 3,079 2,658 –13.7

Korea 0 0 11,635 (

a

)

Colombia 0 0 7,638 (

a

)

Panama 0 0 4 (

a

)

Total imports under FTA 

provisions 311,329 357,005 393,742 10.3

World 1,898,610 2,186,951 2,251,035 2.9

Share of total imports from FTA partner

Israel 13.0 11.6 13.3

NAFTA 56.7 56.4 57.3

Canada 52.8 51.4 54.1

Mexico 61.5 62.4 61.0

Jordan 62.2 82.1 87.7

Chile 62.7 62.2 60.4

Singapore 6.7 6.0 5.3

Australia 31.9 29.8 35.7

Morocco 23.8 20.3 17.7

Bahrain 65.3 62.9 60.6

CAFTA-DR 44.4 42.6 40.9

Oman 45.3 69.8 48.3

Peru 43.0 50.0 40.4

Korea (

a

) (

a

) 23.8

Colombia (

a

) (

a

) 46.5

Panama (

a

) (

a

) 3.6

FTA partner total 52.8 52.6 51.2

Source: USDOC.

 aNot applicable.

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTA provisions increased 10.3 percent from 

$357.0 billion in 2011 to $393.7 billion in 2012 (table 4.2), partly due to the entry into 

force of three new FTAs in 2012. U.S. imports that entered under FTA provisions

accounted for 51.2 percent of total imports from FTA partners. Approximately 40.9 

percent of total imports from CAFTA-DR partners entered under FTA provisions in 
4-4

2012. Particularly high shares (more than 60 percent) of total imports from Jordan, El 

Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Bahrain, and Chile (listed in descending order of 

magnitude) entered under FTA provisions. By contrast, particularly low shares (20 

percent or less) of total imports from Morocco, Israel, Costa Rica, Singapore, and 

Panama entered under FTA provisions.

The share of U.S. imports from these countries (except Panama) that entered under FTA 

provisions continued to be small in 2012 because a large share (over 60 percent) of the 

imports from these countries already entered the United States duty free under normal 

trade relations.3 Imports that entered under FTA provisions accounted for 17.5 percent of 

total U.S. imports in 2012, an increase from 16.3 percent in 2011.

FTA Developments during 2012 

During 2012, as noted earlier, U.S. FTAs entered into force with Korea, Colombia, and 

Panama. In June 2012, the United States and the other Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 

negotiating partners extended an invitation to Mexico and Canada to join the

negotiations, pending successful conclusion of Mexico and Canada’s domestic

procedures.4 During 2012, the United States and the European Union (EU) explored 

options for expanding bilateral trade and investment, but no final decision was made 

during the year.5 The status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2012 is shown in table 4.3.

Thirteen of the 14 U.S. FTAs have provisions on labor rights. According to the U.S. 

Department of Labor (USDOL), there are ongoing labor disputes under NAFTA, 

CAFTA-DR, the U.S.-Bahrain FTA, and the U.S.-Peru TPA.6 In 2008, the AFL-CIO and 

six Guatemalan unions filed a public submission under the CAFTA-DR alleging that the 

Guatemalan government failed to enforce its labor law effectively.

7 USTR requested 

consultations with Guatemala under CAFTA-DR in 2010, and the establishment of 

anarbitral panel in 2011. This case represents the first labor case the United States has 

brought against a trade agreement partner.8

Ten FTAs contain provisions designed to protect foreign investors and their investments 

and to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes. According to the U.S. Department 

of State, among the U.S. FTAs that provide for investor-state dispute settlement, there are 

ongoing investor disputes under NAFTA,9 CAFTA-DR, the U.S.-Chile FTA, and the 

U.S.-Peru TPA.10

 3 Less than 5 percent of U.S. imports from Panama entered under the U.S.-Panama TPA because the 

TPA did not enter into force until October 31, 2012. 4 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico,” June 18, 2012; “U.S. Trade 

Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada,” June 19, 2012. 5 On February 13, 2013, the United States and EU announced their intentions to launch negotiations on 

a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). 6 USDOL, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, “Free Trade Agreements, How Labor Rights are 

Enforced in FTAs (Submissions).” http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/otla/freetradeagreement.htm (accessed 

April 2, 2013). 7 USTR, “USTR Kirk Announces Labor Rights Trade Enforcement Case Against Guatemala,” July 30, 

2010. 8 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces Next Step in Labor Rights Enforcement 

Case Against Guatemala,” August 9, 2011. 9 For more information on dispute settlement under NAFTA, see the section on NAFTA later in this 

chapter. 10 For more information, see U.S. Department of State, International Claims and Investment Disputes. 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3433.htm (accessed April 2, 2013).
4-5

TABLE 4.3 Status of U.S. FTA negotiations during 2012

FTA partner(s)

Negotiations

launched

Negotiations 

concluded

Agreement signed 

by parties

Date of entry into 

force

Korea Feb. 2, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 June 30, 2007 Mar. 15, 2012

Colombia

Panama

Trans-Pacific Partnership (Australia, Brunei 

 Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, 

 New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam)

May 18, 2004

Apr. 26, 2004

Dec. 14, 2009

Feb. 27, 2006

Dec. 9, 2006

––

Nov. 22, 2006

June 28, 2007

––

May 15, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

––

Source: USTR, various press releases, 2006–12. http://www.ustr.gov.

Note: No negotiations have taken place for the Free Trade Area of the Americas since 2005, and none have taken place for 

the Southern African Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland), Ecuador, Thailand, and 

the United Arab Emirates since 2006.

Changes to the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement 

(USAFTA)

On March 15, 2012, Australia notified the United States that it had completed applicable 

domestic procedures to amend the rules of origin under the USAFTA for Product 

Specific Rules for HTS subheadings 5501–5511 contained in Annex 4-A of the 

agreement (Textile or Apparel Specific Rules of Origin) for certain yarns made of mixed 

synthetic staple fibers. Officials of both governments agreed to implement these changes 

with respect to each other’s eligible goods effective June 1, 2012.11

Entry into Force of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

(CTPA) 

On October 3, 2011, the President submitted draft legislation to Congress to implement 

the U.S.-Colombia TPA.12 Officials of both governments reviewed the other’s laws and 

regulations related to the implementation of the agreement, as well as Colombia’s steps to 

fulfill the Action Plan Related to Labor Rights. USTR and the Colombian government 

exchanged letters confirming that they had completed all applicable legal requirements 

and procedures for the agreement’s entry into force. In March 2012, the Colombian 

Labor Minister launched a targeted enforcement plan in two additional priority sectors 

identified under the Labor Action Plan (cut flowers and ports).13 On April 15, 2012, 

USTR announced that Colombia would no longer be an eligible beneficiary country 

under the ATPDEA as of May 15, 2012, when the CTPA14 entered into force.15

Presidential Proclamation 8818 of May 14, 2012, implemented U.S. tariff commitments 

under the CTPA and incorporated by reference Publication 4320 of the USITC, 

Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Implement the 

United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.16 On May 15, over 80 percent of 

U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia became duty-free, with all 

 11 USTR, “Notice of Effective Date of Modifications to the Rule of Origin of the United StatesAustralia Free Trade Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 31683 (May 29, 2012). 12 CRS, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, November 9, 2012. 13 USTR, “Fact Sheet: Historic Progress on Labor Rights in Colombia,” April 15, 2012. 14 Pub. L. No. 112-42, 125 Stat. 462. 15 USTR, “United States, Colombia Set Date for Entry into Force of U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement,” 

April 15, 2012; “To Implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and for Other 

Purposes,” 77 Fed. Reg. 29519 (May 18, 2012). 16 For more details see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 4-8.
4-6

remaining tariffs scheduled to be phased out within 10 years.17 Under the CTPA, U.S. 

manufactured products receiving immediate duty-free treatment included agricultural and 

construction equipment, aircraft and parts, motor vehicle parts, fertilizers and agrochemicals, information technology equipment, medical and scientific equipment, and 

wood.18 U.S. textiles and apparel also received immediate duty-free access, subject to 

rules-of-origin requirements. Colombia has also agreed not to adopt or maintain any 

prohibition or restriction on imports of U.S. remanufactured goods.19

Colombia applied variable levies to imports of certain agricultural products pursuant to 

the Andean Community’s price band system.20 However, when the CTPA entered into 

force, Colombia immediately stopped applying these variable levies to imports from the 

United States. Under the CTPA, more than 50 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to 

Colombia became free of duty immediately including high quality beef, an assortment of 

poultry products, soybeans and soymeal, cotton, wheat, whey, and most horticultural and 

processed food products. The remaining duties on U.S. agricultural exports are scheduled 

to be phased out over defined time periods. U.S. agricultural exporters also benefit from 

zero duty tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on corn, rice, poultry parts, dairy products, sorghum, 

dried beans, beef, animal feeds, and soybean oil. The TRQs permit immediate duty-free 

access for specified quantities of each of these products, with the duty-free amount 

expanding during its tariff phase-out period.21

The agreement will also provide significant access to Colombia’s $180 million services 

market. In March 2012, Colombia joined the WTO Information Technology Agreement, 

under which members eliminate tariffs on a most-favored-nation (MFN) basis for a wide 

range of information technology products.

On November 19, 2012, the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 

Commission met in Washington, D.C. to supervise the implementation of the 

agreement.22 Officials of both governments also monitored the fulfillment of 

commitments with a post-entry into force deadline and reviewed the work of the 

Technical Barriers to Trade, Agriculture, and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

committees.

Changes to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Agreement 

The CAFTA-DR Free Trade Commission (FTC) met in Miami on January 23, 2012 to 

review trade and economic flows within the CAFTA-DR region.23 The Free Trade 

Commission, a plurilateral ministerial-level body responsible for supervising the 

implementation of the agreement, agreed to consider modifying the rules of origin 

(ROOs) for textile and apparel goods to enhance the competitiveness of the region’s 

 17 USDOC, “U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Now in Force!,” The Commerce Blog, May 

15, 2012. 18 USTR, “U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan,” April 6, 2011. 19 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 106. 20 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 121. 21 USTR, “Fact Sheet: Benefits of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: More American 

Exports, More American Jobs,” April 15, 2012. 22 USTR, “U.S. and Colombia Conclude First Meeting of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Commission,” 

November 19, 2012. 23 USTR, “Joint Statement from the Meeting of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Commission,” January 23, 2012.
4-7

textiles sector.24 The changes to these ROOs were made pursuant to a decision of the first 

FTC meeting in February 2011, and are aimed at facilitating regional sourcing and 

encouraging greater integration of the textile and apparel supply chain in the region. On 

August 10, 2012, the President signed into law H.R. 5986 that included technical 

amendments to the textile and apparel rules of origin provisions under the CAFTA-DR.25

On October 13, 2012, technical corrections and modifications to the CAFTA-DR ROOs 

for certain textile and apparel products went into effect.26 Designed to maximize the 

benefits of the free trade agreement, the changes to the ROOs clarify the treatment of 

certain items on CAFTA-DR’s “short supply” list,27 “correct” the CAFTA-DR chapter 

rules for sewing thread in order to promote U.S. exports and support U.S. jobs, and 

ensure duty-free treatment for women’s and girls’ woven pajama bottoms.28

Three modifications to the CAFTA-DR ROOs affect the short supply provisions of the 

CAFTA-DR:

• Textile and apparel goods made in the region of short supply yarns and 

fabrics are eligible for duty-free treatment, even if they contain nonoriginating elastomeric yarn (e.g., spandex). Previously, such articles 

were ineligible for duty-free treatment.

• Apparel goods imported under the short supply provision may contain a 

non-originating ribbed waistband (in addition to collars and cuffs) if the 

garment contains both a waistband and cuffs and the waistband has the 

same construction as the cuffs. Previously, apparel items imported under 

the short supply provision made with non-originating ribbed collars, 

cuffs, and ribbed waistbands were ineligible for duty-free treatment.

• Materials used as visible linings, narrow elastic fabrics, sewing thread, 

and pocketing fabrics used in apparel products imported under CAFTADR may now be designated as items in short supply. Previously, the 

 24 USTR, “Request for Petitions to Modify the Rules of Origin Under the Dominican Republic-Central

America-United States Free Trade Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 9724 (February 17, 2012). 25 White House, “Statement by the Press Secretary of Key Trade Measures in H.R. 5986,” August 10, 

2012. 26 In February 2011, the CAFTA-DR Free Trade Commission adopted the amendments to certain rules 

of origin (ROOs) for textile and apparel goods set forth in Annex 4.1 of the agreement. The modifications 

were signed into law on August 10, 2012 (Public Law 112-63) and included in the HTS. For the changes to 

become effective, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) had to determine and provide notice 

that the equivalent amendments were entered into force in all other CAFTA-DR Parties. These steps were 

completed and on September 26, 2012, USTR published a Federal Register notice (77 Fed. Reg. 59241) 

announcing the October 13, 2012 effective date for the modifications. For more information see “Customs 

Border Protection (CBP) Modifications to Certain Textile & Apparel Rules of Origin under the United 

States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) TBT-12-005,” October 

12, 2012. http://cbp.ov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/textiles/tbts/dr_cafta.xml (accessed February 26, 2013). 27 The CAFTA-DR contains an exception to the rule of origin, the Commercial Availability Provision, 

that provides a “short supply” list of fibers, yarns, and fabrics that the parties to the agreement have 

determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from suppliers in the United States 

or other participatory countries (i.e., Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua) and therefore may be sourced from outside these countries for use in qualifying 

textile and apparel products. For example, a fabric on the short supply list may come from a non-CAFTA-DR 

country, be cut-and-assembled into a garment in a CAFTA-DR country, and then imported into the United 

States free of duty. 28 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Applauds Congress’s Agreement to Advance Urgent 

AGOA, CAFTA-DR Changes,” June 21, 2012; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. “Reminder: Technical 

Corrections to DR-CAFTA Origin Rules to Enter into Force October 13,” October 11, 2012.
4-8

short supply provision applied only to the outer shell and/or essential 

character of the product.

Another change to the CAFTA-DR ROOs was the addition of synthetic filament yarn 

(HTS29 heading 5402), when used as a sewing thread, to the list of sewing threads (HTS 

headings 5204, 5401, and 5508) that must be formed and finished in a CAFTA-DR 

country for apparel or textile articles to qualify as originating goods.

The final modification to the CAFTA-DR ROOs replaces the word “nightwear” with 

“sleepwear” and also extends the “cut-and-sew rule” 30 of origin for woven sleepwear to 

women’s and girls’ woven sleep pants.31 Previously such pants were subject to a yarnforward requirement.

Entry into Force of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

On March 15, 2012 the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) 

entered into force.32 Presidential Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, implemented U.S. 

tariff commitments under the KORUS FTA and incorporated by reference Publication 

4308 of the USITC, Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

to Implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. The agreement provides 

for elimination of tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of industrial and consumer 

goods within 5 years, with the remaining tariffs being eliminated within 10 years. Duties 

were eliminated immediately on aerospace equipment, agricultural equipment, 

environmental goods, all footwear and travel goods, paper products, scientific equipment, 

and shipping and transportation equipment.33 Korean textile products will qualify for 

preferential treatment under the agreement if they use U.S. or Korean fabric and yarn (the 

yarn-forward rule). The agreement provides for reciprocal duty-free access immediately 

for most textile and apparel products and contains a special textile safeguard that allows 

the United States to impose tariffs on textiles and apparel if injury occurs due to import 

surges.

Through a combination of tariff elimination and expansion of TRQs, nearly two-thirds of 

U.S. agricultural exports became duty-free immediately. Other farm products received 

some immediate duty-free access under new TRQs.34 Duties were eliminated 

immediately on wheat, corn for feed, soybeans for crushing, whey for feed use, hides and 

skins, cotton, cherries, pistachios, almonds, orange juice, grape juice, and wine. The 

KORUS FTA also requires Korea to eliminate its 40 percent tariff on beef muscle meats 

imported from the United States over a 15-year period, to remove its 25 percent tariff on 

 29 “HTS” refers to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. 30 The “cut and sew” or “cut and assemble” rule of origin permits the use of third country inputs (often 

lower-cost Asian yarns and fabrics) for certain specified apparel and textile goods provided they are cut and 

assembled in a CAFTA-DR country. 31 These sleep pants are imported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 6208.91.3010, 

6208.91.3020, 6208.92.0030, 6208.92.0040, and 6208.99.2020. 32 Pub. L. No. 112-41, 125 Stat. 428, October 21, 2012. For more information, see the section on Korea

in chapter 5 of this report; see also USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 5-19 to 5-22. Also, in 

February 2013, the USITC initiated an investigation for the purpose of preparing a report on certain effects of

the KORUS FTA: U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Effects on U.S. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. 

The USITC submitted its report to the USTR on May 1, 2013. 33 USTR, “United States, Korea Set Date,” February 21, 2012. 34 USTR, “New Opportunities for U.S. Exporters under the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement, U.S.-Korea 

Free Trade Agreement,” n.d. (accessed April 3, 2013).
4-9

90 percent of U.S. pork product exports by 2016, and to abolish its 22.5 percent tariff on 

other pork products within 10 years.35

The agreement also provides meaningful market access commitments across virtually all 

major services sectors, including improved access for telecommunications and express 

delivery services, and the opening up of the Korean market for foreign legal consulting 

services. The agreement increased access to the Korean financial services market and 

ensured greater transparency and fair treatment for U.S. suppliers of insurance and other 

financial services.36

Discussions and Agreements Connected with the U.S.-Morocco Free 

Trade Agreement (USMFTA) 

In September, the USMFTA’s Subcommittees on Agricultural Trade and Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Matters met to discuss Morocco’s implementation of the TRQs established 

under the FTA for U.S. wheat. The purpose of the TRQs is to provide U.S. wheat 

producers preferential access to the Moroccan market. The United States raised its 

concerns about the administration of the TRQs at this meeting.37

On December 5, 2012, during the third Joint Committee meeting under the U.S.-Morocco 

FTA, the USTR and Morocco signed agreements intended to stimulate trade and 

investment between the two countries. Prior to the Joint Committee meeting, the two 

governments initialed a trade facilitation agreement to expand FTA commitments by 

setting new standards for transparency and predictability in customs matters making it 

easier for companies to bring products into both markets.38 The two countries also 

reached an agreement on a set of joint principles for international investment designed to 

promote an open and stable investment climate between the two countries. This 

agreement includes strong protection for foreign investment, including the right to 

compensation in the event of a direct or indirect expropriation. In an additional 

agreement, the two countries endorsed a set of joint principles for international global 

ICT services that stressed the importance of transparency, open network access, and the 

free flow of information across borders.39 Experts from the two countries also discussed 

implications of the labor and environment provisions of the FTA and deliberated on the 

next steps for implementing the 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Entry into Force of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement 

(PATPA) and Progress on Information Technology

On October 22, 2012, USTR and the government of Panama exchanged diplomatic letters 

in which they determined that the U.S.-Panama TPA would enter into force on October 

31, 2012.40 The implementation of the PATPA41 followed completion of a review of 

U.S.-Panama laws and regulations related to the implementation of the agreement. 

Panama ceased to be a CBERA beneficiary country upon entry into force of the PATPA. 

 35 USTR, “Jobs on the Way: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Enters into Force,” March 15, 2012. 36 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 235. 37 USTR, “Morocco Free Trade Agreement,” http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-tradeagreements/morocco-fta (accessed April 10, 2013). 38 USDOS, “New U.S.-Morocco Agreements Seen as Boost to Trade Relations,” December 10, 2012. 39 USTR, “United States and Morocco Reach Agreement on Trade Facilitation, Joint Investment 

Principles and Joint Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Principles,” December 7, 2012. 40 USTR, “United States, Panama Set Date for Entry into Force of United States-Panama Trade 

Promotion Agreement,” October 22, 2012. 41 Pub. L. No. 112-43, 125 Stat. 497.
4-10

On October 31, over 86 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to 

Panama became duty free, including information technology equipment, agricultural and 

construction equipment, aircraft and parts, medical and scientific equipment, 

environmental products, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, and agro-chemicals. Apparel 

products made in Panama will be duty free under the PATPA if they use U.S. or 

Panamanian fabric and yarn.42

Additionally, nearly half of U.S. exports of agricultural commodities to Panama became 

duty free under the FTA, including wheat, barley, soybeans, high-quality beef, bacon, and 

almost all fruit and vegetable products, with most of the remaining tariffs to be 

eliminated within 15 years.43 The TPA also provides for immediate improved market 

access opportunities through TRQs for certain U.S. agricultural products. The TRQs 

permit immediate duty-free access for specified quantities of certain agricultural products 

during the tariff phase-out period, with the duty-free amount expanding during that 

period. The TRQs are administered mostly on a first-come, first-served basis.44

U.S. services providers will also gain improved access to Panama’s $22 billion services 

market. This expanded access includes such priority areas as financial, 

telecommunications, computer, distribution, express delivery, energy, environmental, and 

professional services.45

The agreement will also preserve duty-free access for Panamanian goods previously 

granted under U.S. trade preference programs. On October 26, 2012, USTR provided 

notice that tariff-rate quotas for sugar established under this agreement will be 

administered using certificates as of October 31, 2012.46

In 2012, Panama notified the WTO of its WTO Information Technology Agreement 

(ITA) tariff schedule and thereby achieved membership in the ITA. As an ITA 

participant, Panama has committed to provide duty-free treatment on imports of products 

covered by the ITA to all WTO members. On October 5, 2012, Panama amended its 

telecommunications law to eliminate the universal service program contribution amount 

charged on inbound international traffic to Panama that was significantly higher than the 

amount collected from carriers engaged in domestic communication. Under the revised 

law, which took effect January 1, 2013, all carriers engaged in telecommunications in 

Panama will contribute up to 1 percent of their taxable income to Panama’s universal 

service program. This charge eliminates the competition imbalance Panama’s former law 

had imposed on foreign competitors.47

Law 61 of October 5, 2012, amending Panama’s industry property law, and Law 64 of 

October 10, 2012, amending Panama’s copyright law, introduced important updates to 

Panama’s legislative framework. Among other things, the new laws implemented certain 

intellectual property rights (IPR) obligations of the PATPA.

 42 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 288. 43 USDOS, “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) Enters Into Force,” October 31, 2012. 44 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 288. 45 USTR, “U.S. and Panama Set Date for Entry-Into-Force of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion 

Agreement,” October 23, 2012. 46 USTR, “Implementation of United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Tariff-Rate Quota for 

Imports of Sugar,” 77 Fed. Reg. 65439 (October 26, 2012). 47 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 290.
4-11

Progress on Environmental Matters Connected with the U.S.-Peru 

Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) 

During May 29–31, 2012, the governments of the United States and Peru held their fifth 

meeting of the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance, the third meeting of the 

Environmental Affairs Committee (EAC), and the second meeting of the Environmental 

Cooperation Commission (ECC).48 The EAC reviewed progress both countries had made 

in ensuring effective implementation of, and compliance with, the obligations under the 

PTPA chapter on environment. Peru’s efforts to develop regulations to implement a new 

Forestry and Wildlife Law were also discussed by the parties.49 The ECC reviewed the 

activities of the EAC, in particular the status of cooperative environmental activities 

under the 2011–2014 work program. USTR also led a rigorous review of Peru’s efforts to 

implement its commitments to the PTPA Annex on Forest Sector Governance with 

respect to the harvest and export of bigleaf mahogany and Spanish cedar timber 

products.50

Negotiations and Consultations toward the Trans-Pacific

Partnership (TPP) Agreement 

The United States and its TPP partners—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam—concluded five formal rounds of 

negotiations during 2012. The 11th round of the TPP was held in March (Melbourne, 

Australia); the 12th round in May (Dallas, TX), the 13th round in July (San Diego, CA), 

the 14th round in September (Leesburg, VA), and the 15th round in December 

(Auckland, New Zealand). TPP leaders also met on the margins of the APEC trade 

ministers’ meeting in June (Kazan, Russia) and the APEC ministerial meeting in 

September (Vladivostok, Russia).

On February 7, 2012, the United States and Japan held the first senior-level bilateral 

consultation following Japan’s announcement in November 2011 of its intention to begin 

consultations with TPP countries toward joining the TPP negotiations.51 Canada and 

Mexico held similar consultations with the United States on February 13, 2012, and 

February 16, 2012, respectively, following the announcements of their intention to begin 

consultations toward joining the TPP negotiations.52 The United States and eight other 

TPP countries extended invitations to Mexico and Canada to join the TPP negotiations on 

June 18, 2012, and June 19, 2012, respectively.53

The 11th round of TPP negotiations was hosted by Australia March 1–9 in Melbourne.54

In the round, TPP partners continued to develop and implement detailed plans for 

 48 USTR, “Meetings of the U.S.-Peru Environmental Affairs Council, Environmental Cooperation 

Commission, and Subcommittee on Forest Sector Governance,” May 30, 2012. 49 USTR, “Joint Communiqué of the Meetings of the United States-Peru Environmental Affairs 

Council, Environmental Cooperation Commission and Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance,” June 

1, 2012. 50 USTR, “The United States and Peru Reach Agreement on Action Plan,” January 1, 2013. 51 USTR, “U.S., Japan Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” February 7, 

2012; USTR, “U.S., Canada Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” February 13, 

2012. 52 USTR, “U.S., Canada Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” February 13, 

2012; USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico,” June 18, 2012. 53 USTR, U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada,” June 19, 2012; USTR, “U.S. Trade 

Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico,” June 18, 2012. 54 Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Eleventh Round of TransPacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations,” March 2012.
4-12

concluding negotiations, especially on regulatory coherence, transparency, 

competitiveness and business facilitation, the interests of small and medium-sized 

enterprises, and development. Negotiations on market access for goods, services, 

investment, and government procurement also progressed with several countries 

presenting improved offers in these areas.

55

The 12th round of TPP negotiations was hosted by the United States May 8–18 in 

Dallas.56 The negotiations narrowed the differences on many areas of the legal text, and 

negotiating groups worked toward concluding most of the more than 20 chapters of the 

agreement. Progress was made in goods, services, investment, telecommunications, ecommerce, government procurement, customs, IPR, labor, and competition. The teams 

focused discussions on:

• Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a new feature in a U.S. 

FTA intended to support SMEs’ integration into global trade;57

• Developing ambitious tariff packages that would give partners access to 

each other’s individual goods, agricultural, and textile markets;

• Finding closure on the cross-cutting issues of regulatory coherence, 

deepening of regional supply linkages between TPP countries, and 

promoting development; and

• A new format introduced by the United States for negotiators to engage 

with more than 300 stakeholders from the United States and other TPP 

countries.

On June 5, TPP trade ministers met on the margins of the APEC trade ministers meeting. 

Ministers discussed the status of TPP negotiations, welcomed important progress made in 

2012, and instructed negotiators to work to close as much of the legal text of the 

agreement as possible during the 13th round in San Diego.58 The ministers welcomed the 

interest of Canada, Mexico, and Japan in joining the TPP and discussed the progress of 

each TPP country’s bilateral consultations with the three new members.59 No decision 

was made on the entry of Mexico, Canada, and Japan at this time, but as noted earlier, the 

United States and other TPP partners extended invitations to Mexico and Canada on June 

18 and 19, respectively, to join the TPP negotiations, pending successful conclusion of 

their domestic procedures.60

The 13th round of TPP negotiations was hosted by the United States July 2–10 in San 

Diego. Talks continued to move toward conclusion of the more than 20 chapters under 

negotiation between TPP partners.61 Negotiating groups made significant progress in 

chapters covering customs, cross-border services, telecommunications, government 

procurement, competition policy, and cooperation and capacity building. They also 

 55 Ibid. 56 Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Twelfth Round of TransPacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations,” May 2012. 57 USTR, “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Talks Advance in Texas,” May 16, 2012. 58 Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Twelfth Round of TransPacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations,” May 2012. 59 USTR, “Readout of the Meeting of Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers in Kazan, Russia,” June 5, 

2012. 60 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico,” June 18, 2012; USTR, U.S. Trade 

Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada,” June 19, 2012. 61 USTR, “Important Progress Made at TPP Talks in San Diego,” July 10, 2012.
4-13

continued to move forward on rules of origin, investment, financial services, and 

temporary entry. The United States tabled a new proposal in the IPR group addressing 

copyright limitations and exceptions.62 On July 2, USTR welcomed more than 150 

stakeholders to the TPP negotiations in San Diego for an Official Stakeholders 

Engagement Forum with USTR’s negotiating officials. On July 3, both USTR officials 

and chief negotiators from other TPP countries held a briefing with stakeholders.63

On July 9 and 10, USTR notified Congress of its plans to enter negotiations with Mexico 

and Canada, respectively, as part of the TPP. The notification triggered a 90-day 

consultation period with Congress on U.S. negotiating objectives with respect to Mexico 

and Canada. On July 23, 2012, the USTR published requests for comments regarding 

negotiating objectives with respect to Mexico and Canada’s participation in the TPP 

negotiations.64

On September 6, TPP leaders met in Vladivostok on the margins of the APEC ministerial 

meeting to review the progress of TPP negotiations. Ministers provided a report to TPP 

leaders outlining the substantial headway achieved to date.65 Leaders reported significant 

progress in comprehensive market access, regional agreement, and cross-cutting trade 

issues. TPP leaders confirmed their commitment to concluding a comprehensive regional 

TPP agreement as rapidly as possible, and welcomed Canada and Mexico to the 

negotiating group.

The 14th round of TPP negotiations was hosted by the United States September 6–15 in 

Leesburg, Virginia. Good progress was made in advancing efforts to reach agreement on 

the text of 29 chapters of the agreement.66 TPP negotiators continued to move forward in 

constructing the tariff and other specific market-opening commitments that each country 

was making on industrial goods, agriculture, textiles, services and investment, and 

government procurement. Nine members also reported a continued focus on IPR, labor, 

and the environment.67 After the conclusion of the round, USTR held public hearings on 

matters related to Mexico’s and Canada’s participation in TPP negotiations on September 

21 and September 24, respectively.68 Witnesses representing industry associations, 

nongovernment organizations, and organized labor offered testimony on both Mexico and 

Canada.

The 15th round was hosted by New Zealand December 11–12 in Auckland.69 Leaders 

took steps toward closing the remaining gaps between the participating countries and 

confirmed their mutual priority commitment to conclude a state-of-the-art, 

comprehensive agreement as quickly as possible. Canada and Mexico participated in the 

negotiations for the first time, and negotiators reported progress on closing outstanding 

legal texts of the 29 chapters of the agreement covering all trade- and investment-related 

issues. Further steps forward were also made on goods, services, investment, and 

government procurement, and leaders agreed to comprehensive access to each other’s 

markets in all areas. They continued to advance tariff packages for industrial goods, 

agriculture, and textiles; market-opening commitments on services and investment; rules 

 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 USTR, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Ministers” Report to Leaders,” September 9, 2012; “TransPacific Partnership Leadership Statement,” September 9, 2012. 66 USTR, “Progress Continues in Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks,” September 15, 2012. 67 Ibid. 68 USTR, “USTR Hold Public Hearing on Mexico and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” September 21, 

2012; “USTR Holds Public Hearing on Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” September 24, 2012. 69 USTR, “TPP Chief Negotiators Pleased to Report Continued Progress,” December 11, 2012.
4-14

on government procurement; and rules of origin promoting the development of supply 

chains that include companies based in the TPP partner countries.

With the addition of Canada and Mexico, U.S. trade with TPP negotiating partners is now 

largely dominated by its trade with the NAFTA countries, which accounted for 80.8 

percent of U.S. exports to TPP partners and 86.3 percent of U.S. imports from TPP 

partners in 2012 (table 4.4). Four other TPP partners also have FTAs with the United 

States: Singapore, Australia, Chile, and Peru. In total, U.S. exports to and imports from 

TPP partners with which it already has FTAs, including NAFTA, accounted for 96.4 

percent of U.S. TPP exports and 92.9 percent of TPP imports. 

Nonetheless, the U.S. trade relationship with its non-FTA TPP partners is also important. 

The United States runs a trade deficit, which has been increasing since 2010, with the 

non-FTA TPP partners Brunei Darussalem, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam. U.S. 

exports to the non-FTA TPP countries are dominated by electronic integrated circuits, 

aircraft, ferrous waste and scrap, soybeans, diodes and transistors, and cotton. The largest 

categories of U.S. imports from the non-FTA TPP countries include telephone sets, 

electronic circuits and diodes, furniture, diodes and transistors, automatic data processing 

machines, and sweaters, pullovers, and sweatshirts. In total, the TPP in its current form

covers 38.4 percent of total 2012 U.S. exports and 30.9 percent of U.S. imports; if 

concluded, it would be the world’s largest FTA in terms of total trade covered.

North American Free Trade Agreement70

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico entered into force on January 1, 1994. All of the agreement’s 

provisions were implemented by January 1, 2008, with the exception of the NAFTA 

TABLE 4.4 U.S. merchandise trade with TPP partners,a 2010–12

Trade with TPP partners 2010 2011 2012

% change,

2011–12

Million $ (unless otherwise specified)

Exports:

TPP partners with FTAs

 Of which NAFTA

TPP partners without FTAs

Total exports to TPP

Share with FTAs (percent)

400,184

337,558

18,380

418,565

95.6

469,309

393,684

20,011

489,320

95.9

500,783

419,358

18,390

519,173

96.4

6.7

6.5

–8.1

6.1

Imports:

TPP partners with FTAs

 Of which NAFTA

TPP partners without FTAs

Total imports from TPP

Share with FTAs (percent)

542,555

504,360

43,275

585,831

92.6

623,545

579,067

46,214

669,759

93.1

645,960

600,333

49,341

695,300

92.9

3.6

3.7

6.8

3.8

Trade Balance:

TPP partners with FTAs

 Of which NAFTA

TPP partners without FTAs

–142,371

–166,802

–24,895

–154,236

–185,383

–26,203

–145,176

–180,975

–30,951

5.9

2.4

–18.1

Source: USDOC.

 aTPP negotiating partners at yearend 2012 included Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, 

Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Of these, the United States has FTAs with Australia, Canada, 

Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Singapore.

 70 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chapter 5 of this report.
4-15

cross-border trucking provisions.71 In 2012, total two-way (exports plus imports) U.S. 

merchandise trade with its NAFTA partners increased by 4.8 percent over 2011, with

U.S.-Canada merchandise trade amounting to $568.1 billion and U.S.-Mexico 

merchandise trade totaling $451.6 billion (table 4.1). The U.S. merchandise trade deficit 

with NAFTA partners decreased to $181.0 billion in 2012 from $185.4 billion in the 

previous year—a decrease of 2.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 11.1 percent in 

2011. Leading products responsible for the deficit in 2012 included crude petroleum and 

petroleum products, natural gas, motor vehicles and parts and accessories, televisions, 

computers, and cell phones.

The following sections describe the major activities of NAFTA’s Free Trade Commission 

(FTC), Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC), and Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation (CEC), as well as the dispute settlement activities under NAFTA Chapters 

11 and 19 during 2012.

Free Trade Commission

The FTC is NAFTA’s central oversight body. It is chaired jointly by trade representatives 

or their designees from the three member countries.72 The FTC is responsible for 

overseeing NAFTA’s implementation and elaboration, as well as activities under its 

dispute settlement provisions.

73 At its meeting in April 2012 in Washington, DC, the FTC 

agreed to engage in regulatory cooperation to contribute meaningfully to bilateral and 

trilateral initiatives with a view towards facilitating trade and cutting administrative 

costs.74 The FTC “asked the NAFTA Committee for Standards-Related Measures 

(CSRM) to continue its work to enhance cooperation on the development, application and 

enforcement of standards-related measures, and to provide a forum for the Parties to 

consult on issues relating to standards-related measures.”75 At the meeting, the FTC 

agreed to enhance trade in chemicals starting with exploratory work on rules of origin, 

customs procedures, and classification. The FTC also asked the relevant NAFTA 

working groups and committees to address issues in these areas and to look for ways to 

reduce unnecessary differences in regulations and procedures in order to reduce 

transaction costs and facilitate trade.76 Regarding the bilateral mutual recognition 

agreements (MRAs) for telecommunications equipment signed by the United States and 

Mexico (May 2011), and Mexico and Canada (November 2011), the FTC reiterated its 

commitment to the MRAs’ full implementation.77

The FTC also noted that the parties had a robust discussion on the experiences of SMEs 

in North America. The FTC pointed out that the Small Business Development Centers 

(SBDCs) in the United States and Mexico are linking SMEs for trade opportunities 

through an interactive platform, the SBDCGlobal.com network.78 Canada, after exploring 

the potential to join the network, will engage stakeholders regarding the possibility of 

 71 The section on Mexico in chapter 5 discusses NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions. 

Information on the last remaining restrictions on U.S.-Mexico trade that were removed on January 1, 2008, is 

given in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-16. 72 The representatives are the USTR, Canadian Minister for International Trade, and Mexican Secretary 

of the Economy. 73 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 133. 74 USTR, “Joint Statement from 2012 NAFTA Free Trade Commission Meeting,” April 3, 2012. 75 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 133; USTR, “Statement 

from 2012 NAFTA Free Trade Commission Meeting,” April 3, 2012. 76 USTR, “Joint Statement from 2012 NAFTA Free Trade Commission Meeting,” April 3, 2012. 77 The United States and Canada have had an MRA since 2003. USTR, “Statement from 2012 NAFTA 

Free Trade Commission Meeting,” April 3, 2012. 78 USTR, “Joint Statement from 2012 NAFTA Free Trade Commission Meeting,” April 3, 2012.
4-16

joining the SBDCGlobal.com network.79 In addition, the FTC released “The NAFTA 

Certificate of Origin: Frequently Asked Questions,” a publication designed to answer 

basic questions about completing that form, particularly for SMEs. The FTC also 

instructed officials to find additional ways of meeting the distinct requirements of SMEs 

to allow them to seize export opportunities.80

On May 19, 2010, the presidents of the United States and Mexico created the High-Level 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) to identify areas of mutual interest for 

regulatory cooperation that are intended to improve commerce and competitiveness in 

North America.81 The HLRCC finalized its Terms of Reference in March 2011; key 

principles cover making regulations more compatible, and increasing regulatory 

simplification and transparency. On February 28, 2012, the HLRCC released the United 

States-Mexico Work Plan, which outlines the activities to be carried out for the next two

years.82 This plan focuses on the following six areas: food, transportation, 

nanotechnology, e-health, offshore oil and gas development standards, and accreditation 

of conformity assessment bodies.

83

Commission for Labor Cooperation

The CLC, composed of a ministerial council and an administrative secretariat, was 

established under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The 

NAALC is a supplemental agreement to NAFTA that aims to promote effective 

enforcement of domestic labor laws and foster transparency in administering them. The 

CLC is responsible for implementing the NAALC. Each NAFTA partner has established 

a national administrative office (NAO) within its labor ministry to serve as the contact 

point with the other parties, the secretariat, other government agencies, and the public. In 

the United States, that office is the Division of Trade Agreement Administration and 

Technical Cooperation under the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) within the 

Department of Labor.84 Another NAO function is to receive and respond to public 

communications on labor law matters arising in another NAALC country. Each NAO 

establishes its own domestic procedures for reviewing and responding to public 

communications. The NAOs and the secretariat also carry out the cooperative activities 

of the CLC, including seminars, conferences, joint research projects, and technical 

assistance.85

In 2012, the CLC met to discuss ways to strengthen the NAALC. Also, the National 

Advisory Committee for Labor Provisions in U.S. Free Trade Agreements (NAC) 

provided recommendations to the U.S. NAO on how to improve the functioning of the 

NAALC.86 On January 13, 2012, OTLA announced that it accepted for review a 

submission by the Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas, a Mexican union. The Sindicato 

Mexicano de Electricistas had filed the submission on behalf of 93 other organizations. 

The submitters allege that the government of Mexico failed to fulfill its obligations under 

the NAACL regarding workers’ rights.87 On July 2, 2012, OTLA extended the period of 

 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 White House, “Fact Sheet: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation,” March 3, 2012. 82 White House, United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council Work Plan,” 

February 28, 2012. 83 Ibid. 84 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Division of Trade Administration and Technical Cooperation (TAATC),” 

n.d. (accessed March 26, 2013). 85 CLC, “The National Administrative Offices,” (accessed March 27, 2013). 86 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 133. 87 77 Fed. Reg. 4366 (January 27, 2012).
4-17

review for the submission, as OTLA had received a supplemental submission from the 

submitters containing new allegations on May 25, 2012.88

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

The CEC was established under the North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation (NAAEC). It is a supplemental agreement to NAFTA designed to ensure 

that trade liberalization and efforts to protect the environment are mutually supportive. 

The CEC oversees the mandate of the NAAEC and is composed of (1) the Council—the 

governing body of the CEC—made up of the environmental ministers from the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico;89 (2) the Joint Public Advisory Committee, made up of five 

private citizens from each of the NAFTA parties; and (3) the Secretariat, located in 

Montreal. The Secretariat carries out initiatives and conducts research on topics 

pertaining to the North American environment, environmental law, and environmental 

standards, as well as processing citizen submissions on enforcement matters.90

Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC provide citizens and nongovernmental organizations 

with a mechanism to help enforce environmental laws in the NAFTA countries. Article 

14 governs alleged violations submitted for review by the CEC. It sets forth guidelines 

regarding criteria for submissions and parties that can file complaints. Article 15 outlines 

the Secretariat’s obligations in considering the submissions and publishing findings in the 

factual record.91 At the end of 2012, 11 complaint files remained active under Articles 14 

and 15, 2 of which were submitted in 2012 (table 4.5). In 2012, 1 active file involved the 

United States, 5 involved Canada, and 5 involved Mexico.

At the 19th regular session of the CEC Council on July 11, 2012, in New Orleans, the 

CEC Council took action to modernize the implementation of the Submissions on 

Enforcement Matters (SEM) process. The council made a number of improvements 

intended to increase the process’s timeliness, transparency, and accessibility, and to bring 

more clarity to this information-sharing mechanism. One significant change—the 

revisions to the Guidelines on Submissions on Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 

and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)—

establishes target deadlines for key steps in the SEM process aimed at cutting the average 

processing time by half. Additional planned improvements included setting up new 

online tools to make submissions easier, stepping up public outreach, and evaluating how 

well deadlines are complied with.92 The council also instructed its officials to consider 

specific initiatives in areas such as electronic waste, clean energy, and other specific 

economically integrated sectors in North America.

In 2009, the Free Trade Commission established an ad hoc working group composed of 

senior trade officials to explore areas of potential collaboration between the FTC and the 

CEC. At its regular annual session, the CEC Council noted that its Executive Director 

participated in the April FTC meeting, where the group’s work plan was approved. 

Highlights of the work plan included ensuring cooperation and communication between 

the FTC and the CEC; involving trade officials in planning and carrying out CEC 

projects; and launching initiatives addressing links between trade and the environment—

 88 77 Fed. Reg. 39265 (July 2, 2012). 89 The CEC Council consists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Canadian 

Environment Minister, and Mexican Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources. 90 CEC, Secretariat, “Three Countries, One Environment” (accessed March 27, 2013). 91 CEC, “Submissions on Enforcement Matters,” n.d. (accessed March 27, 2013). 92 CEC, “CEC Ministerial Statement: Nineteenth Regular Session of the CEC Council” (accessed 

March 27, 2013).
4-18

TABLE 4.5 Active files as of yearend 2012 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation

Name Case First filed Countrya Status

Coal-fired 

Power Plants

SEM-04-005 Sept. 20, 2004 United 

States

The Secretariat posted a request for information 

relevant to the factual record on its website on 

September 15, 2008.

Environmental 

Pollution in 

Hermosillo II

SEM-05-003 Aug. 30, 2005 Mexico The Secretariat posted a request for 

information relevant to the factual record on 

its website on August 21, 2012.

Ex Hacienda 

El Hospital II

SEM-06-003 July 17, 2006 Mexico The Secretariat posted a request for 

information relevant to the factual record on 

its website on August 29, 2012.

Ex Hacienda 

El Hospital III

SEM-06-004 Sept. 22, 2006 Mexico The Secretariat posted a request for 

information relevant to the factual record on 

its website on August 29, 2012.

Wetlands in 

Manzanillo

SEM-09-002 Feb. 4, 2009 Mexico The Secretariat received a response from the 

concerned government party and began 

considering on October 12, 2010, whether to 

recommend a factual record.

Alberta 

Tailings 

Ponds

SEM-10-002 Apr. 13, 2010 Canada The Secretariat received and began to analyze a 

revised submission on October 1, 2010.

Iona 

Wastewater 

Treatment

SEM-10-003 May 7, 2010 Canada The Secretariat received a response from the 

concerned government party and began 

considering on February 14, 2012, whether to 

recommend a factual record.

Sumidero 

Canyon II

SEM-11-002 Nov. 29, 2011 Mexico The Secretariat received a response from the 

concerned government party and began 

considering on November 27, 2012, whether to 

recommend a factual record.

Protection of 

Polar Bears

SEM-11-003 Dec. 5, 2011 Canada The Secretariat received a submission and

began a preliminary analysis of it on December 

5, 2011.

BC Salmon 

Farms

SEM-12-001 Feb. 10, 2012 Canada The Secretariat began reviewing the submission 

under Article 14(1) on February 14, 2012.

St. Lawrence 

River Wind Farms

SEM-12-002 Dec. 14, 2012 Canada The Secretariat began reviewing the submission 

under Article 14(1) on December 14, 2012.

Source: CEC, “Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions.”

 aRefers to the country against which an allegation was filed.

for example, “exchanging information on the trade flows and cross-border supply chains 

in used electronics within North America.” 93

In November 1993, the United States and Mexico agreed on arrangements to help border 

communities with environmental infrastructure projects in order to further the goals of 

 93 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 133.
4-19

NAFTA and the NAAEC. The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) 

and the North American Development Bank (NADB) are working with communities 

throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region to address their environmental infrastructure 

needs.94 As of December 31, 2012, the NADB had contracted a cumulative total of 

approximately $1.9 billion in loans and grants, of which a total of $1.7 billion had already 

been disbursed. These funds helped finance 171 projects certified by the BECC with an 

estimated total cost of $5.1 billion, principally involving water and wastewater systems.

95

Dispute Settlement

The dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA Chapters 11 and 19 cover a variety of 

areas.96 The sections below describe developments during 2012 in NAFTA Chapter 11 

investor-state disputes and Chapter 19 binational reviews of final determinations of 

antidumping and countervailing cases. Appendix table A.24 presents an overview of 

developments in NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute settlement cases to which the United States 

was a party in 2012.

Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments

Chapter 11 of NAFTA includes provisions designed to protect cross-border investors and 

ease the settlement of investment disputes. An investor who alleges that a NAFTA 

country has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may pursue arbitration 

through internationally recognized channels or remedies available in the host country’s

domestic courts.97 A key feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability 

in domestic courts of final awards made by arbitration tribunals.98

In 2012, there were five active Chapter 11 cases filed against the United States, four of 

them filed by Canadian investors and one filed by a Mexican investor;99 six filed by U.S. 

investors against Canada;100 and none filed against Mexico.101

Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews

Chapter 19 of NAFTA contains a mechanism that provides for a binational panel to 

review final determinations made by national investigating authorities in antidumping 

and countervailing duty cases. Such a panel serves as an alternative to judicial review by 

domestic courts and may be established at the request of any involved NAFTA 

country.102

 94 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 133. 95 BECC and NADB, Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 2012; NADB, “Summary of Project 

Implementation Activities: Active Projects,” December 31, 2012. 96 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” (accessed March 28, 2013). 97 Internationally recognized arbitral mechanisms include the International Centre for the Settlement of 

Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank, ICSID’s Additional Facility Rules, and the rules of the 

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules). 98 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 28, 2013). 99 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States” (accessed 

March 29, 2013). 100 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada” 

(accessed March 29, 2013). 101 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States” 

(accessed March 29, 2013); Secretaría de Economía, “Solución de Controversias: Inversionistas-Estado” 

(accessed March 29, 2013). 102 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 29, 2013).
4-20

At the end of 2012, the NAFTA Secretariat listed 14 binational panels active under 

Chapter 19 (table 4.6). Eleven of the 14 active cases in 2012 challenged U.S. agencies’ 

determinations. Five binational panels were formed in 2012 under Chapter 19. Two of the 

5 challenged the Mexican agency’s determinations on products from the United States, 

and three challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Mexico.103

TABLE 4.6 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews as of yearend 2012

Countrya Case number National agencies’ final determinationb Case title

Mexico

 MEX-USA-2011-1904-01 SE Countervailing Duty Stearic Acid

 MEX-USA-2012-1904-01 SE Antidumping Administrative Review Chicken Thighs and Legs

 MEX-USA-2012-1904-02 SE Antidumping Administrative Review Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl 

Ether

United States

USA-CDA-2008-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod

USA-CDA-2009-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils

USA-MEX-2008-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils

USA-MEX-2009-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils

USA-MEX-2010-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils

USA-MEX-2011-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils

USA-MEX-2011-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Light-Walled Rectangular

Pipe and Tube

USA-MEX-2012-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube

USA-MEX-2012-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Bottom Mount 

Combination RefrigeratorFreezers

USA-MEX-2012-1904-03 USDOC Antidumping Administrative 

Review

Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Dispute Settlements Proceedings.”

 aThe United States filed the first three cases contesting Mexico’s determinations, Canada filed the next two cases 

contesting U.S. determinations, and Mexico filed the remaining cases contesting U.S. determinations.

 bIn Canada, final dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the Canada Border Services Agency, and 

injury determinations are made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. In Mexico, all determinations are 

made by the Secretariat of the Economy. In the United States, dumping and subsidy determinations are made by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), and injury determinations are made by the USITC. NAFTA 

Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions,” accessed March 28, 2013.

 103 NAFTA Secretariat, “NAFTA—Chapter 19 Active Cases,” undated (accessed April 1, 2013).
5-1

CHAPTER 5 

U.S. Relations with Major Trading Partners 

This chapter reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with 10 selected trading partners during 

2012: the European Union (EU), Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Brazil, Taiwan, India, and Russia (ordered by value of two-way merchandise 

trade). Appendix tables A.4 and A.5 show U.S. trade with its top 15 single-country 

trading partners in 2012.

European Union 

The EU as a unit1 is the largest two-way (exports and imports) U.S. trading partner in 

terms of both goods and services. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with the EU rose 

1.0 percent in 2012 to $609.8 billion, accounting for 16.9 percent of total U.S. trade. 

However, U.S.-EU trade that year still had not recovered to the level recorded in 2008 

($614.9 billion), just before the global economic downturn. Although U.S. imports from 

the EU grew slightly in 2012, U.S. exports to the EU declined as slow growth in the EU 

continued. As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU grew $17.2 billion 

or 14.2 percent, to $138.5 billion in 2012 (figure 5.1). On the other hand, the U.S. trade 

surplus in private services with the EU was $54.8 billion in 2012, up $2.8 billion from 

2011 (figure 5.2); the EU accounted for 32.6 percent of U.S. two-way trade in services in 

2012.

2

The EU fell behind Canada to rank second as a market for U.S. exports in 2012 for the 

first time since 2006. U.S. merchandise exports to the EU decreased 2.3 percent in 2012 

to $235.6 billion. Leading U.S. exports included aircraft and parts, petroleum-related 

products, certain medicaments (medicines), nonmonetary gold, and coal. The most 

notable gains among top exports were recorded for certain passenger motor vehicles,

FIGURE 5.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 

 a

Data for 2012 are preliminary.

 1 The 27 members of the EU in 2012 were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 

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

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

United Kingdom. 2 The services trade data by country reported in this chapter are based on trade in private services, 

which exclude government sales and purchases of services.

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-2

contributing to an increase for all such vehicles of 2.5 percent. Exports of certain 

medicaments also rose significantly by value. The decline in the value of U.S. exports 

was led by nonmonetary gold, human vaccines, and aircraft and parts. One-half of the top 

25 U.S. exports to the EU declined by value between 2011 and 2012.

The EU also ranked second as a source for U.S. imports, following China. U.S. 

merchandise imports from the EU rose 3.2 percent in 2012 to $374.1 billion. Leading 

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

products, turbojets and parts, and certain heterocyclic compounds. Among the top 

imports, the most notable increases were in motor vehicles, which grew by over $5 

billion, and turbojets and parts. U.S.-EU merchandise trade data are shown in appendix 

tables A.25 through A.27.

A major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2012 was the work of the U.S.-EU 

High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, which was launched by the U.S.-EU 

Summit in late 2011 to recommend ways to expand bilateral trade and investment. 

Several initiatives under the umbrella of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) also 

made progress, including initiatives related to small and medium-sized enterprises

(SMEs), raw materials, investment, and secure trade, which are described below.

In other developments, the United States and the EU implemented an agreement to 

recognize each other’s organic product certifications on June 1, reducing duplicative 

requirements and certification costs in organic trade.

3 Also, on August 1, 2012, the 

second phase of the 2009 U.S.-EU Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the 

beef hormone dispute, as well as the second phase of a similar EU agreement with 

Canada, were implemented, raising the EU’s quota for high-quality beef to 48,200 metric 

tons.4 There were developments in several World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute 

settlement cases involving the United States and the EU in 2012, including the longrunning U.S. and EU complaints about each other’s measures affecting trade in large civil 

aircraft (see chapter 3 and appendix table A.23).

The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth 

The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth was set up to identify and 

assess policies and measures that can increase U.S.-EU trade and investment to support 

job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness.5 The working group 

was to provide an interim update to U.S. and EU leaders in June 2012 and a final report 

with findings and recommendations at the end of 2012. Although the final report was 

delayed until 2013, the interim report was released as scheduled.6 The interim report 

concluded that a “comprehensive agreement that addresses a broad range of bilateral 

trade and investment policies as well as issues of common concern with respect to third 

 3 USDA, FAS, EU-27: The EU-U.S. Organic Equivalence Cooperation Arrangement, February 15, 

2012. 4 High-quality beef is beef from cattle not treated with hormones. The EU’s high-quality beef quota is 

open to all countries on a most-favored-nation basis. The quota was raised to 45,000 metric tons based on the 

U.S. WTO dispute settlement case alone; the additional 3,200 metric tons results from the EU’s WTO dispute 

with Canada. See chapter 2’s discussion of section 301 investigations for more information. USDA, FAS, 

EU-27: Changes to the EU High Quality Beef Quota Published, June 12, 2012. 5 EU-U.S. High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, “Interim Report to Leaders from the CoChairs,” June 19, 2012. 6 The final report was released on February 11, 2013, and on February 13, the United States and EU 

announced their intentions to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

(TTIP).
5-3

countries would, if achievable, provide the most significant benefit.”7 The agreement 

would include traditional free trade agreement provisions as well as new rules that affect 

trade and investment.8 Subject to further study, the interim report envisions seven areas to 

include in the agreement: elimination of all tariffs, improved regulatory compatibility and 

elimination of nontariff barriers, services liberalization, investment liberalization and 

protections, improved access to government procurement opportunities, intellectual 

property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement, and new rules that would be relevant to 

bilateral trade as well as multilateral and third-country agreements. The rules could cover 

the following: trade facilitation/customs; trade-related aspects of competition and stateowned enterprises; trade-related aspects of labor and the environment; horizontal (crosscutting) provisions on SMEs; strengthening supply chains; and access to raw materials 

and energy.

To improve regulatory compatibility, the two sides agreed to seek to negotiate a WTOplus sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards chapter and a WTO-plus technical 

barriers to trade (TBT) chapter,9 which would include establishing bilateral forums to 

address SPS and TBT issues, respectively, as they arise. The new agreement would also 

include horizontal disciplines (rules) on regulatory coherence and transparency for goods 

and services, including early consultations on significant regulations, impact assessment, 

upstream regulatory cooperation, and good regulatory practices.”10 Commitments would 

also be made to promote regulatory compatibility in mutually agreed sectors. As stated in 

the interim agreement, to help them develop concrete action plans, in September 2012 the 

United States and EU asked for stakeholder comments on how to make regulations on 

both sides of the Atlantic more compatible with each other in general, as well as how to 

achieve greater regulatory compatibility in particular economic sectors.

11

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) 

The TEC oversees and guides a large work plan aimed at lowering transatlantic barriers 

to trade and investment in order to strengthen integration and promote growth. During 

2012, the TEC made progress in four areas—improving trade opportunities for SMEs;

export duties and other trade measures in the raw materials sector; investment principles;

and secure trade—as described below.

Under the auspices of the TEC, two workshops were held in 2012 to exchange ideas 

among government officials, SME stakeholders, and business associations about how to 

increase trade and investment opportunities for SMEs. Participants in the first workshop, 

held in Rome, Italy, in July 2012, exchanged best practices, pointed out challenges facing 

SMEs seeking to export, and addressed trade barriers that disproportionately affect 

SMEs.12 Also discussed were strategies for selling to EU markets, increasing exports 

through e-commerce platforms, and SME finance mechanisms.13 At the second 

workshop, held in Washington, DC, in December 2012, participants discussed best 

practices in entrepreneurial programs for women- and youth-owned SMEs; IPR resources

for SMEs; the impact of standards on SME access to markets; SME business financing 

 7 EU-U.S. High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, “Interim Report to Leaders from the CoChairs,” June 19, 2012. 8 Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue, “Monthly Newsletter: September 2012,” 2. 9 WTO-plus refers to strengthening and reinforcing the rules and disciplines of the WTO’s agreements 

on SPS and TBT. 10 Upstream regulatory cooperation refers to cooperating when developing new regulations in order to 

avoid creating unintended barriers to trade. 11 77 Fed. Reg. 59702 (September 28, 2012). 12 USTR, “Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Sapiro Leads U.S. Delegation,” July 12, 2012. 13 Ibid.
5-4

tools, including crowd funding; and geographic clusters with a specific industry focus, 

including small business suppliers.14 In addition, at the December workshop U.S. and EU 

officials signed an MOU between the International Trade Administration (ITA) of the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) and the European Enterprise Network, which is 

a worldwide network of 600 business and innovation support organizations managed by 

the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry (DGE).

15

The MOU formalizes U.S. and EU efforts to collaborate on trade promotion and 

networking opportunities, information sharing, and policy initiatives that will help SMEs

to access foreign markets.16 According to the USDOC, the MOU will facilitate the ITA 

and DGE in undertaking specific initiatives to address market access problems and other 

barriers that restrict SME trade and investment.17 Both sides expect to quickly develop a 

work plan and form a working group (as laid out in the MOU) to develop an agenda of 

concrete initiatives.18

The TEC made progress in several areas related to raw materials, including trade 

cooperation and cooperation on raw materials data. U.S. and EU officials reaffirmed their 

commitment to the principle of eliminating export duties in their bilateral trade 

agreements with third countries and agreed to coordinate with respect to such 

commitments in pursuing trade negotiations with third countries. Both sides also agreed 

to raise awareness of the global impact of trade barriers in the raw materials sector 

through the WTO Trade Policy Review process and to develop a checklist of raw 

materials-related trade disciplines to use in discussions related to WTO accession. The

two sides are also strengthening cooperation on reducing export restrictions on raw 

materials at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

19 In 

September, the United States and EU held a workshop on the availability and trade flows 

of mineral raw materials where participants explored steps to create a joint raw materials 

data inventory and other means to share data to ensure reliable and diverse supplies of

raw materials.20

On April 10, 2012, the TEC’s working group on investment announced an agreement on 

Shared Principles for International Investment.

21 These principles reaffirm the U.S. and 

EU joint commitment to open, transparent, and nondiscriminatory international 

investment policies in order to attract long-term sustainable investment.

22 The two sides

plan to observe these principles bilaterally as well as to promote them with third countries 

in developing investment policy in the future.23 For example, the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) noted that the countries in North Africa and the Middle East 

“have signaled they are ready to adopt these principles to spur greater investment.”24

 14 USTR, “USTR Welcomes U.S.-EU Memorandum of Understanding,” December 4, 2012; USDOS, 

“U.S.-EU Workshop on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises,” December 3–4, 2012. 15 Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade 

Administration and European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry Concerning 

Cooperation on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, December 3, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/12042012%20U.S.-EU%20SME%20MOU.pdf (accessed April 12, 

2013).16 USDOC, “Commerce and European Union Officials Sign MOU,” December 4, 2012. 17 Ibid. 18 Camuñez, speech before the TEC SME workshop opening session, Washington, DC, December 3, 

2012. 19 USDOS, “TEC Work Plan for Cooperation on Raw Materials,” April 3, 2012. 20 USDOS, “EU-U.S. Expert Workshop on Raw Material Flows & Data,” September 14, 2012. 21 USDOS, “Statement of the European Union and the United States,” April 10, 2012. 22 USTR, “United States, European Union Reaffirm Commitment,” April 10, 2012; European 

Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, “EU and US Adopt Blueprint for Open and Stable Investment 

Climates,” April 10, 2012. 23 USTR, “United States, European Union Reaffirm Commitment,” April 10, 2012. 24 Sapiro, Remarks at the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue, Washington, DC, November 30, 2012.
5-5

With respect to secure trade, on May 4, 2012, the United States and EU signed a mutual 

recognition decision between the U.S. Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism 

program and the EU Authorized Economic Operator program, which recognizes 

compatibility between the U.S. and EU cargo security programs and ensures a safer 

Atlantic supply chain.25 The decision was partially implemented in July 2012 and fully 

implemented on January 31, 2013.26

Canada

Canada is the United States’ largest single-country trading partner in terms of two-way

trade in goods (exports plus imports), and its second-largest single-country partner for 

trade in services, after the United Kingdom (UK). Canada is also the single largest 

foreign supplier of energy to the United States. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with 

Canada rose 3.3 percent in 2012 to $568.1 billion, which accounted for 15.8 percent of 

total U.S. trade. The relatively small increase in U.S.-Canada merchandise trade in 2012 

contrasted with double-digit increases in 2010 and 2011, when trade between the two 

countries was rebounding from the 2008–09 global economic downturn. In contrast, 

demand for Canadian commodities surged in emerging-market economies, reducing the 

U.S. share of Canada’s merchandise exports on a value basis.27 U.S. exports grew slightly 

more than U.S. imports, resulting in a 3.6 percent decline in the U.S. merchandise trade 

deficit with Canada to $79.7 billion (figure 5.3).

U.S. exports of services to Canada increased by 3.6 percent in 2012, to $58.1 billion, 

whereas U.S. imports of services from Canada decreased slightly by 1.5 percent to $27.6 

billion (figure 5.4). As a consequence, the 2012 U.S. services trade surplus with Canada 

increased 8.7 percent, rising from $28.0 billion in 2011 to $30.5 billion in 2012. Canada 

was the foremost single-country market for U.S. merchandise exports in 2012, which 

climbed 4.5 percent to $244.2 billion, or 18.0 percent of total U.S. exports. Major U.S. 

exports to Canada included passenger and truck motor vehicles and related parts, as well 

as a number of energy-related products, such as petroleum oils and preparations and

FIGURE 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.4 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 

2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

 25 DHS, CBP, “CBP, EU Sign C-TPAT Mutual Recognition Decision,” May 4, 2012. 26 DHS, CBP, “EU, US Fully Implement Mutual Recognition Decision,” February 8, 2013. The CBP 

also has mutual recognition agreements with Canada, Japan, Jordan, Korea, New Zealand, and Taiwan. 27 OECD, OECD Economic Surveys—Canada, June 2012, 13.

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-6

natural gas. Both of these leading export categories contributed significantly to the 

increase in the value of U.S. exports to Canada in 2012; U.S. exports of petroleum-related 

products rose nearly $6 billion and exports of vehicles and parts increased over $3 

billion.

In 2012, Canada ranked second after China as a single-country source for U.S. imports, 

supplying 14.4 percent of U.S. imports (China supplied 18.9 percent). U.S. merchandise 

imports from Canada increased 2.4 percent in 2012, to $323.9 billion. Leading U.S. 

imports from Canada included energy products as well as passenger vehicles and related 

parts. Whereas imports of motor vehicles and related parts increased nearly $8 billion in 

2012, U.S. imports of energy products from Canada were stable. U.S.-Canada 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.28 through A.30.

The United States and Canada share the world’s largest and most comprehensive bilateral 

trading relationship. Since 1994, trade between the countries has operated within the 

framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA has reduced trade barriers and liberalized trade 

rules in a wide variety of areas––agriculture, industrial goods, services, energy, 

investment, and government procurement––as well as provided an institutional structure 

through which to settle a variety of disputes between the three partners.

In 2012, trade relations with Canada included actions involving the 2006 U.S.-Canada 

Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) and IPR protection and related Canadian legislation. 

In June 2012, Canada became a negotiating partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks.

Softwood Lumber 

In 1996, the United States and Canada signed the SLA, designed to ensure a stable supply 

of Canadian lumber exports to the United States market through the establishment of a 

trigger-price import quota system.

28 The 1996 SLA expired in March 2001. In 2006, the 

United States and Canada signed a second SLA, which entered into force on October 12, 

2006. The 2006 SLA was to remain in force for seven years (to 2013), with the 

possibility of extension for two more years if agreed by the parties.

Following discussions in 2011, the two parties agreed to extend the 2006 SLA well in 

advance of its scheduled expiration date to maintain predictability and stability in the 

lumber sector. On January 23, 2012, the United States and Canada signed a two-year 

extension of the agreement, which continues the SLA with no changes. The 2006 SLA is 

now set to expire on October 13, 2015.

SLA Arbitration 

In January 2011, the United States requested arbitration under the 2006 SLA to examine 

if sales of lumber from British Columbia were underpriced, thereby providing Canadian 

softwood lumber producers and exporters with benefits that did not comply with 

Canada’s obligations under the agreement.29 The central allegation brought by the United 

States contended that British Columbia was underpricing timber harvested from public 

lands in the interior of British Columbia by misgrading it as salvage rather than lumber-

 28 For more information, see Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the 

Government of the United States of America, “Article VII—Export charge and export charge plus volume 

restraint,” September 12, 2006, http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3254. 29 For further background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 5-6 to 5-7.
5-7

quality timber.30 Following the establishment of an arbitration tribunal under the London 

Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), proceedings were held in 2011 and 2012, and

included testimony about extensive infestation by the mountain pine beetle. While the 

tribunal acknowledged the dramatic increase in the amount of low-priced salvage timber, 

it was unable to find a conclusive link between the increase and any actions by British 

Columbia. On July 18, 2012, the tribunal found no Canadian or provincial government 

action in violation of the agreement and dismissed the claims brought by the United 

States.31

Intellectual Property 

In 2012, Canada remained on the USTR Special 301 priority watch list, subject to review 

of then-pending legislation designed to implement international IPR agreements that 

Canada signed in 1997 but did not enact into law until 2012.

32 On June 29, 2012, Canada 

passed the Copyright Modernization Act, implementing the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty,

commonly known as the WIPO Internet Treaties. 33 Most provisions of the act became 

effective on November 7, 2012.34 The United States welcomed the action, and also urged 

Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts to deter IPR violations. In particular, 

USTR said that it looks to additional Canadian legislation to give Canada’s customs

officers ex officio authority to act against the importation, exportation, and transshipment 

of counterfeit and pirated goods.35 USTR has also expressed concern about the adequacy 

of patent protection in Canada. Areas of concern include the new patent utility standard 

adopted by the Canadian courts for pharmaceuticals, Canada’s administrative process for 

review and appeal of regulatory approval for pharmaceutical products, and limitations in 

Canada’s trademark regime.36

China 

In 2012, China remained the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner 

based on two-way trade, accounting for 14.7 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. 

merchandise trade with China amounted to $528.4 billion in 2012, an increase of 6.7 

percent over 2011. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China, which rose by $19.8 

billion to $321.4 billion in 2012, remained higher than that with any other trading partner. 

The increase in the trade deficit was mostly attributable to an increase in U.S. 

merchandise imports from China, which more than offset an accompanying increase in 

U.S. exports to China (figure 5.5). However, the U.S. trade surplus in services with China 

increased by 10.2 percent from $15.4 billion in 2011 to $16.9 billion in 2012 (figure 5.6).

 30 USTR, “Statement by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Response to Decision in Third 

Softwood Lumber Arbitration,” July 18, 2012. 31 LCIA, “Final Award––Non-confidential––in the Arbitration The United States of America––

Claimant––vs. Canada––Respondent––Arbitral Tribunal,” Case No. 111790, July 26, 2012; Government of 

Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Canada Applauds Softwood Lumber Ruling on 

British Columbia’s Timber-Pricing System,” July 18, 2012. 32 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 25–26. 33 Government of Canada, Canada News Centre, “Harper Government Delivers on Commitment,” June 

29, 2012; USDOS, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, “U.S. Relations with Canada,” June 29, 2012. 34 Patterson, “Copyright Modernization Act Enters into Force,” November 8, 2012; USITC, The Year 

in Trade 2011, July 2012, 5-7 to 5-8. 35 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 25–26. 36 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 25–26; USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 

Annual Report, March 2013, III.139–III.140; Inside Washington Publishers, “PhRMA Representative Raises 

Three Issues With Canadian Patent System,” March 1, 2013; Inside Washington Publishers, “U.S. Industry 

Representatives Blast Canadian Patent, Copyright Regimes,” March 1, 2013.
5-8

FIGURE 5.5 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.6 U.S. private services trade with China, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

For trade in services, China was the fifth-largest single-country U.S. trading partner in 

2012, following the UK, Canada, Japan, and Mexico. 

China overtook Japan to become the third-largest single-country destination for U.S. 

exports in 2007, and remained in that position, behind Canada and Mexico, through 2012. 

U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $103.5 billion in 2012, a 6.8 percent

increase over 2011. About 14.5 percent of U.S. merchandise exports to China were in 

soybeans. Other leading U.S. exports to China included aircraft and parts, cotton, 

metalwaste and scrap, and motor vehicles. The increase in the value of U.S. exports to 

China was led by a $4.5 billion increase in exports of soybeans, followed by aircraft and 

parts, cotton, refined copper cathodes, corn, and telecommunication instruments and 

apparatus.

In 2012, China remained the largest source of U.S. imports. U.S. merchandise imports 

from China amounted to $424.9 billion, an increase of 6.6 percent over 2011. Leading 

U.S. imports from China in 2012 were computers and computer parts, cellular telephones, 

telecommunications equipment, toys, video games, and footwear. The increase in the 

value of U.S. imports was led by increases in imports of cellular telephones, computers 

and computer parts, telecommunication equipment, and footwear. U.S.-China 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.31 through A.33.

In 2012, U.S.-China trade relations focused on a number of Chinese policies, including 

IPR protection, industrial policies, export restraints on raw material inputs (such as rare 

earths), restrictions on imports of U.S. agricultural products, and entry barriers in services 

sectors. These issues were among the principal themes of the 2012 U.S.-China Strategic 

and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) and the 2012 Joint Commission on Commerce and 

Trade (JCCT).37 The S&ED, established in 2009, is a high-level dialogue for the United 

States and China to discuss a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global political, 

strategic, security, and economic issues between both countries, while the JCCT, 

established in 1983, is a forum for high-level dialogue on bilateral trade issues and a 

vehicle for promoting commercial relations. Both are held annually.

There were also developments in a number of WTO dispute settlement cases between the 

United States and China in 2012. The United States requested dispute settlement 

consultations with China regarding (1) measures related to the exportation of rare earths, 

 37 U.S. Department of Treasury, “The 2012 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” May 4, 

2012; USDOC, “Fact Sheet: 23rd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” December 19, 

2012.

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-9

tungsten, and molybdenum (DS431),38 (2) China’s antidumping and countervailing duties 

on certain automobiles from the United States (DS440),39 and (3) measures affecting the 

automobile and automobile-parts industries (DS450).40 China requested dispute 

settlement consultations with the United States regarding (1) countervailing duty 

measures on certain products from China (DS437),41 and (2) countervailing and 

antidumping measures on certain products from China (DS449).42 Developments in these 

and other cases during 2012 are described in chapter 3 and appendix table A.23.

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement 

The United States and China have had lengthy and longstanding consultations on IPR 

issues, particularly since China’s accession to the WTO and acceptance of the TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. China has 

undertaken wide-ranging revisions to its laws and conducted numerous special campaigns 

to improve public awareness of IPR and enforcement on the ground. These efforts 

reportedly have yielded mixed results.43 According to USTR, the ongoing and sustained 

involvement of China’s governmental leaders will be critical if China is to deliver on its 

substantial IPR commitments.

USTR’s 2012 Special 301 report again placed China on the priority watch list of

countries with particular problems with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market 

access. USTR noted substantial concerns with the theft of U.S. firms’ trade secrets and 

the difficulty of obtaining legal redress, as well as problems with non-deterrent IPR 

enforcement in general. More positively, USTR cited improvements in China’s IPR 

landscape through notable efforts to update major intellectual property laws and through 

increased judicial resources devoted to IPR cases.44

In December 2012, USTR’s Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which identifies 

Internet and physical markets that reportedly engage in substantial copyright and 

trademark infringement, also highlighted both positive and negative developments in 

China. On the positive side, two Chinese websites, Taobao and Sogou, were removed 

from the Notorious Markets list based on notable work with rights holders to remove 

infringing content from the sites. More negatively, USTR identified a variety of Chinese 

websites that continue to facilitate the unauthorized downloading and distribution of 

music, movies, and software, as well as physical markets in China where large quantities 

of copyright- and trademark-infringing products are being sold.45

Industrial Policies 

China’s continuous pursuit of industrial policies that “seek to limit market access for 

imported goods, foreign manufacturers and foreign-based service suppliers, while 

 38 WTO, DSB, DS431: China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and 

Molybdenum , online summary (accessed January 28, 2013). 39 WTO, DSB, DS440: China—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from 

the United States, online summary (accessed January 28, 2013). 40 WTO, DSB, DS450: China—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile and Automobile-parts 

Industries, online summary (accessed January 28, 2013). 41 WTO, DSB, DS437: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China,

online summary (accessed January 28, 2013). 42 WTO, DSB, DS449: United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 

Products from China, online summary (accessed January 28, 2013). 43 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 26–28. 44 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 27. 45 USTR, Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 2012, 2.
5-10

offering substantial government guidance, resources and regulatory support to Chinese 

industries” remained a major U.S. concern in 2012.46 Such policies include China’s 

indigenous innovation policy, export restraints, subsides to domestic industries, valueadded tax rebates, and restrictive investment regime.47

According to USTR, some progress was made on these issues in 2012. In February 2012, 

China made a commitment that the Chinese government would not use technology 

transfer and technology cooperation as a precondition for market access, but would leave 

the issue to businesses to decide independently.48 At the May 2012 U.S.-China S&ED 

meeting, China committed to offer the same treatment to foreign-owned or -developed 

intellectual property as indigenous intellectual property.49 However, USTR noted that 

China has yet to revise or eliminate specific policy measures that appear inconsistent with 

this commitment.50

Export Restraints on Raw Material Inputs 

USTR reported that China continued to impose “numerous export restraints” in 2012, 

including export quotas, export licensing restrictions and bidding requirements, minimum 

export prices, and export duties, and that such practices distort trade in raw materials as 

well as intermediate and final products.51 In 2012, China maintained export restraints on 

antimony, bauxite, coke, fluorspar, indium, lead, magnesium, magnesium carbonate, 

manganese, molybdenum, phosphate rock, rare earths, silicon, silicon carbide, talc, tin, 

tungsten, yellow phosphorus, and zinc.52 As China is the world’s leading producer or 

among the top producers of those raw materials, China’s export restraints artificially 

increase world prices for these raw material inputs while lowering input prices for 

Chinese producers, thus creating serious disadvantages for U.S. and other foreign 

producers using these key goods to produce downstream products.53 The United States 

filed two WTO dispute settlement complaints in 2009 (DS394) and in 2012 (DS431), 

respectively, addressing China’s measures related to export restraints on raw materials. 

Their developments are described in chapter 3.

Agriculture 

In FY 2012, about 17.2 percent of U.S. agricultural exports went to China, making it the 

largest U.S. agricultural export destination.54 Although U.S. agricultural exports to China 

continued to grow strongly, a variety of nontariff barriers impede market access for U.S. 

agricultural producers exporting to China. According to U.S. officials, particularly 

notable barriers include SPS measures and inspection-related requirements that are 

imposed in a nontransparent way and without clear scientific bases.55 During the year, 

China continued to impose a ban on imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products 

due to a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow” disease) in the 

 46 USTR, 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December, 2012, 7. 47 Ibid., 7–10. 48 The U.S. Department of Treasury, “Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet: Fourth Meeting of 

the U.S. China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” May 4, 2012. 49 USTR, 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2012, 7. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 43. 52 Ibid. 53 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 69. 54 USDA, ERS, “Top 15 U.S. Agricultural Export Destinations, by fiscal year,” November 19, 2012. 55 USTR, 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December, 2012, 85–89. For more 

information on the conditions of competition in China’s agricultural market and trade, see USITC, China's 

Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on U.S. Exports, March 2011.
5-11

United States in 2003.56 China also continued to maintain an import ban on U.S. pork 

containing trace amounts of ractopamine, a feed additive, at concentration levels below 

the U.S. maximum residue level (MRL) and the Codex57 MRL, citing concerns over the 

safety of ractopamine.58

In 2007, China placed avian influenza-related import bans on U.S. poultry and poultry 

products from several U.S. states. In 2010 and 2011, China lifted bans on U.S. poultry 

products from Kentucky, Idaho, Texas, and Pennsylvania. In December 2012 at the JCCT 

meeting, China announced it would lift its ban on products from Minnesota, but it 

continued to ban poultry and poultry products from Arkansas and Virginia.59 In addition, 

China bans imports of poultry from eligible states that are transshipped through the above 

restricted states, even if the truck, container, or railcar is sealed.60

China also does not permit imports of U.S. pears, due to concerns over fire blight, a 

bacterial disease. Since 2007, the United States and China have had ongoing technical 

discussions regarding imports of U.S. pears. At the December 2012 JCCT meeting, the 

United States and China reached an agreement on new access for U.S. pears in the 

Chinese marketplace through a commitment to allow reciprocal trade between the two 

countries beginning in 2013.61

Services 

In 2012, about $29.2 billion, or 2.8 percent of U.S. services exports, went to China, 

making it the fourth largest single-country market for U.S. services. However, USTR 

noted that in 2012 China continued to “maintain or erect restrictive or cumbersome terms 

of entry” in some service sectors (e.g., financial services, legal services, express delivery 

services, and construction and related engineering services) that prevent or discourage 

U.S. and other foreign suppliers from gaining or expanding market access.62 Such entry 

barriers include foreign equity limitations, high minimum capital requirements, and 

restrictions on opening branch offices, as well as an opaque or slow-moving licensing 

review process.63 For instance, China has the world’s second-largest telecommunications

services market.64 However, it is dominated by three Chinese state-owned enterprises. 

The Chinese government imposes restrictions on basic services, such as the requirement 

that foreign suppliers can only operate by entering into joint ventures with state-owned 

enterprises, as well as an exceedingly high minimum capital requirement, creating serious 

barriers for U.S. suppliers entering the Chinese telecommunications market.65

In 2012, some progress was made in the audiovisual and financial services sectors. The 

United States is one of the world’s largest exporters of audiovisual services, including 

films. However, China has limited the number of foreign movies that can be shown each 

year in Chinese theaters. The United States filed a WTO dispute settlement complaint

against China on the matter in 2007, and the Appellate Body found that a number of 

 56 USTR, 2013 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, April 2013, 35. 57 The Codex Alimentarius Commission, a UN food standards-setting body. 58 USTR, 2013 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, April 2013, 35. 59 Ibid., 37. 60 USDA, FSIS, “Export Requirements for People’s Republic of China,” March 8, 2013. 61 USDOC, “Factsheet: 23rd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” December 19, 

2012. 62 USTR, 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2012, 110. 63 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 2012, 72; USTR, 2012 

Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2012, 109. 64 USITC, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade, July 2012, 8-2. 65 USTR, 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, December 2012, 118.
5-12

China’s measures were inconsistent with China’s WTO obligations.

66 In February 2012, 

China agreed to significantly increase market access for U.S. movies.67

At the May 2012 S&ED meeting, China noted that regulations had been amended to 

allow U.S. and other foreign insurance companies to sell mandatory auto liability 

insurance in China. China also made a number of commitments to reduce entry barriers 

and open China’s financial markets to foreign companies. For example, foreign and 

domestic auto financing companies will be able to issue bonds regularly in China, and 

foreign investors will be allowed to take up to 49 percent equity stakes in domestic 

securities joint ventures.68

U.S. companies cite China’s administrative licensing as a major impediment to doing 

business in the country, describing the process as unnecessarily lengthy, costly, and often 

opaque.69 With the goal of facilitating commercial activity affected by administrative 

licensing, in April 2012 the United States and China launched a joint exchange on 

administrative licensing rules and engaged in a discussion of specific concerns of 

businesses with administrative licensing in both countries.70

Mexico 

In 2012, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country merchandise trading 

partner, following Canada and China. Merchandise trade between the two countries 

increased 6.9 percent to $451.6 billion in 2012, accounting for 12.5 percent of U.S. trade 

with the world. While the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico fell by $1.5 billion 

in 2012, at $101.2 billion it was still the United States’ second-largest merchandise trade 

deficit with any single country (figure 5.7). The deficit was outweighed only by that with 

China, which was more than three times the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico.

On the other hand, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Mexico increased by 1.0 

percent to $11.6 billion in 2012 (figure 5.8). U.S. services exports to Mexico were valued 

FIGURE 5.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

 66 WTO, DSB, DS363: China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for 

Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, online summary. 67 The White House, “United States Achieves Breakthrough on Movies,” February 17, 2012. 68 U.S. Department of Treasury, “U.S. Fact Sheet—Economic Track of the Fourth Meeting of the U.S.-

China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” May 4, 2012. 69 The U.S.-China Business Council, “USCBC 2012 China Business Environment Survey Results,” 

2012. 70 USDOC, “Fact Sheet: 23rd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” December 19, 

2012.

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-13

at $26.6 billion, while U.S. services imports from Mexico totaled $15.0 billion. Mexico 

was the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner for services in 2012, 

after the UK, Canada, and Japan.

U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $175.2 billion in 2012, an increase of 9.5 

percent from 2011. In 2012, as in the previous year, machinery and transportation 

equipment, particularly automotive trade, accounted for the largest share of U.S. 

merchandise exports to Mexico. Other leading exports to Mexico included petroleum 

products, corn, aircraft and parts, parts and accessories for automatic data processing 

machines, soybeans, plastic goods, natural gas, parts for electrical apparatus, and 

paraxylene.

In 2012, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico increased by 5.2 percent to $276.4 

billion. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included crude petroleum and petroleum 

products, motor vehicles and parts, televisions, computers, cell phones, nonmonetary 

gold, and road tractors. Particularly important in the increase of U.S. imports from 

Mexico was the rise in the value of imports of vehicles and vehicle parts and accessories. 

U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.34 through A.36.

U.S.-Mexican trade relations are governed in large part by NAFTA, which provides dutyfree treatment to a sizable portion of the goods traded between the two parties.71 In 

October 2012, Mexico officially joined the ongoing negotiations under the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership (TPP), a prospective regional trade agreement between the United States and 

10 other countries (counting Mexico). A number of trade disputes between the United 

States and Mexico were the subject of WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement proceedings 

in 2012. The procedural developments in each of these cases are listed in appendix tables 

A.23 and A.24, respectively. Developments of an agreement related to NAFTA’s crossborder trucking provisions between Mexico and the United States are summarized below.

Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico 

NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions permitted Mexican trucks to provide crossborder truck services throughout the United States beginning in 2000. The 

implementation of these provisions was delayed because of U.S. safety concerns.72 In 

response to these concerns, in 2011 the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

proposed a Pilot Program on the NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions,73 following 

the suspension of an earlier program. 74 The pilot program will not exceed three years.75

On July 8, 2011, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced 

the authorization of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers under the pilot program to transport 

cargo beyond the commercial zones (which extend up to 25 miles into the United States 

along the U.S.-Mexico border) and throughout the United States (long-haul operations).76

U.S. and Mexican government officials agreed to set up criteria that must be met for 

 71 For more information on NAFTA, see chapter 4. 72 Developments in cross-border truck services between the United States and Mexico from 1981 to 

2011 are reported in USITC, Year in Trade 2008, 2009, 5-16; USITC, Year in Trade 2009, 2010, 5-16; 

USITC, Year in Trade 2010, 2011, 5-12; USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 5-14. 73 76 Fed. Reg. 20807 (April 13, 2011). 74 After the earlier program was suspended in 2009, Mexico retaliated by suspending NAFTA 

preferential tariffs on certain U.S. products. Mexico eliminated the retaliatory duties in 2011 after the first 

Mexican carrier was authorized to enter the 2011 pilot program. For more details, see USITC, The Year in 

Trade 2011, 2012, 5-14. 75 Details of the program are reported in USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 5-14. 76 76 Fed. Reg. 40420 (July 8, 2011).
5-14

Mexican trucks to enter the pilot program.77 The agreement also stipulates that Mexico 

will provide reciprocal access to U.S. carriers. Before carriers have completed 18 months 

of operation under the pilot program, a final compliance review will be conducted. 

Carriers that pass the review will be granted a permanent operating authority to operate 

throughout both countries.78

In 2012, FMCSA conducted an audit of the program, which indicated that there may not 

be enough authorized carriers to statistically assess the safety of the pilot program. 

Covering the period from October 2011 through May 2012, the audit concluded that “The 

low participation in the pilot program puts FMCSA at risk of not meeting its goals for 

providing an adequate and representative sample of Mexico-domiciled carriers and 

inspections necessary to assess the impact on motor carrier safety.”79 FMCSA estimated 

that at least 46 carriers will be needed to conduct a target of 4,100 inspections over a 

period of three years. As of July 2012, FMCSA had approved long-haul operating 

authority for four carriers and conducted 89 inspections, 52 of which extended beyond 

the commercial zone.80 By the end of 2012, there were nine additional Mexican 

domiciled carriers with long-haul operating authority. These carriers had a total of 13 

trucks authorized to operate throughout the United States, and the trucks underwent a 

total of 426 inspections.

81

Japan 

In 2012, Japan was the fourth-largest single-country U.S. trading partner. The country

accounted for 5.8 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade, up from 5.4 percent in 2011, a 

year impacted by the effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster. U.S. 

merchandise trade with Japan was $209.1 billion in 2012, an increase of 10.5 percent 

over 2011. The United States recorded a merchandise trade deficit with Japan of $79.9 

billion in 2012, up $13.4 billion from 2011 (figure 5.9). The increase in the bilateral trade 

deficit was primarily attributable to a $14.9 billion increase in U.S. imports of machinery 

and transport equipment (primarily vehicles and parts) and a relatively weak increase in

U.S. exports. Japanese exports to the United States in many of the sectors that were most 

affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster of 2011 recovered in 2012.

Japan was the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner in services 

during 2012, behind the UK and Canada. U.S. services exports to Japan rose 5.1 percent 

to $46.6 billion, while imports of services from Japan rose 7.2 percent to $26.5 billion,

resulting in a $472 million increase in the U.S. services surplus to $20.1 billion in 2012 

(figure 5.10).

Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. merchandise exports to Japan grew 5.2 percent, from $61.4 

billion in 2011 to $64.6 billion in 2012. Japan remained the fourth-largest destination for 

U.S. exports, accounting for 4.8 percent of global U.S. exports. Leading U.S. exports to 

Japan were aircraft and parts, various medical equipment, corn, certain medicaments, 

soybeans, and wheat. Export growth was led by aircraft and parts, certain medicaments,

 77 USDOT, FMCSA, “Memorandum of Understanding on International Freight,” July 6, 2011. 78 Ibid. 79 USDOT, FMCSA, “Increased Participation and Improved Oversight Mechanisms,” August 16, 2012, 

2. 80 Ibid. 81 USDOT, FMCSA, “Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers with Active Operating Authority: Aggregate 

Data Charts,” December 30, 2012.
5-15

FIGURE 5.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

and certain medical equipment products, while exports of other leading products, such as 

corn and wheat, declined.

U.S. merchandise imports from Japan grew 13.0 percent to $144.5 billion in 2012, up 

from $127.9 billion in 2011. Japan remained the fourth-largest source of U.S. imports, 

accounting for 6.4 percent of global U.S. imports. Leading U.S. imports from Japan were 

passenger vehicles and parts, aircraft parts, parts for printers and copying machines, and 

heavy construction equipment. Growth in U.S. imports from Japan was led by 

transportation equipment and heavy construction equipment, while imports of parts for 

printers and copying machines and of semiconductor-producing equipment declined. 

U.S.-Japan merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.37 through A.39.

While the U.S.-Japan Economic Harmonization Initiative served as the primary driver of 

trade and economic dialogue between the two countries between November 2010 and 

January 2012, the United States and Japan engaged in a variety of multilateral forums 

throughout 2012. Japan’s announcement in late 2011 that it would engage in 

consultations with the United States and other TPP members toward joining the TPP 

negotiations refocused the economic partnership between the two countries into a 

dialogue between two potential free trade agreement (FTA) partners. Japan took steps to 

significantly expand market access for U.S. beef exports following years of restrictive 

practices designed to protect consumers from BSE. In February 2012, the United States 

and Japan reached an agreement in which the United States agreed to end the use of 

“zeroing” in its antidumping duty calculations,82 and further agreed to recalculate 

antidumping duty margins in certain cases in which Japan was subject to a duty order.83

Multilateral Negotiations and Cooperation 

Prior to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Meeting in Honolulu in 

November 2011, then-Prime Minister Noda announced that Japan would begin 

consultations with TPP countries toward joining TPP negotiations.84 Consultations 

continued between officials from the United States, Japan, and other TPP governments 

throughout 2012 as both the Japanese government and those of TPP partner countries 

 82 For more information on the practice of zeroing, see the section on WTO dispute settlement in

chapter 3 of this report. 83 For more information, see appendix table A.23 and WTO, DSB, DS322: United States—Measures 

Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, online summary. 84 Prime Minister of Japan, “Press Conference on the Occasion,” November 2011.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-16

gauged support for Japan’s entry into the negotiations.85 Meetings between the United 

States and Japan focused on sector-specific issues in the insurance, agriculture, and 

automotive sectors as well as other cross-sectoral issues.86 In March 2013, Prime 

Minister Abe formally expressed Japan’s interest in joining the TPP negotiations.87 In 

addition, Japan was the first signatory country to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 

Agreement in September 2012.88

Information and Communication Technology Principles 

In January 2012, the United States and Japan released a set of outcomes from the 

previous year’s meetings as part of the Economic Harmonization Initiative.

89 As part of 

this release, the United States and Japan published a set of nonbinding trade principles for 

information and communications technology services, with the aim of promoting these 

principles with third countries and in multilateral forums.90 These services include 

Internet and other network-based applications critical to e-commerce, Internet search and 

advertising, cloud computing, and other services, and the principles cover transparency, 

cross-border information flows, open networks, spectrum assignment, foreign investment, 

and nondiscriminatory treatment of digital products.91

Japan Post 

The United States continued to press Japan on the competitive position held by Japan 

Post Holdings Co. (Japan Post) in the banking, insurance, and express delivery sectors of 

the Japanese economy.92 A major concern for U.S. policymakers and business leaders has 

been that the size and variety of holdings within Japan Post allow it to cross-subsidize 

and promote its services across sectors in order to dominate markets. In addition, Japan 

Post is subject to fewer reporting and customs clearance requirements than private 

companies, which may give the company an anticompetitive advantage over both smaller 

domestic firms and foreign competitors.93 In 2007, former Prime Minister Koizumi’s 

government introduced reforms designed to privatize and separate these holdings, thereby 

making them subject to the same regulations as private firms. However, successor 

governments have moved to reverse or mitigate these reforms before their full 

implementation, and the Japanese Diet passed legislation in April 2010 to loosen 

regulatory requirements on Japan Post as part of a compromise among various Japanese 

political parties.94 The legislation extended Japan Post companies’ exemptions from the 

Insurance Business Law and Banking Law, allowed more latitude for companies within 

 85 CRS, U.S.-Japan Economic Relations: Significance, Prospects, and Policy Options, February 20, 

2013, 12. 86 USTR, “U.S., Japan Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” February 2012; 

USTR, “United States and Japan Hold Expert-level Trans-Pacific Partnership Consultations,” February 2012. 87 USTR, “Statement by Acting USTR Demetrios Marantis on Japan’s Announcement,” March 15, 

2013. 88 Inside U.S. Trade, “Japan Becomes First ACTA Signatory to Ratify,” September 13, 2012. For more 

information on ACTA, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 3-35. 89 USTR, “USTR Ron Kirk Announces Progress,” January 2012. There were no meetings of the 

Economic Harmonization Initiative in 2012. CRS, U.S.-Japan Economic Relations: Significance, Prospects, 

and Policy Options, February 20, 2013, 14. 90 USTR, U.S.-Japan Trade Principles, January 27, 2012. 91 Ibid. 92 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 146. Japan Post is a 

Japanese conglomerate owned by the government of Japan, which supplies integrated postal, banking, and 

insurance services, among other services. Japan Post Group, Annual Report 2012, April 2012. 93 USTR, 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2012, 211; ACCJ 

Insurance Committee, “Ensure That the Ongoing Postal Reform Debate,” March 2012. 94 CRS, U.S.-Japan Economic Relations: Significance, Prospects, and Policy Options, February 20, 

2013, 9–10.
5-17

Japan Post to expand their business scope, and increased interconnectedness between the 

Japan Post’s mail delivery and network operations subsidiaries.95

Beef 

Japan banned imports of U.S. beef in December 2003 due to concerns about BSE, 

following years in which Japan was the largest export market for U.S. beef.96 The ban 

was adjusted in July 2006 to restrict only cuts from cattle older than 20 months of age; 

nevertheless, the restrictions effectively banned most of the high-quality beef that U.S. 

exporters had traditionally shipped to Japan.97 Following a bilateral meeting between 

President Obama and then-Prime Minister Noda on the sidelines of the 2011 APEC 

Leaders’ Meeting, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that Japan would begin to

review current restrictions on U.S. beef imports.98 Between December 2011 and October 

2012, Japan’s independent Food Safety Commission conducted a risk assessment on 

raising the age limit of cattle that can be used to supply U.S. beef products for export to 

Japan.99 As a result of this study, Japan entered into consultations with the United States 

in late 2012 to raise the age limit for U.S. cattle and adopt a revised definition of the 

types of cattle tissues that can carry the BSE agent.100

Recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster 

On March 11, 2011, much of northeastern Japan experienced a major humanitarian crisis 

and commercial disaster caused by an earthquake off the Pacific coast. The earthquake 

and resulting tsunami and nuclear calamity cost nearly 16,000 people their lives and 

destroyed industrial property, spread nuclear contamination, and damaged 

infrastructure.101 The damage caused to the supply chain had a direct impact on U.S.-

Japan trade in 2011: for example, U.S. imports of motor vehicles and parts and electrical 

machinery from Japan, the largest and third-largest import sectors respectively, fell

slightly in 2011 due to major declines in the second quarter. However, these imports

exhibited major increases in 2012, reflecting a recovery of some of the export sectors 

most affected by the disaster.

Republic of Korea 

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

trading partner in 2012. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $97.9 billion in 2012, 

accounting for 2.7 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United States recorded a 

$17.9 billion merchandise trade deficit with Korea in 2012—21.6 percent higher than in 

 95 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 180. 96 USITC, Year in Trade 2010, 2011, 5-16. 97 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Announce 

Agreement,” January 2013; USITC, Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 5-18 to 5-19. 98 White House, “Readout by the Press Secretary,” November 12, 2011. 99 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Announce 

Agreement,” January 2013. 100 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Announce 

Agreement,” January 2013. As the USTR article explains, in January 2013 the United States and Japan 

agreed to expand U.S. beef exports to Japan, with Japan permitting beef from cattle less than 30 months of 

age and revising other restrictive standards for U.S. beef exports. In addition, the two governments agreed to 

hold both regular and ad hoc consultations to review progress under the agreement to address any issues that 

may arise. Japan further confirmed that an ongoing Food Safety Commission risk assessment is considering 

raising the age limit above 30 months for beef from the United States. 101 National Police Agency of Japan, “Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures,” March 11, 

2013; Clyde&Co, The Tohuku Earthquake and Tsunami: Second Report, August 2011.
5-18

2011 (figure 5.11). At the same time, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Korea 

increased by $565 million to $8.8 billion in 2012 (figure 5.12).

U.S. merchandise exports to Korea were valued at $40.0 billion in 2012, a decrease of 3.2 

percent from 2011. Leading U.S. exports to Korea during the year included electronic 

integrated circuits and microassemblies and parts, aircraft and parts, machinery for 

producing semiconductors, ferrous waste and scrap, and coal. Most of the 2012 leading 

exports showed strong growth in value, although the value of several others, such as corn, 

coal, and ferrous waste and scrap, fell substantially.

U.S. merchandise imports from Korea totaled $57.9 billion in 2012, an increase of 3.3 

percent from 2011. Leading U.S. imports from Korea included automobiles and parts, 

cell phones, processed petroleum, and electronic integrated circuits. There were increases 

in the value of most of the major leading imports, although imports of cell phones fell by 

over $3 billion. U.S.-Korea merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.40 

through A.42.

The main focus of U.S.-Korea trade relations in 2012 was the entry into force of the 

United States-Korea FTA (KORUS FTA) on March 15, 2012.102 The KORUS FTA is the 

second-largest FTA in terms of the value of U.S. trade affected, after NAFTA. There 

were also developments regarding trade in beef, cherries, citrus, and blueberries, as 

discussed below.

U.S.-Korea FTA

On February 21, 2012, USTR announced that the KORUS FTA would enter into force on 

March 15, 2012.103 The announcement followed the completion by the United States and 

Korea of a review of each other’s laws and regulations related to the implementation of 

the agreement. The United States exchanged diplomatic notes with Korea in which each 

side confirmed that it had satisfied all legal requirements for the agreement’s entry into 

force.104

FIGURE 5.11 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.12 U.S. private services trade with Korea, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

 102 Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, to Implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement,

77 Fed. Reg. 14265–14267 (March 9, 2012). For an overview of the KORUS FTA, see chapter 4. 103 USTR, “United States, Korea Set Date for Entry into Force,” February 21, 2012. 104 Ibid. See also USITC, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Effects on U.S. Small and Medium-Sized 

Enterprises, May 2013.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-19

The agreement ends tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of industrial and consumer 

goods within five years through a combination of tariff elimination and the expansion of 

tariff-rate quotas affecting such products as aerospace equipment, agricultural equipment, 

auto parts, building products, chemicals, consumer goods, electrical equipment, 

environmental goods, all footwear and travel goods, paper products, scientific equipment, 

and shipping and transportation equipment.

105 Tariffs were immediately eliminated on 

nearly two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports, including wheat, corn, soybeans for 

crushing, whey for feed use, hides and skins, cotton, cherries, pistachios, almonds, orange 

juice, grape juice, and wine. Upon entry into force, Korea immediately reduced its tariff 

on passenger vehicles from 8 percent to 4 percent and eliminated the 10 percent tariff on 

commercial vehicles. The agreement also includes significant commitments related to 

nontariff measures, including obligations related to motor vehicle safety and 

environmental standards, enhanced regulatory transparency, standard setting, technology 

neutrality, and customs administration.106

In addition, the KORUS FTA provides meaningful market access commitments across

virtually all major sectors of Korea’s $580 billion services market, including improved 

access for telecommunications and express delivery services, and the opening up of the 

Korean market for foreign legal consulting services.107 The agreement increases access to 

the Korean financial services market and ensures greater transparency and fair treatment 

for U.S. suppliers of insurance and other financial services.108

On May 16, 2012, USTR hosted the first meeting of the FTA’s Joint Committee. This is

the premier committee under the FTA, responsible for supervising its implementation, 

coordinating the work of its other committees, and resolving issues that may arise.109

Representatives of both governments exchanged updates on recent trade initiatives and 

consulted on ways to enhance cooperation on trade issues. In addition, they agreed on the 

scheduling of five committees and working groups under the agreement. In June 2012, 

the Committee on Services and Investment, the Working Group on Small and Mediumsized Enterprises, the Committee on Trade in Goods, and the Committee on Trade 

Remedies met in Washington, DC; in July 2012, the Committee on Medical Devices met 

in Seoul.110

Beef

Like several other countries, Korea closed its markets to imports of U.S. beef for several

years because of concerns about BSE. However, in 2008 the United States and Korea 

concluded an agreement to fully reopen Korea’s market to U.S. beef and beef products.

Since that time, Korean beef importers and U.S. exporters have operated according to a 

voluntary commercial understanding that imports of U.S. beef and beef products will be 

from animals less than 30 months of age, as a transitional measure, until Korean 

consumer confidence improves.111

On April 24, 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that a dairy 

cow in California tested positive for atypical BSE.112 In response, two of Korea’s leading 

supermarket chains temporarily suspended sales of U.S. beef. In May, a Korean 

 105 USTR, “Benefits for the United States from the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement,” March 15, 2012. 106 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 235. 107 USTR, “Jobs on the Way: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Enters Into Force,” March 15, 2012. 108 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 238. 109 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Concludes First Meeting,” May 16, 2012. 110 Ibid. 111 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 236. 112 USDA, “FDA Statement on USDA Announcement of Positive BSE Test Results,” April 26, 2012.
5-20

delegation examined U.S. food-safety procedures by visiting U.S. laboratories, farms, and 

rendering facilities to determine the effectiveness of U.S. measures against BSE. USDA 

confirmed that the cow did not enter the animal feed or human food supply.113 The 

Korean government elected not to impose a ban on U.S. imports, as it saw no safety 

problem: the dairy cow was more than 30 months old, and Korea does not import beef 

and beef products from animals more than 30 months of age.114

Cherries, Citrus, and Blueberries 

On April 2, 2012, Korea removed restrictive import measures that had limited the flow of 

U.S. cherries and citrus exports to Korea.115 The KORUS FTA eliminated a 24 percent 

Korean import duty on U.S. fresh sweet cherries, an action that helped boost U.S. cherry 

sales in Korea to record levels in 2012. Large Korean retailers staged successful U.S. 

cherry sales promotions, funded partially by USDA’s Market Access Program and 

Foreign Market Development program.116 The USDA and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency also worked with Korean officials to identify acceptable pesticide 

residue levels that do not pose a health risk. The new pesticide tolerances reduced 

potential risk of pesticide residue violations for the U.S. cherry and citrus industries; such 

violations can be costly to suppliers of perishable products.117 However, despite the 

improvement in regulations affecting residue tolerances, KORUS has not led to the 

elimination of Korea’s requirement to fumigate cherries with methyl bromide, which 

limits product quality and shelf life.118

Also, in collaboration with USDA, Korea adopted new import measures for fresh U.S. 

blueberries, authorizing long-awaited access to the Korean market in time for the 2012 

U.S. growing season.119 The market access agreement was developed jointly by USDA’s 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, and Korean plant health officials over a 10-year period.120 Under the terms 

of the agreement, qualified growers and packers may export blueberries to Korea if they 

meet certain phytosanitary requirements. These include field inspections, an annual onsite survey by Korean agricultural officials, and inspection prior to export. The Korean 

government identified seven blueberry pests that require either an official survey or the 

adoption of specific pest management practices, including mummy berry, orange tortrix, 

the oblique banded leaf roller, the cherry fruit worm moth, sudden oak death, tobacco 

ring spot virus, and tomato ring spot virus.121

Brazil 

Brazil moved from being the United States’ eighth-largest single-country trading partner 

in 2011 to being its ninth-largest trading partner in 2012 after Saudi Arabia. Brazil 

remained the United States’ second-largest Latin American partner (behind Mexico) and 

its largest South American partner. Two-way merchandise trade increased 2.0 percent to 

$69.0 billion in 2012, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. trade with the world in that year.

 113 USDA, “USDA’s Chief Veterinary Officer on the Recent BSE Case,” April 24, 2012. 114 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 236. 115 USTR, “Fact Sheet: Keeping Markets Open; Successes,” April 2, 2012. 116 USDA, FAS, “U.S. Cherries on Top in South Korean Market,” July 31, 2012. 117 Ibid. 118 Northwest Horticulture Council, written submission to the USITC, March 22, 2013. 119 USDA, APHIS, “First Shipment of Fresh Blueberry Exports Arrive in South Korea,” July 17, 2012. 120 USDOS, “First Shipment of Fresh Blueberries Arrives in Korea,” July 19, 2012. 121 Oregon Department of Agriculture, “Exporting Blueberries to the Republic of Korea,” June 21, 

2011.
5-21

The United States recorded a $5.5 billion merchandise trade surplus with Brazil in 2012. 

While this is significantly lower than its $6.9 billion surplus in 2011 and its $6.8 billion 

trade surplus in 2010, the recent U.S. merchandise trade surpluses with Brazil mark a 

striking change from the deficits recorded in the past (figure 5.13). The U.S. services 

trade surplus with Brazil increased by $978 million to $15.8 billion in 2012 (figure 5.14).

U.S. merchandise exports to Brazil amounted to $37.3 billion in 2012, a slight decline of 

0.1 percent from 2011. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil included aircraft and parts, 

petroleum-related oils and refined petroleum products, coal, medicaments, and parts for 

boring and sinking machinery. Among the leading U.S. exports, there was an especially 

large increase in the value of exports of petroleum-related products, as well as a 

substantial increase in parts for boring and sinking machinery compared with 2011.

U.S. imports from Brazil totaled $31.7 billion in 2012, up 4.5 percent from 2011. This 

increase was led by U.S. imports of petroleum-related products, pig iron and semifinished 

iron, ethyl alcohol, unroasted coffee, chemical wood pulp, and coal. The rise in U.S. 

imports from Brazil allowed Brazil to move from the 17th- to the 15th-largest singlecountry source for U.S. imports in 2012. U.S.-Brazil merchandise trade data are shown in 

appendix tables A.43 through A.45.

In 2012, there were meetings to implement the U.S.-Brazil Agreement on Trade and

Economic Cooperation (ATEC), and Brazil’s government approved significant but 

temporary tariff increases on goods imported from the United States, as discussed below. 

Also in 2012, there were minor developments related to the WTO dispute settlement case 

on upland cotton between the United States and Brazil; both sides continued to meet in 

2012 regarding this dispute.122

Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (ATEC) 

The United States hosted the first meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic 

and Trade Relations on March 13, 2012.123 This bilateral commission was established 

under the ATEC, which was signed in March 2011. During the 2012 meeting, the two 

countries agreed to seek greater cooperation on a broad range of issues including 

investment, IPR, and cross-border trade in services. The two governments agreed to hold 

the commission’s next meeting in Brazil.

FIGURE 5.13 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.14 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

 122 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 39–45. For 

more information on this ongoing dispute, see USITC, Year in Trade 2011, 2012, 5-23. 123 USTR, “USTR Hosts First Meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commission,” March 2012.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-22

In 2012, the two sides made progress on small business cooperation under the ATEC. On 

September 11, 2012, the U.S. government, represented by the Department of State, 

USTR, and the Small Business Administration, participated in a signing event for a MOU 

between Brazil’s Micro and Small Business Support Service, the U.S. Association of 

Small Business Development Centers, and the University of Texas at San Antonio’s

Institute for Economic Development. The MOU links the organizations’ online trade 

networks for small businesses in order to further expand international partnerships.124

Tariffs

In September 2012, the government of Brazil approved a one-year increase in tariffs that 

applies to 100 products (including chemicals, metals, and tires) imported from outside of 

the Common Market of the South (Mercosur). The increased tariff rates amount on 

average to 25 percent ad valorem. Brazil’s foreign minister cited the currency effects of 

U.S. monetary stimulus and the resulting loss of Brazil’s competitiveness as part of the

rationale for the tariff increases.125 Despite strong opposition from the USTR, the tariff 

increases went into effect on October.

126

Taiwan 

In 2012, the United States reported $60.6 billion in two-way merchandise trade with 

Taiwan, a decrease of 6.8 percent over the recorded 2011 trade of $65.0 billion. Taiwan 

was the United States’ 11th-largest single-economy trading partner in 2012—a fall from 

the 9th position in 2011—and accounted for 1.7 percent of U.S. merchandise trade with 

the world. In 2012, both U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan and U.S. merchandise 

imports from Taiwan declined, but U.S. imports fell more by value. As a result, the U.S. 

merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan shrank by 3.1 percent, from $17.4 billion in 2011 

to $16.9 billion in 2012 (figure 5.15). On the other hand, the U.S. services trade surplus 

with Taiwan increased 8.1 percent, from $3.7 billion in 2011 to $4.0 billion in 2012 

(figure 5.16).

FIGURE 5.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 aData for 2012 are preliminary.

 124 USDOS, “U.S. Department of State and U.S. Trade Representative Move Forward,” September 15, 

2012. 125 Inside U.S. Trade, “Letter from Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations Patriota,” September 21, 

2012. 126 Inside U.S. Trade, “Letter from U.S. Trade Representative Kirk,” September 19, 2012.

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-23

U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan amounted to $21.8 billion in 2012, an 8.2 percent 

decrease from $23.8 billion in 2011. The decline in U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan

was mostly attributed to U.S. exports of machinery and transport equipment, which 

decreased by 11.2 percent, or $1.0 billion, in 2012. Semiconductor manufacturing-related 

machines and instruments remained the leading U.S. exports to Taiwan, accounting for 

11.9 percent of 2012 merchandise exports. Other leading U.S. exports were ferrous waste 

and scrap, soybeans, computer memory chips, and aircraft.

U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan amounted to $38.7 billion in 2012, a 6.0 percent 

decrease from $41.2 billion in 2011. The decline in U.S. merchandise imports from 

Taiwan was mostly attributed to a sharp drop in U.S. imports of cellular telephones, 

which fell by $4.2 billion, or 63.5 percent, from 2011. However, cellular telephones 

remained the leading U.S. merchandise import from Taiwan in 2012. Other leading 

imports were electronic integrated circuits, computer memory chips, processors, 

accessories and parts, and digital camera and video recorders. Imports of radio 

navigational aid apparatus (GPS devices) and photosensitive semiconductor devices rose 

the most in 2012 in terms of value. U.S.-Taiwan merchandise trade data are shown in 

appendix tables A.46 through A.48.

One promising development involved the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreement (TIFA), concluded in 1994 in order to promote economic cooperation and 

discuss bilateral trade issues.127 High-level meetings under the TIFA were to take place 

on an annual basis. However, beginning in 2007, the talks were suspended due to a 

dispute over Taiwan’s restrictions on imports of U.S. beef. In light of positive 

developments in the U.S.-Taiwan beef issue in 2012, U.S.-Taiwan TIFA talks resumed in 

March 2013.128

Beef and Beef Products 

In 2012, the United States continued to be concerned with Taiwan’s decision to maintain 

a zero-tolerance policy for ractopamine residue in imports of U.S. beef and pork due to 

concerns over its safety. Ractopamine is a beta-agonist drug that is used as a feed additive 

to boost growth and promote leanness in pigs and cattle.129 It was approved for use in 

cattle by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2003.130 Although Taiwan has 

long banned ractopamine, it was not until early 2011 that Taiwan began testing U.S. beef 

for the drug.131 However, as a result of Taiwan’s failure to implement a maximum residue 

levels (MRLs) standard for ractopamine, there was uncertainty as to the exact 

specifications against which U.S beef was being tested. According to a statement from 

the American Institute in Taiwan,132 Taiwan’s own testing of imported meat products 

confirmed that U.S. beef fell within the MRLs established by the Joint Expert Committee

 127 Campbell, testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, October 4, 2011. 128 USTR, “Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis Welcomes Hard Work,” March 10, 

2013. 129 WTO, “WTO: 2011 News Items; Committee Debates Pros and Cons of Standard,” June 30 and July 

1, 2011. 130 USTR, 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 24. 131 USTR, 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report, March 2012, 146; USTR, 2011 Report 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, March 2011, 79–80; U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, “Why Taiwan 

Matters,” Hammond-Chambers testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, June 16, 2011. 132 American Institute in Taiwan, “The Facts about U.S. Beef and Ractopamine,” February 21, 2012.
5-24

on Food Additives (JECFA) of two UN bodies, the Food and Agriculture Organization 

and the World Health Organization.133

In 2012, USTR and USDA reached an agreement with authorities in Taiwan to adopt and 

implement a MRL for beef raised with ractopamine. According to USTR, monthly 

shipments of U.S. beef to the Taiwan market more than doubled, from $2 million to $5 

million per month, following the implementation of these measures in July 2012.

134

However, USTR noted that Taiwan still has not established a MRL standard for pork, and 

the restrictions continue to disrupt U.S. exports of pork to Taiwan.135

Taiwan banned imports of U.S. beef and beef products following the detection of BSE in 

the United States in 2003. This ban was partially lifted in 2006, with imports limited to 

deboned beef from cattle under 30 months old. In 2009, the United States and Taiwan 

reached an agreement on a bilateral protocol defining conditions for the export of U.S. 

beef and beef products to Taiwan that are science-based and consistent with the World 

Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines. However, in 2012 USTR continued to 

note that Taiwan has failed to comply completely with the protocol and provide full 

market access for U.S. beef and beef products.136

India 

In 2012, India was the 12th-largest single-country U.S. trading partner. U.S.-India twoway merchandise trade was valued at $59.1 billion that year, accounting for 1.6 percent 

of U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. imports of goods grew more rapidly than 

U.S. exports of goods, resulting in an increase in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with 

India from $18.3 billion in 2011 to $21.1 billion in 2012 (figure 5.17). The United States 

also registered a services trade deficit with India, its only deficit in services with any

major trading partner in 2012; this deficit reflected high levels of U.S. imports of 

computer and information services from India. Nonetheless, the services deficit, which

amounted to $5.8 billion in 2012, represented a 1.6 percent decrease from the $5.9 billion 

services deficit in 2011. U.S. imports of Indian services increased from $16.9 billion in 

2011 to $17.7 billion in 2012, while U.S. exports of services to India increased from 

$11.0 billion in 2011 to $11.9 billion in 2012 (figure 5.18).

FIGURE 5.17 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2008–12 FIGURE 5.18 U.S. private services trade with India, 2008–12a

Source: USDOC. Source: USDOC.

 a

Data for 2012 are preliminary.

 133 JECFA, an independent scientific committee that performs risk assessments to assist Codex in 

developing international food standards and guidelines, recommended MRLs for ractopamine use in cattle 

and swine in 2004, and reconfirmed the MRLs in 2006 and 2010 after further research. 134 USTR, “Weekly Trade Spotlight: USTR’s 2012 Year in Review,” 2013. 135 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2012, 150. 136 Ibid.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-25

U.S. merchandise exports to India increased by 7.4 percent, from $17.7 billion in 2011 to 

$19.0 billion in 2012. Leading U.S. exports to India included nonmonetary gold, aircraft 

and parts, coal, diammonium phosphate, and certain petroleum products used in the 

manufacture of tires. Overall growth in exports to India was the net effect of widely 

varying growth trends in underlying products, with some of the largest sectors, including 

nonmonetary gold and aircraft and parts, experiencing very rapid growth, while other 

large sectors, such as coal and nonindustrial diamonds, experienced major declines.

U.S. imports from India amounted to $40.1 billion in 2012, representing an 11.4 percent 

increase from $36.0 billion in 2011. Leading U.S. imports from India were nonindustrial 

diamonds, certain medicaments, mucilages and thickeners, and light oils and 

preparations. As with exports, the overall growth in imports from India was the net effect 

of divergent underlying product trends: imports of nonindustrial diamonds, jewelry, and 

various clothing products decreased, while imports of medicaments, mucilages and 

thickeners, and various petroleum products increased. U.S.-India merchandise trade data 

are shown in appendix tables A.49 through A.51.

During 2012, the United States and India continued discussions of diverse bilateral trade 

and investment issues through a variety of forums, and resumed negotiations toward a 

Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). U.S. policymakers engaged the government of India 

on several issues that continue to pose challenges in the trade relationship, including

localization requirements and issues related to the protection of IPR. India continued to 

maintain nontariff barriers on U.S. exports of various agricultural products, including 

poultry meat and chicken eggs, prompting the United States to request WTO dispute 

settlement proceedings. However, the Indian government also took major steps toward 

opening several services sectors to increased foreign direct investment, particularly the 

multibrand retail sector, which includes supermarkets and other large retailers.

Trade and Investment Dialogue 

While the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF), created in 2005, remains the formal 

platform for bilateral trade, investment, and economic dialogue between the two 

countries, the United States and India have not held a meeting of the forum since 2010.137

However, the U.S.-India trade and investment relationship progressed through a broad 

variety of forums in 2012.138 For example, in September 2012, representatives of the 

government of India and the U.S. Department of Energy met as part of the U.S.-India 

Energy Dialogue, which was first launched in May 2005 to promote increased trade and 

investment in the energy sector. Four working groups covering oil and gas, coal, power, 

and energy efficiency met in Washington, DC, to discuss a variety of issues, including

cooperation on electrical grids, renewable energy initiatives, exports of liquefied natural 

gas from the United States to India, and South Asian regional energy integration, among 

other topics.139 The U.S.-India Information and Communications Technology Working 

Group continued to engage public officials and private-sector groups from both countries 

through regular meetings covering information technology, telecommunications, and 

media and broadcasting, with a focus on market access and regulatory issues.140

 137 A meeting of U.S. and Indian officials under the TPF was postponed in January 2012. USTR, 

“Postponement of U.S.-India TPF,” January 2012. 138 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 157. 139 Embassy of India to the United States, “U.S.-India Energy Dialogue,” September 28, 2012. 140 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 157; GOI, Ministry of 

Communications & Information Technology, “Bilateral Cooperation—USA,” December 13, 2012.
5-26

In April 2012, the United States released a new Model BIT, which forms the basis for 

how policymakers negotiate BITs. This version enhances the 2004 Model BIT by 

promoting transparency, strengthening labor rights and environmental protections, and 

adding provisions for state-led economies.141 With the release of the U.S. Model BIT, 

negotiations toward a BIT between India and the United States resumed.142

In December 2012, then-Deputy USTR Marantis met with members of the Indian 

government in New Delhi to discuss India’s manufacturing policies. In particular, the 

United States was concerned about an expansion of India’s National Manufacturing 

Policy. Announced in November 2011, the expanded policy calls for greater local-content 

requirements in certain key sectors, such as information and communications technology 

and clean energy.143 India pursued these goals through government procurement 

requirements, implemented under the Preferential Market Access policy in 2012 and 

focusing on telecommunications and certain computer equipment.144 Of particular 

concern to U.S. firms and policymakers was a proposal to enforce local-content 

requirements among private firms as well as government.145 Another concern for U.S. 

policymakers was the expansion of local-content requirements for Indian solar project 

developers seeking to receive preferential power rates under the Jawaharlal Nehru 

National Solar Mission (JNNSM). In 2012, India proposed to extend these local-content 

requirements to add thin film modules to the list of products that must be sourced from 

Indian manufacturers as part of the JNNSM, largely excluding U.S. imports. (Crystalline 

silicon modules and cells are already on this list.)146

Intellectual Property Rights 

India has been on USTR’s priority watch list of countries with significant IPR problems 

that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation since 1989,147 and it was still on 

the priority watch list as of April 2012.148 In May 2012, India passed the Copyright 

(Amendment) Act, with the goal of bringing the copyright law into compliance with the 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties, which protect digital 

works and works distributed over the Internet. USTR identified India’s compliance with 

these treaties as a priority in its Special 301 Report in 2012 and in previous years.149

According to USTR, however, India’s Copyright Act amendments do not effectively 

protect against the unlawful circumvention of technological protection measures, as 

required by the Internet Treaties.150

With regard to patent protection, USTR noted ongoing concerns with a March 2012 

decision of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks that effectively 

required the pharmaceutical company Bayer to manufacture in India to avoid a 

compulsory license.151 USTR highlighted this case in its Special 301 Report, stating that 

 141 Department of State, “Model BIT Fact Sheet,” April 20, 2012. 142 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 157. 143 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 180. 144 Ibid, 180–81, 187–88. 145 USTR, “Remarks by Deputy USTR Marantis to Students in Chennai,” December 8, 2012. 146 USTR, “United States Challenges India’s Restrictions on U.S. Solar Exports,” February 2013. As 

noted in the USTR article, in February 2013 the United States requested WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with India concerning local-content requirements in India’s national solar program. 147 International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2012 Special 301: Historical Summary, February 10, 

2012, 19. 148 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 35–36. 149 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 35 and 53; Pandley, “Development in Indian IP Law,” 

January 22, 2013. 150 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 182. 151 Ibid.
5-27

it would closely monitor the compulsory licensing of patents in India.152 USTR further 

noted that India still does not provide an effective system for the protection of 

undisclosed test data and other data generated to obtain the Indian government’s approval 

for marketing pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals.153

Foreign Direct Investment 

In September 2012, the Indian government decided to adopt a policy allowing foreign 

direct investment (FDI) in multibrand retailing with foreign equity caps totaling 51 

percent. As noted earlier, multibrand retail establishments include supermarkets and other 

large retailers, and the government considered this policy as beneficial to logistical 

efficiency and consumer welfare despite arguments that it would increase competitive 

pressures on small traditional retailers. FDI in multibrand retail services is still subject to

significant restrictions, including state-by-state authorization, investment requirements in 

“back-end infrastructure” such as processing and warehousing, limitation to certain cities 

with more than one million people, and local-sourcing requirements.154

The Indian government also loosened local-sourcing requirements for 100 percent 

foreign-invested single-brand retail establishments, requiring 30 percent of products to be 

sourced from any Indian company, not just small and medium-sized enterprises as 

formerly required.

155 The Indian government also increased FDI equity caps in several 

other sectors, including insurance, civil aviation services, and telecommunications.

156 Not 

all developments related to FDI, however, were positive. Following the institution of new 

government requirements between October 2011 and December 2012, FDI in the 

pharmaceutical sector became subject to government approval processes that had not 

previously existed.157

Russia 

In 2012, Russia ranked as the United States’ 20th-largest single-country trading partner, 

accounting for 1.1 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade (exports plus imports). The 

value of U.S. merchandise trade with Russia declined by 5.4 percent to $39.0 billion in 

2012, in contrast to a sharp 33.7 percent increase the year before. U.S. exports to Russia 

grew rapidly in 2012, but U.S. imports fell, resulting in a 26.6 percent decline in the U.S. 

trade deficit with Russia to $19.1 billion (figure 5.19). Data for U.S. trade in services 

with Russia are unavailable.

U.S. merchandise exports to Russia increased 30.6 percent, from $7.6 billion in 2011 to 

$10.0 billion in 2012. Nearly all of the 25 leading exports to Russia increased in value in 

2012, including aircraft and parts, which is the foremost export category. U.S. exports of 

these products increased 114.3 percent to over $1.4 billion in 2012. Other major U.S. 

exports to Russia included passenger motor vehicles and related parts, and a number of 

animal products, including chicken, pig, and beef meat, as well as live cattle.

U.S. merchandise imports from Russia fell 13.6 percent in 2012 to $29.1 billion, 

reversing the previous year’s substantial increase. Leading U.S. merchandise imports 

 152 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 35. 153 Ibid. 154 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 2013, 185–86. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid., 182, 184–85; USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, 157. 157 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, April 1, 2013, 186.
5-28

FIGURE 5.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, 2008–12

Source: USDOC.

included primarily energy-related products—petroleum oils and gases—which declined

by over 13 percent. Increased oil and gas production in the United States, along with 

somewhat greater Russian domestic demand for oil in 2012 than previously estimated,

have been reported as possible factors in the decline in U.S. imports of energy products 

from Russia.158 U.S.-Russian merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.52 

through A.54.

Following 18 years of negotiations, Russia was invited to join the WTO in December 

2011; it acceded to the WTO in August 2012. The United States continued to raise 

concerns regarding Russia’s agricultural trade restrictions and inadequate protection of 

IPR, which are summarized below.

WTO Accession

On December 16, 2011, Russia was invited to join the WTO, concluding accession 

negotiations first requested in June 1993. On August 22, 2012, Russia acceded to the 

WTO as its 157th member.

Individually, both the United States and Russia notified the WTO on December 15, 2011, 

of their invocation of WTO Article XIII (Non-Application of Multilateral Trade 

Agreements between Particular Members). These provisions permit a WTO member and 

a newly acceding country to withhold granting one another most-favored-nation (MFN) 

treatment (also known as normal trade relations treatment) if they notify the WTO before 

it issues the formal accession invitation. A key element in this nonapplication exchange 

was the continuation of U.S. legislation that denies permanent MFN treatment to certain 

countries determined by the United States to have particularly restrictive emigration 

policies, a condition applicable to Russia under U.S. law as a consequence of the policies 

of the previous Soviet government.

On December 12, following the passage of legislation by the U.S. House of 

Representatives on November 16, 2012, and by the U.S. Senate on December 5, the U.S. 

President signed into law the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei 

Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act of 2012, which authorized the 

establishment of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with Russia and 

Moldova.159 On December 20, 2012, the President signed a proclamation extending 

 158 IEA, World Energy Outlook 2012––Executive Summary, November 12, 2012, 1; IEA, “Oil Market 

Report,” March 13, 2013, 9; Johnson’s Russia List Newsletter, “IEA Report: US to Be World’s Top Oil 

Producer,” November 15, 2012. 159 Pub. L. No. 112-208.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
5-29

PNTR to both Russia and Moldova.160 The following day the USTR announced that both 

the United States and Russia had filed letters with the WTO withdrawing their notices of 

nonapplication so that the WTO Agreement could apply between the two countries.161

(See box 5.1 for highlights of Russia’s WTO commitments.)

Agricultural Import Quotas 

In late 2011, Russia announced tighter global tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for beef, pork, 

and poultry meat for 2012, continuing a trend started in 2008. However, as a result of 

commitments it negotiated for WTO membership, when Russia acceded to the WTO in 

August 2012 it expanded its TRQs for beef and poultry meat for the remainder of 2012. 

The TRQ for pork remained unchanged.

At the start of 2012, before its WTO accession, Russia kept its global TRQs for fresh and 

frozen beef unchanged from the year before, at 30.0 million metric tons (mmt) and 530.0 

mmt, respectively. At the same time, however, it increased the country-specific quota for 

U.S. frozen beef significantly, from 21.7 mmt in 2011 to 60.0 mmt in 2012, the same as 

the specific allocation for the EU. Russia’s global TRQ for pork (fresh and frozen) 

contracted 15.3 percent, from 472.1 mmt in 2011 to 400.0 mmt at the start of 2012, 

although the quota for pork trimmings, established in 2010, increased 7.5 percent, from 

27.9 mmt to 30.0 mmt. The global poultry TRQ shrank 5.7 percent overall, from 350.0 

mmt in 2011 to 330.0 mmt at the start of 2012 (table 5.1).162

Following its accession to the WTO, Russia’s WTO commitments concerning 

agricultural TRQs entered into effect. The global TRQ for fresh beef increased 10.0 mmt, 

from 30.0 mmt at the start of 2012 to 40.0 mmt by the end of 2012, with the specific 

allocation for the EU unchanged at 29.0 mmt, while a new TRQ of 11.0 mmt was 

established for all other WTO member countries. At the end of 2012 Russia’s global 

TRQ commitment for pork meat remained at 400.0 mmt (430.0 mmt including pork 

trimmings); it was unchanged from the beginning of the year, with no country-specific 

allocations. The global TRQ for poultry meat rose approximately 10.3 percent as a result 

of Russia’s WTO commitments, expanding from 330.0 mmt at the start of 2012 to 364.0 

mmt at yearend. Quotas on boneless poultry meat rose by about 43 percent, from 70.0 

mmt to 100.0 mmt; remained constant for bone-in poultry such as chicken quarters and 

legs, at 250.0 mmt; and increased 40.0 percent for turkey meat, from 10.0 mmt to 14.0 

mmt by the end of 2012.163 Russia announced in December 2012 that all these TRQ 

quantities would apply for the year 2013.164

Despite this progress, U.S. meat exports to Russia were threatened by a regulatory issue. 

At yearend 2012, Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance 

(Rosselkhoznadzor) announced that it had detected the substance ractopamine in Russian 

imports of U.S. beef and pork. It notified the USDA that starting on December 7, 2012, 

under Russian law, shipments to Russia of beef and pork must be tested and certified free 

 160 Proclamation 8920––To Extend Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) 

to the Products of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova, 77 Fed. Reg. 76795 (December 28, 

2012).161 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Hails Application,” December 21, 2012. The United 

States also withdrew its notice of nonapplication with respect to Moldova, in effect since Moldova acceded to 

the WTO in July 2001. 162 USDA, FAS, GOR Distributes Meat and Poultry TRQs for 2012, January 11, 2012; USDA, FAS, 

Eurasian Economic Commission Announces 2013 Meat and Poultry TRQs, November 27, 2012. 163 USDA, FAS, Russia Increases Broiler Production and Imports (January–June 2012), August 15, 

2012. 164 USDA, FAS, Eurasian Economic Commission Announces 2013 Meat and Poultry TRQs, November 

27, 2012.
5-30

BOX 5.1 Highlights of Russia’s WTO accession commitments

As part of its accession, Russia agreed to a series of commitments to further open its trade regime and accelerate its 

integration into the world economy. From its date of accession (August 22, 2012), Russia committed to fully apply all WTO 

provisions with recourse to very few transitional periods, according to the WTO website.

Market Access for Goods and Services

As part of its accession, Russia concluded 57 bilateral market-access agreements for goods and 30 bilateral marketaccess agreements for services.a

Market access for goods

The overall average tariff rates to which Russia agreed are as follows (pre-accession tariff rate in parentheses):

▪ The average tariff rate on all products will be 7.8 percent (10.0 percent).

▪ The average tariff rate on agricultural products will be 10.8 percent (13.2 percent).

▪ The average tariff rate on manufactured products will be 7.3 percent (9.5 percent).

On particular products, the average applied tariff rates after full implementation will be:

▪ 14.9 percent for dairy products (19.8 percent).

▪ 12.0 percent for automobiles (15.5 percent).

▪ 10.0 percent for cereals (15.1 percent).

▪ 8.0 percent for wood and paper (13.4 percent).

▪ 7.1 percent for oilseeds, fats, and oils (9.0 percent).

▪ 6.2 percent for electrical machinery (8.4 percent).

▪ 5.2 percent for chemicals (6.5 percent).

▪ 0.0 percent for cotton and for information technology products (5.4 percent for the latter group).b

Implementation periods

▪ One-third of national tariff lines were bound at final rates upon accession.

▪ A further one-quarter of tariff lines are to be bound at final rates within three years.

▪ Automobiles, helicopters, and civil aircraft are to be bound within seven years.

▪ Pork tariffs are to be bound within eight years (the longest implementation period).

Tariff-Rate Quotas (TRQs)

TRQs will be applied to beef, pork, selected poultry products, and some whey products (over-quota tariff rate in 

parentheses).

▪ Beef: 15 percent (55 percent).

▪ Pork: 0 percent (65 percent, to be capped at 25 percent beginning January 1, 2020).

▪ Poultry: 25 percent (80 percent).

▪ Whey: 10 percent (15 percent).

▪ Certain quotas are also subject to country-specific allocations.

Market access for services

Russia made specific commitments in 11 services sectors and 116 subsectors. Highlights include:

▪ Telecommunications: Foreign equity limits (49 percent) will be eliminated within four years of accession. Russia agreed 

to apply the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications.

▪ Banks: Foreign banks may establish subsidiaries, with no limit on foreign equity in individual banking institutions. An 

overall cap on foreign capital participation in the banking system is set at 50 percent, not including foreign capital invested 

in banks that may be privatized. Russia agreed to review the establishment of foreign bank and securities firm branches in 

future WTO multilateral trade negotiations or Russia’s negotiations for accession to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

▪ Insurance: Foreign companies may establish branches within nine years of accession.

▪ Transport services: Russia made commitments in road and maritime transport services, including transport of passengers 

and freight.

▪ Distribution services: Wholly foreign-owned companies (100 percent) are permitted in the wholesale, retail, and franchise 

sectors upon accession.
5-31

BOX 5.1 Highlights of Russia’s WTO accession commitments—Continued

Commitments related to market-access liberalization

▪ Agriculture: Russia agreed to limit total trade-distorting agricultural support to $9.0 billion in 2012 and to $4.4 billion by 

2018. Annual agricultural support for specific products is limited to 30 percent of nonspecific product support from date of 

accession to 2018. All agricultural export subsidies are bound at zero.

▪ Goods: Russia agreed to modify or eliminate all industrial subsidy programs not in conformity with WTO provisions 

regarding trade-related investment measures, proscribing existing export and domestic content requirements. Export 

duties are fixed for over 700 tariff lines. Quantitative import restrictions––e.g., quotas, bans, permits, prior authorization 

requirements, and licensing requirements––are to be eliminated, if not in conformity with WTO provisions. National 

treatment provisions will apply, in particular for railway transport and transit of goods measures.

▪ Procurement: Russia agreed to become a signatory to the plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government Procurement 

within four years of accession.

▪ Energy pricing: Russia agreed that producers and distributors of natural gas are to operate solely on the commercial 

basis of recovery of costs and profits, although the government may continue to consider domestic social policy concerns 

in its regulation of supplies of natural gas to households and noncommercial users.

Additional Commitments

▪ Intellectual property: Russia agreed to apply the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights (TRIPS Agreement) upon accession, with no transition period, as well as apply all the rules of the Berne Convention 

for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

▪ Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures: Russia agreed to develop and apply all SPS measures according to 

international standards and active membership in the Codex Alimentarius, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), 

and the International Plant Protection Convention. Russia agreed to negotiate veterinary export certificates with requesting 

countries if Russian requirements differ from those of the Customs Union between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (RBK 

Customs Union). Russia also agreed not to suspend imports from export plants in foreign countries over issues with animal 

or human health standards following on-site inspection without allowing the exporting country the opportunity to propose 

corrective measures.

▪ Technical barriers to trade: Russia agreed to apply international standards regarding technical regulations, unless they 

are ineffective for achieving their purpose. Technical requirements governing telecommunications equipment used in 

public networks are to be limited by the end of 2015 to the technical regulations consistently adopted under the Eurasian 

Economic Community and RBK Customs Union agreements. A single national accreditation body replaced multiple bodies 

to review required technical regulations and conformity certifications before a June 30, 2012, deadline.

▪ Trade-related investment measures: Russia agreed that by July 1, 2018, it would eliminate all trade-related investment 

measures regarding its automobile investment program and related agreements, including preferential tariffs and tariff 

exemptions.

▪ Transparency: Russia agreed to publish laws affecting trade in goods, services, and IPR before adopting them, providing 

for a minimum 30-day comment period and for the establishment of an enquiry point to improve access to official 

publications. Lists of goods and services subject to state price controls are to be published publicly, including for baby 

food, medical goods, natural gas, raw diamonds, vodka, gas transportation services, water supply services, public 

transport services, and railway transport services. Russia is to provide annual reports to WTO members regarding its 

ongoing privatization program.

 

Source: Adapted from WTO, “Accessions––Working Party seals the deal on Russia’s membership negotiations,” 

November 10, 2011, http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/acc_rus_10nov11_e.htm.

 a

Applied duties refer to the Common External Tariff of the Customs Union between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

 b

As part of its accession protocol, Russia committed to join the plurilateral WTO Information Technology Agreement 

(ITA) from the date of accession. Although Russia has submitted a draft schedule of tariff commitments under the ITA, it 

has not yet submitted its final schedule, which is the remaining step needed for Russia to become an ITA member. Inside 

Washington Publishers, “At WTO, U.S., Others Criticize Trade Policies,” March 29, 2013.
5-32

of the growth-enhancing drug used by many U.S. and Canadian processors as a feed 

additive.165

Intellectual Property 

Russia remained on the USTR special 301 priority watch list in 2012.166 The United 

States continued to cite concerns regarding protection and enforcement of IPR in Russia, 

in particular concerning Internet piracy issues. The United States continued to urge 

Russia to enact legislation that among other things would require the swift removal of 

infringing content on websites that host materials and services that infringe on 

copyrights. The United States also sought stronger and more sustained enforcement 

efforts overall in Russia against counterfeiting; against piracy, such as unauthorized 

camcording; and against circumvention of technological protection measures. USTR 

urged Russia to enforce actions against several markets that continued to operate despite 

legal rulings and enforcement actions taken against them.167 In 2012, U.S. companies 

cited, in particular, challenges to IPR enforcement in book and journal publishing, 

entertainment software, and the motion picture and movie industries. On a more positive 

note, the United States welcomed new Russian laws that, among other features, 

established a specialized IPR court set to begin operating in February 2013.168

 165 Rosselkhoznadzor, “The Rosselkhoznadzor Is Concerned about Ractopamine,” December 5, 2012; 

USTR, “United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and United States Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack 

Call on Russia,” December 8, 2012; Inside Washington Publishers, “U.S. Blasts New Russia Ban on Meat 

Products,” December 14, 2012. On February 11, 2013, Russia announced a ban on all U.S. beef, pork, turkey, 

and other meat products, requiring a zero tolerance for the presence of ractopamine. USTR, “Statement by 

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Russia’s Suspension of 

U.S. Meat Imports,” February 11, 2013. 166 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 37–39. 167 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, V-185; USTR, Out-ofCycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 2012, 6. 168 USTR, 2012 Special 301 Report, April 2012, 37–39. Media reports in early 2013 indicated that the 

Court for Intellectual Property Rights, while established as a legal entity, was still in the process of opening 

its offices in mid-February 2013, suggesting opening delays until March–April 2013. Labzin, “Patent Called 

to Account,” February 12, 2013; Kim, “Russia Establishes Specialised Court for Intellectual Property 

Rights,” March 2013.

TABLE 5.1 Russian tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for beef, pork, and poultry meat, 2008–12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Thousand metric tons

Total 1,963.4 1,840.0 1,410.0 1,320.0 1364.0

Beef (fresh/chilled/frozen) 479.5 560.0 560.0 560.0 570.0

 United States 18.5 21.7 41.7 60.0 60.0

Pork (pork and pork trimmings) 531.9 500.0 500.0 430.0 430.0

 United States 100.0 57.5 57.5 (

a

) (

a

)

Poultry (fresh/chilled/frozen) 952.0 780.0 350.0 330.0 364.0

 United States 750.0 600.0 (

a

) (

a

) (

a

)

Source: USDA, FAS, GOR Distributes Meat and Poultry TRQs for 2012, January 11, 2012.

Note: The 2012 TRQs listed here only reflect changes for 2012 until Russia's WTO accession on August 22, 2012. 

The 2013 TRQs listed reflect the rates that went into effect upon WTO accession, and which continued unchanged 

in 2013. The table does not otherwise reflect a number of other changes, in particular a revised definition of highquality beef imports that would permit quota-free access for these imports at a fixed tariff rate of 15 percent. USDA, 

FAS, Russia Continues to Focus on Improving Domestic Meat Production, September 5, 2012.

 aThere is no country-specific allocation.
5-33

On December 20, 2012, the United States and Russia agreed on a Bilateral IPR Action 

Plan under the aegis of the Bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. The 

group is to identify specific ways in which the two countries can collaborate on IPR 

protection and enforcement.169

 169 USTR, 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report, March 2013, III-144.

Biblio-1

Bibliography

American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. Insurance Committee. “Ensure that the Ongoing Postal 

Reform Debate Does Not Ignore Consumer Protection.” Viewpoint. Tokyo: ACCJ, March 8, 

2012. http://www.accj.or.jp/images/downloads/public/en/viewpoints/1201%20JPCPINS.pdf.

American Institute in Taiwan. “The Facts about U.S. Beef and Ractopamine,” February 21, 2012. 

http://www.ait.org.tw/en/officialtext-ot1201.html.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Outcomes & Outlook 2012–13. APEC#213-SE-05.1. 

Singapore: APEC, January 2013. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1365 (accessed March 5, 2013).

———.Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI). Annual Report to Ministers: 2012. APEC#212-CT01.14. Vladivostok: APEC, September 2012. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1325.

———. Policy Support Unit. APEC’s Bogor Goals Dashboard. APEC#212-SE-01.13. Singapore: APEC, 

August 2012. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1309.

———. Policy Support Unit. APEC’s Bogor Goals Progress Report. APEC#212-SE-01.12. Singapore: 

APEC, August 2012. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1308.

———. Secretariat. “20th APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting: The Vladivostok Declaration; Integrate to 

Grow, Innovate to Prosper.” Vladivostok, Russia, September 8–9, 2012. In 2012 Key APEC 

Documents. APEC: Singapore, 2012. http://publications.apec.org/publicationdetail.php?pub_id=1356.

———. Secretariat. “24th APEC Ministerial Meeting: Joint Statement.” Ministerial Meeting, Vladivostok, 

Russia, September 5–6, 2012. In 2012 Key APEC Documents. APEC: Singapore, 2012. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1356.

———.Secretariat. APEC at a Glance, 2013. APEC#212-SE-05.3. Singapore: APEC, January 2013. 

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1364.

Bajaj, Vikas, and Andrew Pollack. “India Orders Bayer to License a Patented Drug.” New York Times. 

March 12, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/business/global/india-overrules-bayerallowing-generic-drug.html?_r=1&.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “Federal Reserve Issues FOMC Statement.” Press 

release, September 13, 2012. 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm.

———. “Foreign Exchange Rates: H.10 Weekly,” n.d. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/

(accessed January 15, 2013).

———. “Open Market Operations,” n.d. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm. 

(accessed March 5, 2013).
Biblio-2

Camuñez, Michael C. Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Market Access and Compliance. Speech before 

the TEC SME Workshop Opening Session. Washington, DC, December 3, 2012.

Caribbean Journal. “Haiti: IDB Approves Loan for New Manufacturing Company in Port-au-Prince,”

December 21, 2012. http://www.caribjournal.com/2012/12/21/haiti-idb-approves-loan-for-newmanufacturing-company-in-port-au-prince/.

Clyde & Co. The Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami: Second Report, August 2011. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “CEC Ministerial Statement: Nineteenth Regular 

Session of the CEC Council.” New Orleans, Louisiana, July 11, 2012.

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=25241&SiteNodeID=219&BL_ExpandI

D. (accessed March 27, 2013).

———. “Submission on Enforcement Matters,” n.d.

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=210 (accessed March 27, 2013).

———. “Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions,” n.d. 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=544 (accessed March 27, 2013).

———. Secretariat. “Three Countries, One Environment,” n.d. 

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=1226&SiteNodeID=206 (accessed March 27, 2013).

Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC). “The National Administrative Offices,” n.d.

http://www.naalc.org/commission/nao.htm (accessed March 27, 2013).

Congressional Research Service (CRS). The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and 

Issues, by M. Angeles Villarreal. CRS Report RL34470, November 9, 2012. 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34470.pdf.

———. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, by J.F. Hornbeck. CRS 

Report R41922, January 9, 2013. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41922.pdf.

———. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, by Remy Jurenas. CRS Report R40206, September 5, 

2012. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R40206.pdf.

———. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, by Benjamin Collins. CRS Report R42012, December 

17, 2012. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42012.pdf.

———. U.S.-Japan Economic Relations: Significance, Prospects, and Policy Options, by William H. 

Cooper. CRS Report RL32649, February 20, 2013. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32649.pdf.

EIA. See U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).

Embassy of India to the United States. “U.S.-India Energy Dialogue.” Press release, September 28, 2012. 

http://www.indianembassy.org/prdetail2033/press-release––us-india-energy-dialogue.
Biblio-3

European Commission (EC). Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade). “EABC Consultation Response: 

Public Consultation on the Future of EU-US Trade and Economic Relations,” n.d. 

https://static.squarespace.com/static/50a3f5e4e4b072e097b3426f/t/50f040d3e4b0b67bd45b9049/

1357922515016/EABC%20DG%20Trade%20Consultation%20Response%20-%20USEU%20Trade%20Relations%20-%202012%20September%2027%20Final.pdf (accessed

February 20, 2013).

———. Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade). “EU and US Adopt Blueprint for Open and Stable 

Investment Climates.” News release, April 10, 2012.

EU-U.S. High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth. “Interim Report to Leaders from the CoChairs,” June 19, 2012.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange 

Operations, January–March, 2012.” Quarterly Reports, May 10, 2012. 

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/markets/2013/fxq113.pdf.

———. “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations, April-June 2012.” Quarterly 

Reports, August 9, 2012.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/markets/2012/fxq212.pdf.

———. “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations, July–September, 2012.” Quarterly 

Reports, November 8, 2012.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/markets/2012/fxq312.pdf. 

———. “Treasury and Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Operations, October-December 2012.” 

Quarterly Reports, February 14, 2013. 

http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/markets/2012/fxq412.pdf. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “Information Sheet: Discussion on 

Ractopamine in Codex and in the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 

(JECFA),” April 26, 2012. 

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agns/pdf/Ractopamine_info_sheet_CodexJECFA_rev_26April2012__2_.pdf.

GAO. See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Government of Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). “Eleventh Round of TransPacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations.” News release, March 2012.

———. “Thirteenth Round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations.” News release, 

July 2012.

———. “Twelfth Round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations.” News release, 

May 2012.

Government of Canada. Canada News Centre. “Harper Government Delivers on Commitment to 

Modernize Canada’s Copyright Laws.” News release, June 29, 2012. 

http://news.gc.ca/web/articleeng.do?mthd=advSrch&crtr.page=1&nid=683909&crtr.kw=Copyright%2BModernization%2BA

ct.
Biblio-4

———. “Ministers Paradis and Moore Welcome Passage by the House of Commons of the Copyright 

Modernization Act.” News release, June 19, 2012. http://news.gc.ca/web/articleeng.do?mthd=advSrch&crtr.page=1&nid=681139&crtr.kw=Copyright%2BModernization%2BA

ct.

Government of Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Canada Applauds Softwood 

Lumber Ruling on British Columbia’s Timber-Pricing System.” News release, July 18, 2012. 

http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/newscommuniques/2012/07/18a.aspx?lang=eng&view=d.

Government of India. Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). Department of 

Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY). “Bilateral Cooperation: USA.” December 13, 

2012. http://deity.gov.in/content/usa.

Government of Japan. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. “Press Conference by Prime Minister 

Yoshihiko Noda on the Occasion of the 19th APEC Economic Leaders Meeting.” Speeches and 

Statements, November 13, 2011. 

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201111/13naigai_e.html.

HHS. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Inside U.S. Trade. “At GPA Meeting, China Reaffirms Plan to Submit New Offer by Dec. 5.” Daily 

News. China Trade Extra, November 2, 2012. 

http://chinatradeextra.com/201211022415167/China-Trade-Extra-General/Daily-News/at-gpameeting-china-reaffirms-plan-to-submit-new-offer-by-dec-5/menu-id-428.html.

———. “At WTO, U.S., Others Criticize Trade Policies In Russia, Ukraine, Indonesia,” March 29, 2013. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-03/29/2013/at-wto-us-others-criticizetrade-policies-in-russia-ukraine-indonesia/menu-id-710.html.

———. “Canada Passes Copyright Law, Ending Years of Debate,” July 6, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-07/06/2012/canada-passes-copyrightlaw-ending-years-of-debate/menu-id-710.html.

———. “Canadian Industry’s TPP Demands to Target ‘Buy American’ Policies,” October 12, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-10/12/2012/canadian-industrys-tppdemands-to-target-buy-american-policies/menu-id-710.html.

———. “Letter from Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations Patriota to U.S. Trade Representative 

Kirk.” Documents. World Trade Online, September 21, 2012.

http://insidetrade.com/201209212410862/WTO-Documents/Text-Document/brazilian-ministerdefends-tariff-hikes-in-response-to-kirk-criticizes-us-ag-subsidies/menu-id-174.html.

———. “Letter from U.S. Trade Representative Kirk to Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations Patriota.” 

Documents. World Trade Online, September 19, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/201209212410862/WTO-Documents/Text-Document/brazilian-ministerdefends-tariff-hikes-in-response-to-kirk-criticizes-us-ag-subsidies/menu-id-174.html.

———. “ITA Negotiations Could Start in Early 2013; China Looks to Limit Scope,” November 9, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-11/09/2012/ita-negotiations-couldstart-in-early-2013-china-looks-to-limit-scope/menu-id-172.html.
Biblio-5

———. “PhRMA Representative Raises Three Issues with Canadian Patent System,” March 1, 2013. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-03/01/2013/phrma-representativeraises-three-issues-with-canadian-patent-system/menu-id-710.html.

———. “Provinces Likely to Play Lesser Role in TPP than in Canada-EU FTA,” October 19, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-10/19/2012/provinces-likely-to-playlesser-role-in-tpp-than-in-canada-eu-fta/menu-id-710.html.

———. “Russia Implements Ractopamine Policy with Bans on U.S., Canadian Pork,” January 18, 2013. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-01/18/2013/russia-implementsractopamine-policy-with-bans-on-us-canadian-pork/menu-id-710.html.

———. “U.S., EU among Organizers of Doha Services Market Access Meeting,” February 11, 2011. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-02/11/2011/us-eu-among-organizersof-doha-services-market-access-meeting/menu-id-710.html.

———. “U.S. Blasts New Russia Ban on Meat Products Treated with Ractopamine,” December 14, 

2012. http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-12/14/2012/us-blasts-newrussia-ban-on-meat-products-treated-with-ractopamine/menu-id-710.html.

———. “U.S. Industry Representatives Blast Canadian Patent, Copyright Regimes,” March 1, 2013. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-03/01/2013/us-industryrepresentatives-blast-canadian-patent-copyright-regimes/menu-id-710.html.

———. “USTR Flags Procurement, Data Flow Issues as New Barriers in Canada,” April 27, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-04/27/2012/ustr-flags-procurementdata-flow-issues-as-new-barriers-in-canada/menu-id-710.html.

———. “WTO Members Brainstorm Services Plurilateral Options, No Decision Yet,” February 24, 2012. 

http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-02/24/2012/wto-members-brainstormservices-plurilateral-options-no-decision-yet/menu-id-710.html.

Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). “New Manufacturing Company in Haiti to Initiate High-End 

Apparel Production with IDB Support.” News release, December 21, 2012. 

http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2012-12-21/new-manufacturing-company-inhaiti,10288.html.

International Energy Agency. “Oil Market Report,” March 13, 2013. 

http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/fullpub.pdf.

———. World Energy Outlook 2012––Executive Summary. Paris: OECD/IEA, November 12, 2012.

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). “Additional Appendix: Historical Summary of 

Selected Countries’ Placement for Copyright-related Matters on the Special 301 Lists.”

International Intellectual Property Alliance 2012 Special 301 Report, February 10, 2012. 

http://www.iipa.com/2012_SPEC301_TOC.htm.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). “World Economic Outlook Update.” January 23, 2013. 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/update/01/index.htm.
Biblio-6

Japan Post Group. Annual Report 2012. Tokyo: Japan Post Group, April 2012.

http://www.japanpost.jp/en/group/disclosure/2012/.

Just-style.com. “Haiti: $300 Million Industrial Park Opens for Business,” October 30, 2012.

http://www.just-style.com/news/300m-industrial-park-opens-for-business_id115965.aspx.

––––––. “Haiti: Sae-A Trading on Track to Begin Production,” September 18, 2012. http://www.juststyle.com/news/sae-a-trading-on-track-to-begin-production_id115580.aspx. 

––––––. “Haiti: “U.S. Apparel Export Scheme Gains Popularity,” December 17, 2012. http://www.juststyle.com/news/us-apparel-export-scheme-gains-popularity_id116469.aspx.

Kim, Daria. “Russia Establishes Specialised Court for Intellectual Property Rights.” Intellectual Property 

Watch, March 1, 2013. http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/01/russia-establishes-specialised-courtfor-intellectual-property-rights/.

Labzin, Maxim. “Patent Called to Account.” Russian Gazette, February 12, 2013. [Максим Лабзин. 

“Патент призовут к ответу.” Российская газета, 12.02.2013.] 

http://www.rg.ru/2013/02/12/sud.html.

Leaders of Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiating Countries (TPP Leaders). “Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Leaders Statement.” Economic Leaders’ Meeting, September 9, 2012.

http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/tradeagreement/transpacific/TPP2012%20Leaders%20Statement%20090612%20Mins%20Final.pdf. 

London Court of International Arbitration. “Final Award––Non-confidential––in the Arbitration The 

United States of America––Claimant––vs. Canada––Respondent––Arbitral Tribunal.” Case No. 

111790, July 26, 2012. http://www.international.gc.ca/controlscontroles/assets/pdfs/softwood/111790.pdf.

MercoPress. “Brazil Applies 25% Tariff Increase on 100 Imported Goods; Another 100 list in the 

Making,” September 2, 2012. http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/brazil-applies-25-tariffincrease-on-100-imported-goods-another-100-list-in-the-making.

Ministers Responsible for Trade of Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiating Countries (TPP Trade 

Ministers). “Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders.” Economic Leaders’

Meeting, September 9, 2012. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-TradeRelationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/1-TPP-Talk/0-TPP-talk-12-Sept-2012.php

(accessed March 4, 2013).

National Police Agency of Japan. “Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures Associated with 2011 

Tohoku District: Off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake,” March 11, 2013. 

http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf.

North American Development Bank (NADB). BECC-COCEF Quarterly Status Report, December 31, 

2012.

———. “Summary of Project Implementation Activities,” December 31, 2012.
Biblio-7

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Secretariat. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement 

Provisions,” May 30, 2011. http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=226.

———. “Status Report of Dispute Settlement Proceeding.” NAFTA: Chapter 19 Active Cases, n.d. 

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/StatusReportResults.aspx (accessed April 1, 2013).

Northwest Horticulture Council. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission in 

connection with inv. no. 332-539, U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Effects on U.S. Small and 

Medium-Sized Enterprises, March 22, 2013.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. “Exporting Blueberries to the Republic of Korea,” June 21, 2011.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Economy: Global Economy 

Recovering, but Major Risks Remain, Says OECD,” May 22, 2012. 

http://www.oecd.org/economy/economyglobaleconomyrecoveringbutmajorrisksremainsaysoecd.h

tm.

––––––. “List of OECD Member countries––Ratification of the Convention on the OECD,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/listofoecdmembercountriesratificationoftheconventionontheoecd.htm.

––––––. “Ministerial Council Meeting 2012––Chair’s summary,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/ministerialcouncilmeeting2012-chairssummary.htm (accessed April 

11, 2013).

––––––. OECD Economic Surveys—Canada. Paris: OECD Publishing, June 2012.

––––––. Policy Priorities for International Trade and Jobs. Edited by D. Lippoldt. Paris: OECD 

Publishing, 2012. 

———. “Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers 2012.” Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012.

———. “The OECD’s Relations with its Key Partners,” n.d. 

http://www.oecd.org/general/theoecdsrelationswithitskeypartners.htm (accessed March 1, 2013).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Council. “Better Skills. Better Jobs. 

Better Lives. The OECD Skills Strategy.” C/MIN(2012)4, April 30, 2012.

———. “Draft Agenda––Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level: All on Board––Policies for 

Inclusive Growth and Jobs.” C/A(2012)7, May 21, 2012.

———. “Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship––Final Report to the MCM 

2012.” C/MIN(2012)5, April 27, 2012.

———. “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––New Approaches to Economic 

Challenges––A Framework Paper.” C/MIN(2012)2/FINAL, June 13, 2012.

———. “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––Strategic Orientations by the 

Secretary-General.” C/MIN(2012)1/FINAL, June 15, 2012.
Biblio-8

———. “Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 23–24 May 2012––The OECD’s Relations with its 

Key Partners.” C/MIN(2012)8, April 27, 2012.

———. “OECD Strategy on Development.” C/MIN(2012)6, April 27, 2012.

———. “Towards a More Open Trading System and Jobs Rich Growth.” C/MIN(2012)9, April 27, 2012.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate. 

Trade Committee. “160th Session of the Trade Committee: Confidential Session––Draft Agenda–

–6–7 November 2012.” TAD/TC/A(2012)2/ANN. Confidential, October 2, 2012.

———. “160th Session of the Trade Committee: Plenary Session––Draft Agenda––7 November 2012.”

TAD/TC/A(2012)2, October 2, 2012.

———. “Summary Record: 159th Session of the Trade Committee––Confidential Session––9 May 

2012.” TAD/TC/M(2012)1/ANN. Confidential, August 29, 2012.

———. “Summary Record: 159th Session of the Trade Committee––Plenary Session––9–10 May 2012.”

TAD/TC/M(2012)1, August 29, 2012.

Pandley, Abhai. “Development in Indian IP Law: The Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012.” Inside Views. 

Intellectual Property Watch, January 22, 2013. http://www.ipwatch.org/2013/01/22/development-in-indian-ip-law-the-copyright-amendment-act-2012/.

Patterson, Margot. “Copyright Modernization Act Enters into Force—TPMs, ISP Liability and More.” JD 

Supra, LLC Online Legal Service, November 8, 2012. 

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/copyright-modernization-act-enters-into-81480/.

Reinsurance Association of America. “Reinsurance Underwriting Report, Fourth Quarter of 2012,” March 

6, 2013.

Reuters News Service. “U.S. Warns Brazil on Tariffs, Gets Stinging Rebuke,” September 20, 2012.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/us-usa-brazil-trade-idUSBRE88K03K20120921.

Rosselkhoznadzor (Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance of Russia). “The 

Rosselkhoznadzor Is Concerned about Ractopamine Detection in Raw Meat Exported from the 

USA.” News release, December 5, 2012. 

http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/news/5675.html?_language=en.

RT/TV-Novosti. “US Trade Deficit Slides to Lowest on Cheaper Oil,” August 9, 2012. 

http://rt.com/business/news/cheaper-us-deficit-level-282/.

Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A. “Earned Import Program for Haitian Apparel Still 

Underutilized, GAO Reports.” ST&R-TAP Advisor––Latest U.S. News, December 2, 

2011.

———. “Reminder: Technical Corrections to DR-CAFTA Origin Rules to Enter into Force October 13.”

ST&R-TAP Advisor, October 11, 2012.
Biblio-9

Sapiro, Miriam. Remarks by Deputy U.S. Trade Representative at the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue. 

Washington, DC, November 30, 2012.

Secretaría de Economía. “Solución de Controversias: Inversionistas-Estado” [Dispute settlement:

Investor-state], March 29, 2013. http://www.economia.gob.mx/comunidad-negocios/comercioexterior/solucion-controversias/inversionista-estado (accessed March 29, 2013).

Secretaría de Gobernación. Secretaría de Economía. Diario Oficial de la Federación [Mexico’s Federal 

Register], March 18, 2009. http://dof.gob.mx/index.php?year=2009&month=03&day=18

(accessed March 9, 2013).

Taiwan Insights. “Representative King: U.S.-Taiwan Trade Talks to Resume in March,” February 25, 

2013. http://www.taiwaninsights.com/2013/02/25/representative-king-us-taiwan-trade-talks-toresume-in-march/.

Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). “Monthly Newsletter: September 2012,” 2.

U.S.-China Business Council. “USCBC 2012 China Business Environment Survey Results: Continued 

Growth and Profitability; Tempered Optimism Due to Rising Costs, Competition, and Market 

Barriers.” Washington DC: USCBC, 2012.

U.S.-Taiwan Business Council. “Why Taiwan Matters,” June 16, 2011.

U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Trade Adjustment Assistance: Helping Workers Harmed by 

Global Competition in the Market for Services, December 12, 2012. 

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bfc30200-9214-4113-854f84b9b5a35d0e. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP). “Modifications to Certain Textile and Apparel Rules of 

Origin under the United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement 

(CAFTA-DR),” October 12, 2012.

http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/textiles/tbts/dr_cafta.xml.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “U.S. Cherries on Top in South Korean Market.” USDA Blog, 

July 31, 2012.

———. “USDA’s Chief Veterinary Officer on the Recent BSE Case (aka Mad Cow).” USDA Blog, 

April 24, 2012.

———. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “First Shipment of Fresh Blueberry 

Exports Arrive in South Korea.” News release, July 17, 2012.

———. Economic Research Service (ERS). “Top 15 U.S. Agricultural Export Destinations, by Fiscal 

Year, Value $U.S,” November 19, 2012.

———. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “Export Requirements for People’s Republic of 

China,” March 8, 2013. 
Biblio-10

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). EU-27, Changes to the EU 

High Quality Beef Quota Published, by Yvan Polet. GAIN Report no. E70024, June 12, 2012 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Changes%20to%20the%20EU%20Hi

gh%20Quality%20Beef%20Quota%20Published_Brussels%20USEU_EU-27_6-12-2012.pdf.

———. Eurasian Economic Commission Announces 2013 Meat and Poultry TRQs. GAIN Report no. 

RS1275, November 27, 2012. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Eurasian%20Economic%20Commissi

on%20Announces%202013%20Meat%20and%20Poultry%20TRQs_Moscow_Russian%20Feder

ation_27.11.2012.pdf. 

———. GOR Distributes Meat and Poultry TRQs for 2012, by Mikhail Maksimenko. GAIN Report no. 

RS1202, January 11, 2012. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Lists/Advanced%20Search/AllItems.aspx. 

———. Netherlands EU-27, The EU-U.S. Organic Equivalence Cooperation Arrangement, by Karin 

Bendz, Roswitha Krautgartner, Marcel Pinckaers, and Kelly Strzelecki. GAIN Report no. 

NL2006, February 15, 2012.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097063.

———. Russia Increases Broiler Production and Imports (January–June 2012), by Mikhail 

Maksimenko. GAIN Report no. RS1251, August 15, 2012. 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Poultry%20and%20Products%20Ann

ual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_8-23-2012.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Commerce and European Union Officials Sign MOU to 

Promote SME Transatlantic Trade.” News release, December 4, 2012.

———. “Fact Sheet: 23rd U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” December 19, 2012.

———. “U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Now in Force.” Commerce Blog, May 15, 2012.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “A Guide to the U.S. 

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

Christopher L. Bach. Survey of Current Business 90, no. 2 (February 2010): 33–51. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/02%20February/0210_guide.pdf.

———. “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012 (Second Estimate).” News release, 

BEA 13-06, February 28, 2013. 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm.

––––––. “Travel and Tourism Spending Slowed in the Third Quarter of 2012.” News release, BEA 12-56, 

December 17, 2012.

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/tourism/2012/pdf/tour312.pdf.

———. “U.S. International Services: Cross-Border Trade in 2011 and Services Supplied Through 

Affiliates in 2010,” by Marilyn Ibarra-Caton and Charu Sharma. Survey of Current Business, 92, 

no. 10 (October 2012):15–33. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2012/10%20October/1012_initernational_services.pdf.
Biblio-11

———. “U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2012.” News release, BEA 13-09, 

March 14, 2013.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2013/pdf/trans412.pdf.

––––––. “U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data,” March 14, 2013, “Table 3a: Private Services 

Transactions,” “U.S. International Transactions, by Area.”

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=6&step=1#reqid=6&step=1&isuri=1.

––––––. “U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data,” March 14, 2013, “Table 12: U.S. International 

Transactions, by Area.”

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=6&step=1#reqid=6&step=1&isuri=1.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Census Bureau and BEA, “U.S. International Trade in Goods 

and Services January 2013.” News release, CB13-44/BEA 13-08, FT900 (13-1), March 7, 2013. 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). Fiscal Year 

2012 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, December 

15, 2012. http://www.eda.gov/pdf/FY12_TAAF_Annual_Report_to_Congress.pdf.

———. “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms: FAQs,” n.d. http://www.taacenters.org/faqs.html

(accessed March 1, 2013).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration. Office of Textiles and Apparel 

(OTEXA). “U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs.” http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/agoacbtpa/catv0.htm (accessed February 2013).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

“FDA Statement on USDA Announcement of Positive BSE Test Results.” Press announcement, 

April 26, 2012.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP). “CBP, 

EU Sign C-TPAT Mutual Recognition Decision.” News release, May 4, 2012.

———. “EU, US Fully Implement Mutual Recognition Decision.” News release, February 8, 2013.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and 

Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Division of Trade Administration and Technical Cooperation (TAATC),”

n.d. http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/nao/main.htm (accessed March 26, 2013).

———. “Free Trade Agreements, Labor Submissions Accepted for Review by OTLA: Mexico,” n.d. 

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/otla/freetradeagreement.htm (accessed March 26, 2013).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). “International Air Passenger 

Fares Shrug Off the Recession,” by Edwin Bennion and John Ruder. Beyond the Numbers, vol. 1, 

no. 1, May 2012. http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-1/pdf/international-air-passenger-faresshrug-off-the-recession.pdf.

———. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” n.d. 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (accessed February 13, 2013).
Biblio-12

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “Model BIT Fact Sheet.” Press release, April 20, 2012. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/04/188199.htm.

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada,” n.d. 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of America,” n.d. 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

———. “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against United Mexican States,” n.d. 

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed March 29, 2013).

———. “U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) Enters Into Force.” Press statement, October

31, 2012.

———. “U.S. Department of State and U.S. Trade Representative Move Forward on President Obama’s 

Small Business Network of the Americas.” Media note, September 15, 2012. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197787.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. “EU-U.S. Expert 

Workshop on Raw Material Flows and Data: Public Summary Document,” September 14, 2012.

———. “Statement of the European Union and the United States on Shared Principles for International 

Investment,” April 10, 2012.

———. “TEC Work Plan for Cooperation on Raw Materials: Progress Report,” April 3, 2012.

———. “U.S.-EU Workshop on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the Framework of the 

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), Agenda,” December 3–4, 2012.

———. “U.S. Relations with Russia.” Fact sheet, March 19, 2012. 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP). “First Shipment of 

Fresh Blueberries Arrives in Korea,” July 19, 2012.

———. “New U.S.-Morocco Agreements Seen as Boost to Trade Relations.” IIP Digital. Articles, 

December 10, 2012.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. “U.S. Relations with

Canada.” Fact sheet, June 29, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy, Haiti. “Haiti: FY2012 Second Quarter Report on the 

NEI Initiative (Port-au-Prince 000658),” April 27, 2012.

––––––. “Port-au-Prince Scene Setter for the Visit of Vice Admiral Parker, Atlantic Area Commander, 

and Rear Admiral William Baumgartner, Commander, Coast Guard District Seven,” (Port-auPrince 001840),” November 8, 2012.
Biblio-13

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

“Increased Participation and Improved Oversight Mechanisms Would Benefit the NAFTA Pilot 

Program,” Report Number MH-2012-169, August 16, 2012. 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/intl-programs/trucking/NAFTA-INTERIM-REPORT.pdf.

———. “Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transportation of the United States 

of America and the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes of the United Mexican States on 

International Freight Cross-border Trucking Services,” July 6, 2011. 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/Mexican_MOU_Eng.pdf (accessed March 9, 2013).

———. “Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers with Active Operating Authority: Aggregate Data Charts,”

Aggregated data thru December 30, 2012. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/intlprograms/trucking/aggregate_charts.aspx (accessed March 12, 2013).

U. S. Department of the Treasury. “Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet—Fourth Meeting of the 

U.S. China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED),” May 4, 2012. 

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1567.aspx.

———. “U.S. Fact Sheet—Economic Track of the Fourth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and 

Economic Dialogue (S&ED),” May 4, 2012. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/pressreleases/Pages/tg1568.aspx.

U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). “Short-term Energy Outlook,” January 8, 2013.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Letter to the Honorable Max Baucus and the Honorable 

Dave Camp concerning the Follow-up on the Haiti Earned Import Allowance Program,”

December 14, 2012.

––––––. Report to Congressional Committees: Trade Adjustment Assistance. GAO-12-731, July 2012. 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592320.pdf.

––––––. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial 

Management, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives: Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Statement of J. Alfredo Gomez, Acting Director, International Affairs and 

Trade. GAO-13-166T, November 14, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649999.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries 

and Consumers and on Drug Crop Eradication and Crop Substitution 2011. USITC Publication 

4352. Washington, DC: USITC, 2012.

———. Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China, 

Investigation No. TA-421-7. USITC Publication 4085. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009.

———. China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous Innovation Policies on the 

U.S. Economy. USITC Publication 4226. Washington DC: USITC, May 2011.

———. China: Intellectual Property Infringement, Indigenous Innovation Policies, and Frameworks for 

Measuring the Effects on the U.S. Economy. USITC Publication 4199. Washington, DC: USITC, 

November 2010.
Biblio-14

———. China’s Agricultural Trade: Competitive Conditions and Effects on U.S. Exports. USITC 

Publication 4219. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2011.

———. Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2011 Annual Report. USITC Publication 4243. 

Washington, DC: USITC, July 2011.

———. Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade: 2012 Annual Report. USITC Publication 4338.

Washington, DC: USITC, July 2012.

———. Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti on Trade, Markets, and Industries.

USITC Publication 4016. Washington, DC: USITC, June 2008.

———. The Year in Trade 2007: Operation of the Trade Agreement Program; 59th Report. USITC 

Publication 4026. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2008.

———. The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 60th Report. USITC 

Publication 4091. Washington, DC: July 2009.

———. The Year in Trade 2009: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 61th Report. USITC 

Publication 4174. Washington, DC: July 2010.

———. The Year in Trade 2010: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 62nd Report. USITC 

Publication 4247. Washington, DC: July 2011.

———. The Year in Trade 2011: Operation of the Trade Agreements Program; 63rd Report. USITC 

Publication 4336. Washington, DC: July 2012.

———. U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Effects on U.S. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. USITC 

Publication 4393. Washington, DC: May 2013.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Washington, 

DC: USTR, April 2011.

———. 2011 Trade Policy Agenda and 2010 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2011.

———. 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 

March 2012.

———. 2012 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets. Washington, DC: USTR, December 2012.

———. 2012 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Washington, DC: USTR, April 2012.

———. 2012 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, DC: USTR, December 

2012.

———. 2012 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 2012.

––––––. 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. Washington, DC: USTR, 

March 2013.

———. 2013 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC: USTR, April 2013.
Biblio-15

––––––. 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USTR, March 1, 2013.

———. “Ambassador Kirk Comments on Mexico’s Elimination of Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Exports.” 

Press release, October 21, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/october/ambassador-kirk-comments-mexicos-elimination-retal.

———. “Benefits for the United States from the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement.” Fact sheet, March 15, 

2012.

———. “Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis Welcomes Hard Work, Productive 

Outcomes in Revived U.S.-Taiwan Talks.” Press release, March 10, 2013.

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2013/march/amb-marantis-TaiwanTIFA.

———. “Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Sapiro Leads U.S. Delegation to Transatlantic Economic 

Council’s Third ‘U.S.-EU Workshop on Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ in Rome, Italy.”

Press release, July 12, 2012.

———. “Fact Sheet: Historic Progress on Labor Rights in Colombia.” Fact sheet, April 15, 2012.

——— . “Fact Sheet: Keeping Markets Open; Successes in Reducing Barriers to American Food and 

Agricultural Exports.” Fact sheet, April 2, 2012.

———. “Important Progress Made at TPP Talks in San Diego.” Press release, July 10, 2012.

———. “Jobs on the Way: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Enters into Force.” Press release, March 15, 

2012.

——— “Joint Communiqué of the Meetings of the United States-Peru Environmental Affairs Council, 

Environmental Cooperation Commission and Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance.”

Press release, June 1, 2012.

———. “Joint Statement from 2012 NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) Meeting.” Washington, DC, 

April 3, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/april/jointstatement-2012-nafta-commission-meeting.

———. “Joint Statement from the Meeting of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Commission.” Press release, January 23, 2012.

———. “Joint Statement from U.S.-CARICOM Trade and Investment Council Meeting.” Press release, 

March 31, 2012.

———. “Meetings of the U.S.-Peru Environmental Affairs Council, Environmental Cooperation 

Commission, and Subcommittee on Forest Sector Governance.” Press release, May 30, 2012.

———. “New Opportunities for U.S. Exporters under the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement.” Free Trade 

Agreements, n.d. (accessed March 7, 2013).

———. Ninth Report to Congress on the Operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.

Washington, DC: USTR, December 31, 2011.
Biblio-16

———. Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets. Washington, DC: USTR, December 13, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/121312%20Notorious%20Markets%20List.pdf.

———. “Postponement of U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF).” Press release, January 9, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/january/postponement-us-indiatrade-policy-forum-tpf.

———.”Progress Continues in Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks.” Press release, September 15, 2012.

———. “Readout of the Meeting of Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers in Kazan, Russia.” Press release, 

June 5, 2012.

———. “Remarks by Deputy United States Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis to Economics 

Students in Chennai, India.” Prepared remarks, December 8, 2012.

http://insidetrade.com/201212112418770/WTO-Documents/Text-Document/marantis-flags-localcontent-rules-patent-policies-as-chief-trade-barriers-in-india/menu-id-174.html.

———. “Statement by Acting U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis on Japan’s Announcement 

Regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, March 15, 2013. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2013/march/amb-marantis-statementjapan-tpp.

———. “Statement by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Response to Decision in Third 

Softwood Lumber Arbitration.” Press release, July 18, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2012/july/ustr-statement-response-softwood-lumber-arbitration.

———. “Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack 

on Russia’s Suspension of U.S. Meat Imports.” Press release, February 11, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2013/february/amb-kirk-sec-vilsackrussia-meat-announcement.

———. “The United States and Peru Reach Agreement on Action Plan to Strengthen Forest Sector 

Governance.” Press release, January 1, 2013.

———. “TPP Chief Negotiators Pleased to Report Continued Progress.” Press release, December 11, 

2012.

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Leadership Statement.” Press release, September 9, 2012.

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Talks Advance in Texas.” Press release, May 16, 2012.

———. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Ministers, Report to Leaders.” Press release, September 9, 

2012.

———. “United States Challenges China’s Export Restraints on Rare Earths.” Press release, March 13, 

2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/march/united-stateschallenges-china%E2%80%99s-export-restraints-r.
Biblio-17

———. “United States Challenges India’s Restrictions on U.S. Solar Exports.” Press release, February 6, 

2013. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2013/february/us-challengesindia-restrictions-solar.

———. “United States, European Union Reaffirm Commitment to Open, Transparent, and NonDiscriminatory Investment Policies.” Press release, April 10, 2012.

———. “United States and Morocco Reach Agreement on Trade Facilitation, Joint Investment Principles 

and Joint Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Principles.” Press release, 

December 7, 2012.

———. “United States Seeks to Eliminate India’s Restrictions on Various U.S. Agricultural Exports.”

Press release, May 11, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2012/United-States-Seeks-to-Eliminate-India-Restrictions.

———. “United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and United States Agriculture Secretary Tom 

Vilsack Call on Russia to Suspend its New Testing Requirements for U.S. Meat Exports to 

Russia.” Press release, December 8, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2012/december/kirk-vilsack-russia-meat-statement.

———. “USTR Welcomes U.S.-EU Memorandum of Understanding on Small Business Trade 

Promotion.” Press release, December 4, 2012.

———. “U.S. and Colombia Conclude First Meeting of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Commission.”

Press release, Nov. 19, 2012.

———. “U.S. and Panama Set Date for Entry-Into-Force of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion 

Agreement.” Press release, Oct. 23, 2012.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Applauds Congress’s Agreement to Advance Urgent AGOA, 

CAFTA-DR Changes.” Press release, June 21, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/pressoffice/press-releases/2012/june/kirk-applauds-agreement-to-advance-agoa-caftadr.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Announce 

Agreement to Further Open Japan’s Market to U.S. Beef.” Press release, January 28, 2013. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2013/january/ustr-kirk-ag-sec-vilsackjapan-beef-announcement.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces Progress through U.S.-Japan Economic 

Harmonization Initiative, Expanding Trade and Market Opportunities for American Producers.”

Press release, January 27, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2012/january/us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-announces-progres.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Concluded Meeting of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Free Trade Commission.” Washington, DC, April 3, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/press-releases/2012/april/us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-concludes-meeting-n.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Concludes First Meeting of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade 

Agreement Joint Committee.” Resource Center, May 16, 2012.
Biblio-18

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Hails Application of the WTO Agreement between the 

United States and Russia and the United States and Moldova.” Press release, December 21, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/december/ustr-kirk-hailsapplication-wto-agreement-russia-moldova.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada as a New Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Negotiating Partner.” Press release, June 19, 2012.

———. “U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico as a New Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Negotiating Partner.” Press release, June 18, 2012.

———. “U.S., Canada Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, 

Feb. 13, 2012.

———. “U.S., Japan Hold Expert-level Trans-Pacific Partnership Consultations.” Press release, February 

22, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/february/united-statesand-japan-hold-expert-level-trans-p.

———. “U.S., Japan Hold High-level Consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, Feb. 

7, 2012.

———. U.S.-Japan Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services. 

Washington, DC: USTR, January 27, 2012. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3292.

———. “United States, Korea Set Date for Entry into Force of U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement.” Press 

release, Feb. 21, 2012.

———. “United States, Panama Set Date for Entry into Force of United States-Panama Trade Promotion 

Agreement.” Press release, Oct. 22, 2012.

———. “USTR Holds Public Hearing on Mexico and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Press release, Sept. 

21, 2012.

———. “USTR Holds Public Hearing on Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Press release, Sept. 

24, 2012.

———. “USTR Hosts First Meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commission on Economic and Trade Relations.”

USTR Blog, n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2012/march/ustr-hosts-firstmeeting-us-brzail-commission-economic-and-tra (accessed March 11, 2013).

———. “USTR Kirk on Reduction of Tariffs on U.S. Exports, Resolution of U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border 

Trucking Dispute.” Press release, July 8, 2011. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/pressreleases/2011/july/statement-ambassador-ron-kirk-reduction-tariffs-us-ex.

———. “Weekly Trade Spotlight: USTR’s 2012 Year in Review,” December 28, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog.
Biblio-19

———. “WTO Members Announce New Phase in Services Talks––United States among Robust, Diverse 

Group Exploring Negotiations in Geneva.” Press release, July 5, 2012. 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/july/wto-members-announce-newphase-in-services-talks.

White House. “Statement by the Press Secretary of Key Trade Measures in H.R. 5986.” Press release, 

August 10, 2012.

———. United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council Work Plan, February 28, 

2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/united-states-mexico-high-levelregulatory-cooperation-council-work-plan.pdf.

———. “Fact Sheet: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation,” March 3, 2011. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/03/fact-sheet-enhancing-us-mexicocooperation.

———. “Readout by the Press Secretary on the President’s Meeting with Prime Minister Noda of Japan.”

Press release, November 12, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2011/11/12/readout-press-secretary-presidents-meeting-prime-minister-noda-japan.

———. “United States Achieves Breakthrough on Movies in Dispute with China,” February 17, 2012. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/17/united-states-achieves-breakthroughmovies-dispute-china.

World Trade Organization. “Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft Done at Geneva on 12 April 1979 as 

Subsequently Modified, Rectified or Amended—Notification of Accession.” WT/Let/865. 

Reference WLI/100, October 23, 2012.

———. “Development: Workshop—8–9 April 2013—Workshop on E-Commerce, Development and 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs),” n.d. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/wkshop_apr13_e/wkshop_apr13_e.htm (accessed 

April 5, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS316; European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 

Aircraft.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm (accessed March 12, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS322; United States—Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 

Reviews.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds322_e.htm (accessed April 9, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS353; United States—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—

Second Complaint.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm (accessed March 12, 2013).

––––––. “Dispute Settlement: DS363; China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution 

Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products.” Online summary 

prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds363_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).
Biblio-20

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS381; United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing 

and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm. (accessed March 11, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS384; United States—Certain County of Origin Labeling (COOL) 

Requirements.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm (accessed February 27, 

2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS386; United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements.”

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e.htm (accessed March 7, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS394; China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw 

Materials.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds394_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS406; United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of 

Clove Cigarettes.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds406_e.htm (accessed March 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS413; China—Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services.”

Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds413_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS414; China—Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties on Grain 

Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the 

WTO Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds414_e.htm

(accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS420; United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Corrosion-resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm (accessed March 5, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS422; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond 

Sawblades from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds422_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on 

Broiler Products from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds427_e.htm (accessed February 27, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS429; United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Viet Nam.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds429_e.htm (accessed March 14, 2013).
Biblio-21

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS430; India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain 

Agricultural Products from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the WTO 

Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm (accessed 

March 14, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS431; China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths,

Tungsten and Molybdenum.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds431_e.htm (accessed March 12, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS436; United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds436_e.htm (accessed March 13, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS437; United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products 

from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds437_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS440; China—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Automobiles from the United States.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds440_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS444; Argentina—Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods.” Online 

summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds444_e.htm (accessed March 6, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS447; United States—Measures Affecting the Importation of Animals, 

Meat and Other Animal Products from Argentina.” Online summary prepared by the WTO 

Secretariat, n.d. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds447_e.htm (accessed 

March 7, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS448; United States—United States—Measures Affecting the Importation 

of Fresh Lemons.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat, n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds448_e.htm (accessed March 6, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS449; United States—Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on 

Certain Products from China.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds449_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Dispute Settlement: DS450; China—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile and 

Automobile-parts Industries.” Online summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat. n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds450_e.htm (accessed January 8, 2013).

———. “Informal Meeting at the Level of Heads of Delegation––Tuesday, 17 July 2012––Statement by 

the Director-General.” JOB/GC/20, July 17, 2012.

———. “Membership of the World Trade Organization––Revision.” WT/INF/43/Rev.14, February 4, 

2013.
Biblio-22

———. Report (2012) of the Committee on Government Procurement. GPA/116, December 6, 2012.

———. Report (2012) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft. WT/L/869, November 26, 2012.

———. “Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,” 1995. 

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/dsu_e.htm.

———. “Understanding the WTO: The Organization––Members and Observers,” n.d. 

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm (accessed March 8, 2013).

———. “WTO: 2011 News Items; Accessions; Working Party Seals the Deal on Russia’s Membership

Negotiations.” News release, November 10, 2011. 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/acc_rus_10nov11_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 1 November 2012; Information Technology Agreement; Information 

Technology: Progress Reported on Expanding Product Coverage.” News release, November 1, 

2012. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/ita_01nov12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 11 December 2012; General Council; Lamy Says Members’ 

Negotiating Outlook for 2013 ‘Encouraging.”” News release, December 11, 2012. 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/gc_rpt_07dec12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 15 May 2012; Information Technology Agreement; Informal Talks 

Set to Begin on Expanding the Information Technology Agreement.” News release, May 15, 

2012. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/ita_15may12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 28 March 2012; Information Technology Agreement; Colombia Joins 

WTO’s Information Technology Agreement.” News release, March 28, 2012. 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/ita_28mar12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 28 September 2012; Agriculture Negotiations: Informal Meeting; 

Agricultural G-20 Proposals Could Revive Negotiators’ Engagement, Chair Says.” News release, 

September 28, 2012. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/agng_28sep12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2012 News Items; 4 May 2012; Information Technology Agreement; Information 

Technology Agreement Marks 15th Anniversary with Two-Day Symposium.” News release, May 

4, 2012. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news12_e/ita_04may12_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2013 News Items; 29 to 31 January 2013; Director-General Selection Process; WTO 

members Meet the DG Candidates.” News release, January 29, 2013. 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news13_e/dgsel_29jan13_e.htm.

———. “WTO: 2013 News Items; 14 May 2013; General Council Appoints Azevêdo as Next DirectorGeneral, Lamy Pledges Smooth Transition.” News release, May 14, 2013. 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news13_e/gc_14may13_e.htm. 

———. Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products. 

“Concept Paper for the Expansion of the ITA––Communication from Canada, Japan, Korea, the 

Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, Singapore and the United 

States.” G/IT/W/36, May 2, 2012.
Biblio-23

———. “Minutes of the Meeting of 15 May 2012.” G/IT/M/55, October 19, 2012.

———. “Negotiating Group on Agriculture––Report by the Chairman, H.E. Mr. David Walker, to the 

Trade Negotiations Committee––21 April 2011.” TN/AG/26, April 21, 2011.

———. “Report (2012) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products––Draft1.” G/IT/W/37, November 1, 2012.

World Trade Organization. Committee on Government Procurement. “Adoption of the Results of the 

Negotiations under Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement on Government Procurement, Following 

Their Verification and Review, as Required by the Ministerial Decision of 15 December 2011 

(GPA/112), Paragraph 5; Action Taken by the Parties to the WTO Agreement on Government 

Procurement at a Formal Meeting of the Committee, at the Level of Geneva Heads of 

Delegations, on 30 March 2012.” GPA/113, April 2, 2012.

———. “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of the Committee on Government Procurement, at Heads of 

Delegations’ Level, of 30 March 2012.” GPA/M/46, August 13, 2012.

———. “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of 18 July 2012.” GPA/M/47, August 20, 2012.

———. “Minutes of the Formal Meeting of 31 October 2012.” GPA/M/48, November 19, 2012.

World Trade Organization. Committee on Trade and Development––Special Session. “Special Session of 

the Committee on Trade and Development––Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Thawatchai 

Sophastienphong (Thailand), to the Trade Negotiations Committee for the Purpose of the TNC 

Stocktaking Exercise.” TN/CTD/25, March 22, 2010.

World Trade Organization. General Council. “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard 

on 1 May 2012.” WT/GC/M/136, June 6, 2012.

———. “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14 and 24 February 2012.”

WT/GC/M/135, March 27, 2012.

———. “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 25–26 July 2012.”

WT/GC/M/137, September 13, 2012.

———. “Minutes of Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2012.” WT/GC/M/138, 

November 15, 2012.

———. “Tuesday, 1 May 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 

Committee.” JOB/GC/18, May 1, 2012.

———. “Tuesday, 11 December 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” JOB/GC/27, December 11, 2012.

———. “Tuesday, 14 February 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” JOB/GC/17, February 14, 2012.

———. “Wednesday, 25 July 2012––Agenda Item 2––Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 

Committee.” JOB/GC/21, July 25, 2012.
Biblio-24

———. “Wednesday, 3 October 2012––Agenda Item 1––Report by the Chairman of the Trade 

Negotiations Committee.” JOB/GC/23, October 3, 2012.

World Trade Organization. Negotiating Group on Market Access. “Negotiating Group on Market 

Access—Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha––18 July 2012.” TN/MA/23, 

July 18, 2012.
APPENDIX TABLES 

A–3 

TABLE A.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change,

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 79,626 98,110 96,738 –1.4

1 Beverages and tobacco 5,023 5,604 5,950 6.2

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 79,896 90,948 90,438 –0.6

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 79,801 127,919 136,287 6.5

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 4,308 4,527 4,250 –6.1

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 180,906 197,345 197,972 0.3

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 99,723 114,052 116,885 2.5

7 Machinery and transport equipment 424,353 470,983 506,480 7.5

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 108,960 115,230 119,510 3.7

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 59,534 74,460 78,702 5.7

Total 1,122,131 1,299,176 1,353,211 4.2

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 70,252 82,418 84,379 2.4

1 Beverages and tobacco 16,155 17,664 18,950 7.3

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 30,268 38,062 39,920 4.9

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 336,134 429,384 397,400 –7.4

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 4,349 6,634 6,068 –8.5

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 181,307 208,692 204,811 –1.9

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 193,941 230,320 234,219 1.7

7 Machinery and transport equipment 710,793 789,721 862,536 9.2

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 285,669 306,220 316,969 3.5

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 69,742 77,838 85,784 10.2

Total 1,898,610 2,186,951 2,251,035 2.9

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. 
A–4 

TABLE A.2 Leading domestic U.S. exports to the world by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

Schedule B % change, 

subheading Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 66,834 74,961 86,050 14.8 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. 

from petroleum oils or bitum. min. 39,671 62,984 71,452 13.4 

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 14,698 24,134 33,339 38.1 2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 30,413 (b) 

1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (c) (c) 24,695 (b) 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 17,246 22,318 19,478 –12.7 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. 

and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 17,780 18,386 19,436 5.7 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 13,579 15,537 18,611 19.8 

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 9,373 15,587 14,349 –7.9 8542.31 Processors or controllers 11,375 10,667 11,325 6.2 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 7,378 10,215 10,970 7.4 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 9,919 13,756 9,419 –31.5 8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 7,652 7,622 8,177 7.3 

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and 

parts and accessories thereof 7,523 8,044 8,102 0.7 

1001.99 Wheat & meslin other than durum or seed wheat (d) (d) 7,953 (b) 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images 

or other data, including switching and routing apparatus 6,204 7,206 7,530 4.5 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 6,162 9,217 7,482 –18.8 8704.31 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with spark-ignition internal combustion piston 

engine, gvw not over 5 metric tons 7,245 7,122 7,474 4.9 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 6,637 6,507 6,541 0.5 

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 8,316 5,038 6,439 27.8 5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 5,746 8,424 6,246 –25.9 8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 2,953 5,045 5,859 16.1 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic 

or optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 5,938 4,697 5,851 24.6 

8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine 

(diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 2,648 2,568 5,453 112.3 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 6,180 5,566 5,312 –4.6 

Total of items shown 281,057 345,601 437,953 26.7 

All other 841,074 953,575 915,258 –4.0 

 Total of all commodities 1,122,131 1,299,176 1,353,211 4.2 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1001.90. 
A–5 

TABLE A.3 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from the world by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

subheading Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

 Million $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 196,862 246,894 228,944 –7.3 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 

58,018 64,355 77,086 19.8 

2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. 

from petroleum oils or bitum. min. 52,661 74,995 68,113 –9.2 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 54,837 56,502 66,287 17.3 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 36,922 42,213 43,665 3.4 8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at 

least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 34,374 42,091 43,216 2.7 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 35,606 (b) 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. 

and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 39,382 37,802 34,541 –8.6 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images 

or other data, including switching and routing apparatus 22,399 23,758 27,254 14.7 

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 18,055 21,691 19,638 –9.5 2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 11,231 16,543 18,914 14.3 8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 19,204 16,621 16,642 0.1 7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 11,647 14,330 15,912 11.0 8471.50 Processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 14,057 15,023 15,125 0.7 8542.31 Processors or controllers 9,189 14,378 14,895 3.6 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic 

or optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 22,210 15,553 14,330 –7.9 

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 10,454 9,969 13,149 31.9 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 9,763 11,460 12,911 12.7 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 8,319 9,707 11,929 22.9 9503.00 Toys, including riding toys o/than bicycles, puzzles, reduced scale models 11,216 10,877 10,914 0.3 8443.99 Parts and accessories of printing machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 10,912 11,527 10,842 –5.9 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 7,226 8,477 10,202 20.3 2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons in a gaseous state, n.e.s.o.i. (other than 

natural gas) 7,219 9,530 10,147 6.5 

8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 8,089 9,148 10,087 10.3 8704.31 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with spark-ignition internal combustion piston 

engine, gvw not over 5 metric tons 7,401 7,573 9,193 21.4 

Total of items shown 681,646 791,018 839,541 6.1 

All other 1,216,964 1,395,934 1,411,494 1.1 

Total of all commodities 1,898,610 2,186,951 2,251,035 2.9 

Source: USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included." 

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable.
A–6

TABLE A.4 U.S. trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2012 

Rank Country Exports Imports Total % of total trade

Million $ 

1 Canada 244,199 323,925 568,124 15.8

2 China 103,508 424,874 528,382 14.7

3 Mexico 175,159 276,408 451,568 12.5

4 Japan 64,599 144,538 209,137 5.8

5 Germany 43,676 105,084 148,759 4.1

6 United Kingdom 48,293 54,497 102,790 2.9

7 Korea 40,004 57,874 97,878 2.7

8 Saudi Arabia 16,935 52,306 69,241 1.9

9 Brazil 37,252 31,720 68,972 1.9

10 France 27,491 41,099 68,590 1.9

11 Taiwan 21,832 38,722 60,554 1.7

12 India 18,972 40,105 59,078 1.6

13 Netherlands 35,918 22,141 58,059 1.6

14 Italy 14,927 36,144 51,072 1.4

15 Venezuela 16,360 34,327 50,687 1.4

Top 15 909,125 1,683,766 2,592,891 71.9

All others 444,086 567,270 1,011,356 28.1

 Total 1,353,211 2,251,035 3,604,247 100.0

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.
A–7 

TABLE A.5 Top 15 U.S. single-country export markets and import sources, 2012 

Rank Country 

Million $ % of total exports

Exports 

1 Canada 244,199 18.0

2 Mexico 175,159 12.9

3 China 103,508 7.6

4 Japan 64,599 4.8

5 United Kingdom 48,293 3.6

6 Germany 43,676 3.2

7 Korea 40,004 3.0

8 Brazil 37,252 2.8

9 Netherlands 35,918 2.7

10 Australia 28,907 2.1

11 Hong Kong 27,962 2.1

12 France 27,491 2.0

13 Singapore 27,013 2.0

14 Belgium 24,838 1.8

15 Switzerland 21,999 1.6

Top 15 countries 950,818 70.3

All others 402,393 29.7

Total 1,353,211 100.0

Million $ % of total imports

Imports 

1 China 424,874 18.9

2 Canada 323,925 14.4

3 Mexico 276,408 12.3

4 Japan 144,538 6.4

5 Germany 105,084 4.7

6 Korea 57,874 2.6

7 United Kingdom 54,497 2.4

8 Saudi Arabia 52,306 2.3

9 France 41,099 1.8

10 India 40,105 1.8

11 Taiwan 38,722 1.7

12 Italy 36,144 1.6

13 Venezuela 34,327 1.5

14 Ireland 33,198 1.5

15 Brazil 31,720 1.4

Top 15 countries 1,694,823 75.3

All others 556,212 24.7

 Total 2,251,035 100.0

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.
A–8 

TABLE A.6 U.S. private services exports and imports from the world, by category, 2010–12 

Service industry 2010 2011 2012 

% change,

2011–12

Million $ 

Exports 

 Business, professional, and technical services 127,834 134,416 140,916 4.8

 Travel 103,481 116,115 128,555 10.7

 Royalties and license fees 107,165 120,836 121,810 0.8

 Financial services 70,346 74,055 71,247 –3.8

 Passenger fares 30,983 36,631 39,521 7.9

 Education 20,956 22,726 24,096 6.0

 Freight 20,601 21,730 21,896 0.8

 Port services 20,216 21,334 21,397 0.3

 Insurance services 14,530 15,477 17,100 10.5

 Telecommunications 11,099 12,650 13,620 7.7

 Other 10,529 10,869 10,998 1.2

 Total 537,740 586,839 611,156 4.1

Imports 

 Business, professional, and technical services 90,526 104,773 106,796 1.9

 Travel 75,510 78,651 83,651 6.4

 Insurance services 61,013 56,619 53,419 –5.7

 Freight 38,001 40,337 41,773 3.6

 Royalties and license fees 33,434 36,620 40,037 9.3

 Passenger fares 27,256 31,109 34,443 10.7

 Financial services 14,763 16,207 16,076 –0.8

 Port services 13,257 14,374 13,396 –6.8

 Telecommunications 8,040 7,690 7,391 –3.9

 Education 4,585 5,888 6,210 5.5

 Other 1,659 797 815 2.3

 Total 368,044 393,065 404,007 2.8

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, March 14, 2013, table 3a. 

Note: Data for 2012 are preliminary. 
A-9 

TABLE A.7 Antidumping cases active in 2012, by USITC investigation numberUSITC investigation number Product 

County of origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

USITC final 

Date of final actionb

Affirmative = A; Negative = N 

731-TA-1180 Bottom mount combination refrigerators-freezers Korea 3/30/2011 A A A N 5/9/2012 731-TA-1181 Bottom mount combination refrigerators-freezers Mexico 3/30/2011 A A A N 5/9/2012 731-TA-1182 Steel wheels China 3/30/2011 A A A N 5/2/2012 731-TA-1183 Galvanized steel wire China 3/31/2011 A A A N 5/8/2012 731-TA-1184 Galvanized steel wire Mexico 3/31/2011 A A A N 5/8/2012 731-TA-1185 Steel nails UAE 3/31/2011 A A A A 5/2/2012 

731-TA-1186 Stilbenic optical brightening agents China 3/31/2011 A A A A 5/2/2012 731-TA-1187 Stilbenic optical brightening agents Taiwan 3/31/2011 A A A A 5/2/2012 731-TA-1188 High pressure steel cylinders China 5/11/2011 A A A A 6/14/2012 731-TA-1189 Large power transformers Korea 7/14/2011 A A A A 8/24/2012 731-TA-1190 CSPV cells and modules China 10/19/2011 A A A A 11/30/2012 731-TA-1191 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe India 10/26/2011 A A A N 12/5/2012 

731-TA-1192 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Oman 10/26/2011 A A A N 12/5/2012731-TA-1193 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe UAE 10/26/2011 A A A N 12/5/2012731-TA-1194 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Vietnam 10/26/2011 A A A N 12/5/2012731-TA-1195 Wind towers China 12/29/2011 A A A (c) (c) 731-TA-1196 Wind towers Vietnam 12/29/2011 A A A (c) (c) 731-TA-1197 Steel wire garment hangers Taiwan 12/29/2011 A A A A 11/29/2012 

731-TA-1198 Steel wire garment hangers Vietnam 12/29/2011 A A A (c) (c) 

731-TA-1199 Large residential washers Korea 12/30/2011 A A A (c) (c) 731-TA-1200 Large residential washers Mexico 12/30/2011 A A A (c) (c) 731-TA-1201 Drawn stainless steel sinks China 3/1/2012 A A (c) (c) (c) 731-TA-1202 Xanthan gum Austria 6/5/2012 A A (c) (c) (c) 731-TA-1203 Xanthan gum China 6/5/2012 A A (c) (c) (c) 731-TA-1204 Hardwood plywood China 9/27/2012 A (c) (c) (c) (c) 731-TA-1205 Silica bricks China 11/15/2012 A (c) (c) (c) (c) Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

a“ITA” is the International Trade Administration of the USDOC. bFor cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action was taken 

by USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown. 

cPending as of December 31, 2012. 
A-10 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Argentina Lemon juice (suspended) Sept. 10, 2007 

 

Australia Electrolytic manganese dioxide Oct. 7, 2008 

 

Belarus Steel concrete reinforcing bar Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Belgium Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 

Brazil Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Dec. 17, 1986 

 Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 

 

Canada Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

 Iron construction castings Mar. 5, 1986 

 

Chile Preserved mushrooms Dec. 2, 1998 

 

China Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells Dec. 07, 2012 

 High pressure steel cylinders Jun. 21, 2012 

 Stilbenic optical brightening agent May 10, 2012 

 Multilayered wood flooring Dec. 8, 2011 

Aluminum extrusions May 26, 2011 

 Drill pipe and drill collars Mar. 3, 2011 

 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

 Coated paper Nov. 17 2010 

 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe Nov. 10, 2010 

 Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 20, 2010 

 Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

 Woven electric blankets Aug. 18, 2010 

 Steel grating July 23, 2010 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand June 29, 2010 

 Oil country tubular goods May 21, 2010 

 Potassium phosphate salts July 22, 2010 

 Kitchen appliance shelving and racks Sept. 14, 2009 

 Tow-behind lawn groomer Aug. 3, 2009 

 Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel line pipe May 13, 2009 

 Frontseating service valves April 28, 2009 

 HEDP April 28, 2009 

 Steel threaded rod April 14, 2009 

 Circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe Mar. 17, 2009 

 Small-diameter graphite electrodes Feb. 26, 2009 

 Uncovered innerspring units Feb. 19, 2009 

 Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

 Electrolytic manganese dioxide Oct. 7, 2008 

 Steel wire garment hangers Oct. 6, 2008 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 
A-11 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

China–Continued Off-the-road tires Sept. 4, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Laminated woven sacks Aug. 7, 2008 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Steel nails Aug. 1, 2008 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe July 22, 2008 

 Sodium hexametaphosphate Mar. 19, 2008 

 Certain polyester staple fiber June 1, 2007 

 Certain activated carbon April 27, 2007 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

Artist's canvas June 1, 2006 

 Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005 

 Magnesium April 15, 2005 

 Tissue paper Mar. 30, 2005 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Crepe paper Jan. 25, 2005 

 Wooden bedroom furniture Jan. 4, 2005 

 Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

 Hand trucks Dec. 2, 2004 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Ironing tables Aug. 6, 2004 

 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol Aug. 6, 2004 

 Malleable iron pipe fittings Dec. 12, 2003 

 Refined brown aluminum oxide Nov. 19, 2003 

 Barium carbonate Oct. 1, 2003 

 Polyvinyl alcohol Oct. 1, 2003 

 Saccharin July 9, 2003 

 Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings Apr. 7, 2003 

 Ferrovanadium Jan. 28, 2003 

 Folding gift boxes Jan. 8, 2002 

 Honey Dec. 10, 2001 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Pure magnesium (granular) Nov. 19, 2001 

 Foundry coke Sept. 17, 2001 

 Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 Carbon steel plate Oct. 24, 1997 

 Crawfish tail meat Sept. 15, 1997 

 Persulfates July 7, 1997 

 Furfuryl alcohol June 21, 1995 

 Pure magnesium (ingot) May 12, 1995 

 Glycine Mar. 29, 1995 

 Cased pencils Dec. 28, 1994 

 Silicomanganese Dec. 22, 1994 

 Paper clips Nov. 25, 1994 

 Fresh garlic Nov. 16, 1994 

 Helical spring lock washers Oct. 19, 1993 

 Sulfanilic acid Aug. 19, 1992 

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992 

Silicon metal June 10, 1991 

 
A-12 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

China–Continued Axes and adzes Feb. 19, 1991 

 Bars and wedges Feb. 19, 1991 

 Hammers and sledges Feb. 19, 1991 

 Picks and mattocks Feb. 19, 1991 

 Tapered roller bearings June 15, 1987 

 Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Dec. 2, 1986 

 Petroleum wax candles Aug. 28, 1986 

 Iron construction castings May 9, 1986 

 Barium chloride Oct. 17, 1984 

 Chloropicrin Mar. 22, 1984 

 Potassium permanganate Jan. 31, 1984 

 

Finland Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005 

 

France Low-enriched uranium Feb. 13, 2002 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 

Germany Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Seamless pipe Aug. 3, 1995 

 Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 

India Commodity matchbooks Dec. 11, 2009 

 HEDP Apr. 28, 2009 

 Certain lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

 Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Stainless steel wire rod Dec. 1, 1993 

 Sulfanilic acid Mar. 2, 1993 

 Welded carbon steel pipe May 12, 1986 

Indonesia Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed 

presses 

Nov. 11, 2010 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Preserved mushrooms Feb. 19, 1999 

 

Iran Raw in-shell pistachios July 17, 1986 

 

Italy Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 
A-13 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Italy–Continued Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Pasta July 24, 1996 

 Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Aug. 30, 1988 

 Brass sheet and strip Mar. 6, 1987 

 Pressure-sensitive plastic tape Oct. 21, 1977 

 

Japan Polyvinyl alcohol July 2, 2003 

 Welded large-diameter line pipe Dec. 6, 2001 

 Tin- and chromium-coated steel sheet Aug. 28, 2000 

 Large-diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000 

 Small-diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Clad steel plate July 2, 1996 

 Stainless steel bar Feb. 21, 1995 

 Gray portland cement and clinker May 10, 1991 

 Brass sheet and strip Aug. 12, 1988 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 10, 1987 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Dec. 8, 1978 

 

Kazakhstan Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

 

Korea Large power transformers Aug. 31, 2012 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Polyvinyl alcohol Oct. 1, 2003 

 Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000 

 Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 19, 1993 

 Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe Dec. 30, 1992 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 

Latvia Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Malaysia Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 

Mexico Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

 Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 20, 2010 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Lemon juice (suspended) Sept. 10, 2007 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Fresh tomatoes (suspended) Nov. 1, 1996 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 

Moldova Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 
A-14 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Moldova–Continued Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Netherlands Carboxymethylcellulose July 11, 2005 

 

Philippines Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings Feb. 23, 2001 

 

Poland Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 

Romania Small diameter seamless pipe Aug. 10, 2000 

 

Russia Silicon metal Mar. 26, 2003 

Ammonium nitrate (suspended) May 19, 2000 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (suspended) July 12, 1999 

 Carbon steel plate (suspended) Oct. 24, 1997 

 Uranium (suspended) Oct. 16, 1992 

 Solid urea July 14, 1987 

 

South Africa Uncovered innerspring units Dec. 11, 2008 

 Ferrovanadium Jan. 28, 2003 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

Spain Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Stainless steel bar Mar. 2, 1995 

 

Taiwan Steel wire garment hangers Dec. 10, 2012 

 Stilbenic optical brightening agent May 10, 2012 

 Polyvinyl alcohol Mar. 15, 2011 

 Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000 

 Stainless steel sheet and strip July 27, 1999 

 Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999 

 Stainless steel wire rod Sept. 15, 1998 

 Helical spring lockwashers June 28, 1993 

 Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe Dec. 30, 1992 

 Circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Nov. 2, 1992 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe Mar. 27, 1989 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Dec. 17, 1986 

 Small-diameter carbon steel pipe May 7, 1984 

 

Thailand Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Aug. 9, 2004 

 Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Jan. 28, 2004 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992 

 Welded carbon steel pipe Mar. 11, 1986 

 

Trinidad and Tobago Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 

Turkey Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube May 30, 2008 
A-15 

TABLE A.8 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Turkey–Continued Pasta July 24, 1996 

 Welded carbon steel pipe May 15, 1986 

 

Ukraine Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 29, 2002 

 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Nov. 29, 2001 

 Silicomanganese Sept. 17, 2001 

Ammonium nitrate Sept. 12, 2001 

 Steel concrete reinforcing bars Sept. 7, 2001 

 Carbon steel plate (suspended) Oct. 24, 1997 

 Solid urea July 14, 1987 

 

United Arab Emirates Steel nails May 10, 2012 

Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip Nov. 10, 2008 

Venezuela Silicomanganese May 23, 2002 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

 Uncovered innerspring units Dec. 11, 2008 

 Frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns Feb. 1, 2005 

 Frozen fish fillets Aug. 12, 2003 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 
A-16 

TABLE 

A.9 Countervailing duty cases active in 2012, by USITC investigation number 

USITC investigation number Product 

County of origin 

Date of institution 

USITC prelim 

ITAa

prelim 

ITA final 

USITC final 

Date of final actionb

 Affirmative = A; Negative = N 701-TA-477 Bottom mount combination refrigerators-freezers Korea 3/30/2011 

A N 

A N 5/9/2012 

701-TA-478 Steel wheels China 3/30/2011 

A

A

A N 5/2/2012 

701-TA-479 Galvanized steel wire China 3/31/2011 

A

A

A N 5/8/2012 

701-TA-480 High pressure steel cylinders China 5/11/2011 

A

A

A

A 6/14/2012 

701-TA-481 CSPV cells and modules China 10/19/2011 

A

A

A

A 11/30/2012 

701-TA-482 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe India 10/26/2011 

A

A

A N 12/5/2012 

701-TA-483 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Oman 10/26/2011 

A N 

A N 12/5/2012 

701-TA-484 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe UAE 10/26/2011 

A N 

A N 12/5/2012 

701-TA-485 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Vietnam 10/26/2011 

A

A N N 12/5/2012 

701-TA-486 Wind towers China 12/29/2011 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-487 Steel wire garment hangers Vietnam 12/29/2011 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-488 Large residential washers Korea 12/30/2011 

A

A

A (c) (c) 

701-TA-489 Drawn stainless steel sinks China 3/1/2012 

A

A (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-490 Hardwood plywood China 9/27/2012 

A (c) (c) (c) (c) 

701-TA-491 Frozen warmwater shrimp China 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-492 Frozen warmwater shrimp Ecuador 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-493 Frozen warmwater shrimp India 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-494 Frozen warmwater shrimp Indonesia 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-495 Frozen warmwater shrimp Malaysia 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-496 Frozen warmwater shrimp Thailand 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

701-TA-497 Frozen warmwater shrimp Vietnam 12/28/2012 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c

)

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

aInternational Trade Administration, USDOC. bFor cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action 

was taken by USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown. cPending as of December 31, 2012. 
A-17 

TABLE A.10 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2012

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Brazil Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod Oct. 22, 2002 

Heavy iron construction castings May 15, 1986 

 

China Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells Dec. 07, 2012 

High pressure steel cylinders Jun. 21, 2012 

Multilayered wood flooring Dec. 8, 2011 

Aluminum extrusions May 26, 2011 

Drill pipe and drill collars Mar. 3, 2011 

Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Nov. 22, 2010 

Coated paper Nov. 17, 2010 

Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe Nov. 10, 2010 

Magnesia carbon bricks Sept. 21, 2010 

Narrow woven ribbons Sept. 1, 2010 

Steel grating July 23, 2010 

Potassium phosphate salts July 22, 2010 

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand July 7, 2010 

Oil country tubular goods Jan. 20, 2010 

Citric acid and certain citric salts May 29, 2009 

Kitchen appliance shelving and racks Sept. 14, 2009 

 Tow-behind lawn groomers Aug. 3, 2009 

 Welded stainless steel pressure pipe Mar. 19, 2009 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel line pipe Jan. 23, 2009 

 Lightweight thermal paper Nov. 24, 2008 

 Raw flexible magnets Sept. 17, 2008 

 Off-the-road tires Sept. 4, 2008 

 Sodium nitrite Aug. 27, 2008 

 Laminated woven sacks Aug. 7, 2008 

 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube Aug. 5, 2008 

 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe July 22, 2008 

 

India Commodity matchbooks Dec. 11, 2009 

Lined paper school supplies Sept. 28, 2006 

Carbazole violet pigment 23 Dec. 29, 2004 

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand Feb. 4, 2004 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002 

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

Sulfanilic acid Mar. 2, 1993 

 

Indonesia Coated paper Nov. 17, 2010 

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

 

Iran Roasted in-shell pistachios Oct. 7, 1986 

Raw in-shell pistachios Mar. 11, 1986 

 

Italy Pasta July 24, 1996 

 

Korea Carbon steel plate Feb. 10, 2000 

Stainless steel sheet and strip Aug. 6, 1999 

 
A-18 

TABLE A.10 Countervailing duty orders in effect as of December 31, 2012–Continued

Country Commodity 

Effective date of 

original action 

Korea–Continued Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products Aug. 17, 1993 

 

South Africa Stainless steel plate in coils May 11, 1999 

 

Thailand Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Dec. 3, 2001 

 

Turkey Pasta July 24, 1996 

Welded carbon steel pipe Mar. 7, 1986 

 

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 
A-19

TABLE A.11 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders completed in 2012, by date of 

completion 

USITC investigation 

number Product 

Country of 

origin 

Completion 

datea Action 

731-TA-638 Stainless Steel Wire Rod India 1/4/2012 Continued 

731-TA-410 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe Taiwan 1/17/2012 Continued 

731-TA-703 Furfuryl Alcohol China 1/30/2012 Continued 

701-TA-302 Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon Norway 2/8/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-454 Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon Norway 2/8/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-539-C Uranium Russia 2/27/2012 Continued 

731-TA-472 Silicon Metal China 3/30/2012 Continued 

731-TA-1089 Orange Juice Brazil 4/4/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-313 Brass Sheet and Strip France 4/13/2012 Continued 

731-TA-314 Brass Sheet and Strip Germany 4/13/2012 Continued 

731-TA-317 Brass Sheet and Strip Italy 4/13/2012 Continued 

731-TA-379 Brass Sheet and Strip Japan 4/13/2012 Continued 

731-TA-683 Fresh Garlic China 4/27/2012 Continued 

731-TA-860 Tin and Chromium Coated Steel Sheet Japan 5/25/2012 Continued 

731-TA-891 Foundry Coke China 5/29/2012 Continued 

701-TA-253 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Turkey 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-132 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Taiwan 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-252 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Thailand 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-271 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube India 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-273 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Turkey 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-532 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Brazil 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-533 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Korea 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-534 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Mexico 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-536 Circular Welded Pipe and Tube Taiwan 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-865 Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings Italy 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-866 Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings Malaysia 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-867 Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings Philippines 6/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-678 Stainless Steel Bar Brazil 7/26/2012 Continued 

731-TA-679 Stainless Steel Bar India 7/26/2012 Continued 

731-TA-681 Stainless Steel Bar Japan 7/26/2012 Continued 

731-TA-682 Stainless Steel Bar Spain 7/26/2012 Continued 

731-TA-344 Tapered Roller Bearings China 8/16/2012 Continued 

701-TA-443 Lined Paper School Supplies Indonesia 8/17/2012 Revoked 

701-TA-442 Lined Paper School Supplies India 8/17/2012 Continued 

731-TA-1097 Lined Paper School Supplies Indonesia 8/17/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-1095 Lined Paper School Supplies China 8/17/2012 Continued 

731-TA-1096 Lined Paper School Supplies India 8/17/2012 Continued 

731-TA-702 Ferrovanadium and Nitrited Vanadium Russia 8/22/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-709 Seamless Pipe Germany 8/30/2012 Continued 

731-TA-895 Pure Magnesium China 9/25/2012 Continued 

731-TA-1104 Polyester Staple Fiber China 9/28/2012 Continued 

731-TA-671 Silicomanganese Brazil 10/24/2012 Revoked 

731-TA-672 Silicomanganese China 10/24/2012 Continued 

731-TA-673 Silicomanganese Ukraine 10/24/2012 Continued 

731-TA-893 Honey China 11/29/2012 Continued 

731-TA-921 Folding Gift Boxes China 12/10/2012 Continuedb

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

 a

The completion date shown is the date of the USITC notification of USDOC. 

 b

USDOC’s final determination pending. 
A-20 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012 Status of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed: 337-TA-487 Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof China, Netherlands, 

France, Germany, Canada 

One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; reissued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof Hong Kong, China, 

Germany, Korea 

One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding and two related (ancillary) modification proceedings; issued a modified general exclusion order and cease and desist order. 

337-TA-567 Certain Foam Footwear Canada One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture 

proceeding; terminated based on forfeiture of bond to complainant. 

337-TA-605 Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package 

Size and Products Containing Same 

Canada, Switzerland Two related (ancillary) bond forfeiture 

proceedings; terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof 

and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan, China One related (ancillary) advisory proceeding; 

terminated based on issuance of advisory opinion. 

337-TA-661 Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic 

Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same Taiwan, Hong Kong One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

issued modified consent order and imposed civil penalties.

337-TA-703 Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication 

Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof 

Canada, Mexico, China Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-721 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products 

Containing Same 

China Issued general exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. 

337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products 

Containing Same 

China One related (ancillary) bond forfeiture 

proceeding; terminated as premature. 
A-21 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed–Continued337-TA-741 (consolidated with 337-TA-749) 

Certain Liquid Crystal Displays Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China Terminated based on a finding of no violation as 

to four patents and based on withdrawal of the complaint as to a fifth patent. 

337-TA-743 Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-744 Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Issued a limited exclusion order. 

337-TA-749 (consolidated with 337-TA-741) 

Certain Liquid Crystal Displays Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China Terminated based on a finding of no violation as 

to four patents and based on withdrawal of the complaint as to a fifth patent. 

337-TA-750 Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 337-TA-753 Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same Taiwan, Switzerland, 

United Kingdom, Hong Kong 

Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-754 Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories and Packaging 

Thereof 

China Issued a general exclusion order. 

337-TA-755 Certain Starter Motors and Alternators China Issued a limited exclusion order and cease and 

desist order. 

337-TA-756 Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers 

and Products Containing Same 

Austria, Germany Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-761 Certain Set-Top Boxes, and Hardware and Software 

Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-762 Certain Strollers and Playards No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-768 Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices Netherlands, Canada Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-769 Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related 

Software, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, China, Hong Kong 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 
A-22 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed–Continued337-TA-772 Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and 

Related Methods 

Korea Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-773 (consolidated with 337-TA-787) 

Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same 

Japan, Denmark, China, Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Taiwan 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-775 Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-776 Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches 

and Parts Thereof (IV) 

China Issued a general exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. 

337-TA-777 Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof Spain Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-778 Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including 

Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same 

Netherlands Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-780 Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong Issued a general exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. 

337-TA-782 Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing 

the Same 

Taiwan, Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-783 Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and 

Related Software 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-784 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-785 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-786 Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing 

Same, Including Televisions 

Japan, Taiwan Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-787 (consolidated with 337-TA-773) 

Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same 

Japan, Denmark, China, Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Taiwan 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 
A-23 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed–Continued337-TA-788 Certain Universal Serial Bus "USB" Portable Storage Devices, 

Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-789 Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof Canada, Taiwan, Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement.337-TA-790 Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same China, Japan Terminated based on a finding of no violation.

337-TA-793 Certain Flat Panel Display Devices, and Products Containing 

the Same 

Korea Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-795 Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Germany, Korea, Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-798 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Germany Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-799 Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing 

the Same 

Japan, Canada Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 

337-TA-801 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology 

Japan Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-802 Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Germany Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 337-TA-803 Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash 

Memory Devices and Products Containing Same 

Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-806 Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices 

and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-809 Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication Canada Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-810 Certain Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related 

Software 

United Kingdom Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-811 Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems and Components 

Thereof 

Canada Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 
A-24 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed–Continued337-TA-814 Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom 

Terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint. 

337-TA-815 Certain Projectors with Controlled-Angle Optical Retarders, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

Japan Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-817 Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in LANS, and Cameras 

Netherlands Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-818 Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents Terminated for good cause. 

337-TA-821 Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, and 

Products Containing Same 

Japan Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-822 Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing 

Same Including Televisions 

Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, China 

Terminated for good cause. 

337-TA-827 Certain Portable Communication Devices Canada, Taiwan, Korea, 

Japan, Sweden, Finland 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-835 Certain Food Containers, Cups, Plates, Cutlery, and Related 

Items and Packaging Thereof 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-840 Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-842 Certain Cameras and Mobile Devices, Related Software and 

Firmware, and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Japan, United Kingdom Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-843 Certain Electronic Devices Having a Retractable USB 

Connector 

Taiwan, France, China, Japan, Belgium, Korea 

Terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint. 

337-TA-844 Certain Drill Bits and Products Containing the Same Peru, Chile, Panama Terminated based on a finding of no violation. 
A-25 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Completed–Continued337-TA-846 Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing Same Switzerland, Finland, 

Canada 

Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-848 Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices Taiwan Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-851 Certain Integrated Circuit Packages Provided with Multiple 

Heat-Conducting Paths and Products Containing Same 

Korea Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

337-TA-852 Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement agreement. 

337-TA-856 Certain Wireless Communication Devices Portable Music and 

Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Terminated based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

Pending:337-TA-501 Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

Malaysia One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-562 Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances 

and Methods of Producing Same 

British Virgin Islands, Pakistan 

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-641 Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components 

Thereof 

Japan One related (ancillary) remand proceeding; 

pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-659 Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and Finished Circuit Boards Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

China 

One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-710 Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices 

and Related Software 

Taiwan, Finland One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products 

Containing Same 

China One related (ancillary) enforcement proceeding; 

pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-744 Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Two related (ancillary) bond forfeiture 

proceedings; pending before the Commission. 
A-26 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Pending–Continued

337-TA-745 Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and 

Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-746 Certain Automated Media Library Devices Germany, China, Mexico Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-752 Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related 

Software, and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-770 Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and 

Components Thereof 

Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-781 Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same 

Costa Rica, Malaysia, Philippines, China 

Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-791 (consolidated with 337-TA-826) 

Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, Manuals for Same, Certain Processes For Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same 

China Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-792 Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products 

Containing Same 

France, Sweden, Netherlands 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-794 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication 

Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-796 Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components 

Thereof 

Korea Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-797 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software Taiwan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-800 Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components 

Thereof 

China, Finland, Korea Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-804 Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components 

Thereof 

China, Taiwan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-805 Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity used in a Backlight 

Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Korea Pending before the ALJ. 
A-27 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Pending–Continued

337-TA-807 Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and 

Components Thereof 

Taiwan, Canada, Japan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-808 Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, 

Components Thereof, and Related Software 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-812 Certain Computing Devices with Associated Instruction Sets 

and Software 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-813 Certain Electronic Devices with Graphics Data Processing 

Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-816 Certain Wiper Blades Korea, Taiwan, China Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-819 Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and 

Modules and Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-820 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology 

China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-823 Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof Sweden, China, 

Netherlands 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-824 Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and 

Products Containing Same 

Japan, China, Korea Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-825 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing 

Same 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-826 (consolidated with 337-TA-791) 

Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, Manuals for Same, Certain Processes For Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same 

China Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-828 Certain Video Displays and Products Using and Containing 

Same 

Taiwan Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-829 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof Vietnam, Mexico, China, 

Hong Kong, Canada 

Pending before the ALJ. 
A-28 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Pending–Continued

337-TA-830 Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products 

Containing Same 

China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-831 Certain Electronic Devices for Capturing and Transmitting 

Images, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-832 Certain Ink Application Devices and Components Thereof and 

Methods of Using the Same 

Canada, China Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-833 Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for 

Use in Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment 

Appliances, the Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods of 

Making the Same 

Pakistan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-834 Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-836 Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and 

Products Containing Same 

Canada, Taiwan, Korea, Sweden 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-837 Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the 

Same 

Japan, Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-838 Certain Food Waste Disposers and Components and 

Packaging Thereof 

No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission. 

337-TA-839 Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and 

Tablets 

Taiwan, Korea, Canada Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-841 Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices and 

Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same 

Taiwan, Japan, France, Korea 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-845 Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Control Technology 

Korea, Japan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-847 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet 

Computers, and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-849 Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same China, Hong Kong, 

Canada 

Pending before the ALJ. 
A-29 

TABLE A.12 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the U.S. International Trade Commission during 2012 and those pending on 

December 31, 2012–ContinuedStatus of investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb 

Pending–Continued

337-TA-850 Electronic Imaging Devices Taiwan, Korea, China Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-853 Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and 

Components Thereof 

Taiwan, Switzerland, China, Japan, Korea, Canada 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-854 Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, 

System and Components Thereof 

United Kingdom Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-855 Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same 

and Products Containing Same 

China, Hong Kong, 

Austria, Germany 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-857 Certain Reduced Folate Nutraceutical Products and LMethylfolate Raw Ingredients Used Therein Italy, Switzerland Pending before the ALJ. 337-TA-858 Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, 

Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-859 Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the 

Same 

No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-860 Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic 

Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

Denmark, Germany, France, Israel 

Pending before the ALJ. 

337-TA-861 Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ. Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

aThe country designation is based on the address of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. "Hong Kong” refers to "Hong Kong, China,” 

“Korea” refers to “Republic of Korea.” bALJ stands for Administrative Law Judge. 
A-30 

TABLE A.13 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012 

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-55 Certain Novelty Glasses Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-69 Certain Airtight Cast-Iron Stoves Taiwan, Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-87 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games 

and Components Thereof 

Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-105 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games 

and Components Thereof (viz. Rally-X and 

Pac-Man) 

Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-112 Certain Cube Puzzles Taiwan, Japan, Canada Nonpatent 

337-TA-114 Certain Miniature Plug-In Blade Fuses Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-118 Certain Sneakers With Fabric Uppers and 

Rubber Soles 

Korea Nonpatent 

337-TA-137 Certain Heavy-Duty Staple Gun Tackers Taiwan, Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-152 Certain Plastic Food Storage Containers Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-167 Certain Single Handle Faucets Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-174 Certain Woodworking Machines Taiwan, South Africa Nonpatent 

337-TA-195 Certain Cloisonne Jewelry Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-197 Certain Compound Action Metal Cutting Snips 

and Components Thereof 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-229 Certain Nut Jewelry and Parts Thereof Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-231 Certain Soft Sculpture Dolls, Popularly Known 

as "Cabbage Patch Kids," Related Literature, 

and Packaging Therefor 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-266 Certain Reclosable Plastic Bags and Tubing Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, 

Thailand, Hong Kong 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-279 Certain Plastic Light Duty Screw Anchors Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-285 Certain Chemiluminescent Compositions and 

Components Thereof and Methods of Using, 

and Products Incorporating, the Same 

France Nonpatent 

337-TA-287 Certain Strip Lights Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-295 Certain Novelty Teleidoscopes Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-319 Certain Automotive Fuel Caps and Radiator 

Caps and Related Packaging and 

Promotional Materials 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-321 Certain Soft Drinks and Their Containers Colombia Nonpatent 

337-TA-378 Certain Asian-Style Kamaboko Fish Cakes Japan Nonpatent 

337-TA-380 Certain Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power 

Take-Off Horsepower 

Japan Nonpatent 

337-TA-413 Certain Rare-Earth Magnets and Magnetic 

Material and Articles Containing Same 

China, Taiwan July 8, 2014 

337-TA-424 Certain Cigarettes and Packaging 

Thereof 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-440 Certain 4-Androstenediol China July 13, 2018 

337-TA-448 Certain Oscillating Sprinklers, Sprinkler 

Components, and Nozzles 

Taiwan, Israel, Germany July 8, 2014 

July 8, 2014 

337-TA-473 Certain Video Game Systems, Accessories, 

and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Dec. 18, 2015 

Dec. 25, 2015 

337-TA-481/491 Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling 

Functionality and Products Containing Same; 

and Certain Display Controllers and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan Feb. 24, 2017 
A-31 

TABLE A.13 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012––Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-482 Certain Compact Disc and DVD Holders Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan May 1, 2015 

337-TA-486 Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, 

Riding Lawnmowers, and Components 

Thereof 

China Nonpatent 

337-TA-487c Certain Agricultural Vehicles and 

Components Thereof

China, Netherlands, France, 

Germany, Canada 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-494 Certain Automotive Measuring Devices, 

Products Containing Same, and Bezels for 

Such Devices 

Taiwan Nonpatent 

337-TA-498 Certain Insect Traps No foreign respondents Jan. 30, 2018 

337-TA-500 Certain Purple Protective Gloves Malaysia Nonpatent 

337-TA-505 Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms 

Training Systems 

Switzerland, Netherlands Sept. 25, 2015 

Aug. 25, 2017 

337-TA-512 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products 

Containing Same 

Malaysia Jan. 18, 2015 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

Sept. 22, 2017 

July 27, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

337-TA-514 Certain Plastic Food Containers China Oct. 19, 2013 

Dec. 23, 2017 

Dec. 23, 2017 

337-TA-518 Certain Ear Protection Devices China, Taiwan June 2, 2015 

337-TA-522 Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof China, India, Korea, Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-539 Certain Tadalafil or Any Salt or Solvate 

Thereof, and Products Containing Same 

India, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, 

Mexico, Australia 

June 12, 2016 

337-TA-541 Certain Power Supply Controllers and 

Products Containing Same 

Taiwan Sept. 24, 2019 

Sept. 24, 2019 

337-TA-545 Certain Laminated Floor Panels Canada, China, Malaysia June 10, 2017 

June 10, 2017 

June 10, 2017 

337-TA-549 Certain Ink Sticks for Solid Ink Printers Korea Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

Apr. 29, 2022 

337-TA-557 Certain Automotive Parts Taiwan June 22, 2018 

July 27, 2018 

Sept. 28, 2018 

Oct. 5, 2018 

Oct. 26, 2018 

Mar. 1, 2019 

Mar. 22, 2019 

337-TA-563 Certain Portable Power Stations and 

Packaging Thereof 

China Feb. 4, 2017 

Nonpatent 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-564 Certain Voltage Regulators Components 

Thereof and Products Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Mar. 23, 2013 
A-32 

TABLE A.13 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012––Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

Hong Kong, China, Germany, 

Korea 

Jan. 30, 2013 

Oct. 1, 2013 

Apr. 1, 2014 

May 18, 2019 

May 18, 2019 

Apr. 3, 2022 

Aug. 17, 2023 

Aug. 26, 2023 

337-TA-567 Certain Foam Footwear Canada Oct. 3, 2020 

Mar. 28, 2020 

337-TA-575 Certain Lighters Hong Kong, China Nonpatent 

337-TA-582 Certain Hydraulic Excavators and 

Components Thereof 

Canada Nonpatent 

337-TA-588 Certain Digital Multimeters, and Products with 

Multimeter Functionality 

Hong Kong, China Nonpatent 

337-TA-590 Certain Coupler Devices for Power Supply 

Facilities, Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan, Germany, China Aug. 5, 2024 

337-TA-602 Certain GPS Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan July 13, 2020 

Nov. 17, 2020 

May 18, 2021 

July 25, 2021 

June 13, 2023 

Sept. 29, 2023 

337-TA-603 Certain DVD Players and Recorders and 

Certain Products Containing Same 

China, Hong Kong Dec. 23, 2014 

Jan. 18, 2015 

Jan. 30, 2016 

337-TA-604 Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing 

Sucralose, and Related Intermediate 

Compounds Thereof 

China, United Kingdom, Hong 

Kong 

Oct. 17, 2017 

Apr. 18, 2023 

337-TA-611 Certain Magnifying Loupe Products and 

Components Thereof 

China July 19, 2013 

Dec. 3, 2013 

May 20, 2022 

337-TA-615 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and 

Products Containing the Same 

China Oct. 24, 2014 

Nov. 21, 2020 

May 3, 2021 

Apr. 28, 2025 

337-TA-617 Certain Digital Televisions and Certain 

Products Containing Same and Methods of 

Using Same 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China Apr. 9, 2018 

337-TA-629 Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and 

Products Containing the Same 

Malaysia June 21, 2021 

Sept. 16, 2022 

337-TA-637 Certain Hair Irons and Packaging Thereof Singapore, China, Hong Kong Nonpatent 

337-TA-638 Certain Intermediate Bulk Containers China Mar. 21, 2015 

337-TA-643 Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof Moldova, Belize, Singapore, 

Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Gibraltar, 

United Kingdom, Switzerland 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-644 Certain Composite Wear Components and 

Products Containing the Same 

India, Italy Aug. 27, 2017 

337-TA-650 Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and 

Components Thereof and Products 

Containing Same 

Taiwan, China Aug. 2, 2017 

Jan. 24, 2020 
A-33 

TABLE A.13 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012––Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-655 Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain 

Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to 

Same and Certain Products Containing Same 

China Nonpatent 

337-TA-669 Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing the Same 

No foreign respondents June 25, 2013 

337-TA-678 Certain Energy Drink Products No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-679 Certain Products Advertised As Containing 

Creatine Ethyl Ester 

No foreign respondents Nonpatent 

337-TA-691 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components 

Thereof 

China, Hong Kong Mar. 9, 2018 

May 11, 2018 

337-TA-700 Certain MEMS Devices and Products 

Containing Same 

No foreign respondents Jan. 29, 2021 

337-TA-710 Certain Personal Data and Mobile 

Communication Devices and Related 

Software 

Taiwan Feb. 1, 2016 

337-TA-718 Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing 

Devices and Components Thereof 

Canada, Hong Kong, Taiwan, 

Turkey 

Feb. 9, 2021 

Feb. 9, 2021 

Mar.15, 2021 

May 27, 2021 

337-TA-720 Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, 

Components Thereof, Associated Software, 

and Products Containing the Same 

Korea May 9, 2017 

Jan. 16, 2023 

337-TA-722 Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs 

Therefore 

China Jan. 3, 2020 

337-TA-723 Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads 

and Components Thereof 

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China Aug. 30, 2019 

July 24, 2020 

July 24, 2020 

Oct. 30, 2020 

Oct. 30, 2020 

337-TA-725 Certain Caskets Mexico May 10, 2015 

May 10, 2015 

May 10, 2015 

July 9, 2016 

Sept. 13, 2020 

337-TA-730 Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components 

Thereof 

Hong Kong, China Aug. 20, 2023 

Oct. 29, 2023 

337-TA-739 Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and 

Products Containing Same 

China Oct. 21, 2023 

 
A-34 

TABLE A.13 Outstanding Section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2012––Continued

Investigation no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-740 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components 

Thereof 

China, Hong Kong, Canada, 

Korea, Macao 

Feb. 26, 2013 

Feb. 16, 2016 

Feb. 16, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Dec. 20, 2016 

Feb. 18, 2018 

Sept. 22, 2019 

July 18, 2021

July 15, 2022 

July 15, 2022

Apr. 29, 2023 

May 21, 2023 

Dec. 19, 2024 

337-TA-744 Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, 

and Components Thereof 

No foreign respondents Apr. 10, 2018 

337-TA-754 Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, 

and Packaging Thereof 

China Nonpatent 

337-TA-755 Certain Starter Motors and Alternators China Mar. 29, 2013 

Apr. 22, 2013 

Oct. 14, 2013 

337-TA-759 Certain Birthing Simulators and Associated 

Systems 

China May 8, 2016 

May 8, 2016 

337-TA-763 Certain Radio Control Hobby Transmitters 

and Receivers and Products Containing 

Same 

China Oct. 18, 2025 

Nonpatent 

337-TA-776 Certain Lighting Control Devices Including 

Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof 

China June 10, 2014 

337-TA-780 Certain Protective Cases and Components 

Thereof 

China, Hong Kong Sept. 29, 2023 

June 15, 2024 

May 11, 2024 

June 15, 2024 

Mar. 22, 2025 

Apr. 19, 2025 

Jan. 25, 2029 

Nonpatent 

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 

 a

This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. 

 b

Multiple dates indicate the expiration dates of separate patents within the investigation. 

 c

There are three outstanding exclusion orders in Inv. No. 337-TA-487. 
A-35 

TABLE A.14 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by leading GSP beneficiary, 2010–12 

 % change,

Source 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Thousand $ 

India 3,481,732 3,736,156 4,453,874 19.2

Thailand 3,611,700 3,719,574 3,709,582 –0.3

Brazil 2,123,960 2,059,096 2,317,083 12.5

Indonesia 1,856,496 1,965,418 2,208,075 12.3

South Africa 1,200,196 1,332,575 1,294,108 –2.9

Philippines 912,670 1,133,796 1,239,219 9.3

Turkey 792,938 894,703 1,139,221 27.3

Angola 3,543,798 300,237 631,683 110.4

Russia 578,012 574,780 543,880 –5.4

Argentina 528,607 477,129 222,659 –53.3

Pakistan 164,944 130,686 195,187 49.4

Sri Lanka 146,518 135,237 157,980 16.8

Tunisia 139,135 98,747 149,124 51.0

Bolivia 155,693 81,963 128,193 56.4

Georgia 100,935 117,947 124,058 5.2

Kazakhstan 60,710 93,322 111,379 19.3

Ecuador 54,273 147,406 106,823 –27.5

Venezuela 113,242 115,914 98,573 –15.0

Côte d’Ivoire 79,803 48,579 96,148 97.9

Congo, Democratic Republic of 247,316 691 93,704 13,453.6

Armenia 68,155 79,539 80,600 1.3

Colombia 158,516 383,634 76,518 –80.1

Ukraine 39,133 53,202 72,359 36.0

Paraguay 43,000 77,117 69,685 –9.6

Egypt 51,499 48,655 60,413 24.2

Subtotal, top 25 20,252,981 17,806,104 19,380,127 8.8

All other 2,300,926 732,977 476,575 –35.0

Total 22,553,906 18,539,081 19,856,702 7.1

Source: USDOC. 

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

–36

TABLE A.15 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

SITC Code no.a Description 2010 2011 2012 

% change,

2011–12

Million $ 

U.S. imports for consumption: 

0 Food and live animals 1,828 2,119 2,310 9.0

1 Beverages and tobacco 175 204 206 0.5

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 133 221 207 –6.7

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 5,433 481 724 50.3

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 142 141 153 7.9

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,491 2,568 2,667 3.9

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,555 6,091 6,214 2.0

7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,717 3,836 4,440 15.8

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 3,033 2,875 2,910 1.2

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 46 2 27 1,173.7

Total 22,554 18,539 19,857 7.1

Share of U.S. GSP imports: Percent of total 

0 Food and live animals 8.1 11.4 11.6 1 Beverages and tobacco 0.8 1.1 1.0 

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 0.6 1.2 1.0 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 24.1 2.6 3.6 

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 0.6 0.8 0.8 

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 11.0 13.9 13.4 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 24.6 32.9 31.3 

7 Machinery and transport equipment 16.5 20.7 22.4 

8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 13.4 15.5 14.7 

9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 0.2 0.0 0.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. 
A–37 

TABLE A.16 U.S. imports for consumption under the GSP, by HTS provision, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 4,696 346 661 91.2 4011.10.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons 

and racing cars) 495 409 568 38.7 

7606.12.30 Aluminum alloy, plates/sheets/strip, w/thick. o/0.2mm, rectangular (incl. sq), not clad 398 492 399 –19.0 7202.41.00 Ferrochromium containing by weight more than 4 percent of carbon 377 386 373 –3.4 7113.11.50 Silver articles of jewelry and parts thereof, n.e.s.o.i., valued over $18 per dozen pieces or parts 598 665 365 –45.27202.30.00 Ferrosilicon manganese 247 279 280 0.6 4015.19.10 Seamless gloves of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, other than surgical or medical 

gloves 187 224 250 11.7 

2106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included, not canned or frozen 217 260 221 –14.9 

4011.20.10 New pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 230 386 218 –43.5 7202.21.50 Ferrosilicon containing by weight more than 55% but not more than 80% of silicon, n.e.s.o.i. 198 170 200 18.2 

1803.20.00 Cocoa paste, wholly or partly defatted 95 103 195 89.2 8415.90.80 Parts for air conditioning machines, n.e.s.o.i. 91 126 193 52.6 

8483.10.30 Camshafts and crankshafts n.e.s.o.i. 137 136 184 34.9 7113.19.29 Gold necklaces and neck chains (o/than of rope or mixed links) 206 138 170 23.2 8708.99.81 Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705, not classified elsewhere 136 123 163 31.9 8409.99.91 Parts n.e.s.o.i., used solely or principally with the engines of heading 8408, for vehicles of 

heading 8701.20, 8702, 8703, 8704 86 156 161 3.1 

1701.14.10 Other cane sugar, raw, in solid form, w/o added flavoring or coloring, subject to add. US 5 to 

Ch.17 (a) (a) 158 (b) 

2202.90.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i., not including fruit or vegetable juices of heading 2009 65 91 149 64.0 

6802.99.00 Monumental or building stone & arts. thereof, n.e.s.o.i., further worked than simply cut/sawn, 

n.e.s.o.i. 146 86 145 69.4 

7307.91.50 Iron or steel (o/than stainless), not cast, flanges for tubes/pipes, not forged or forged and 

machined, tooled & processed after forging 56 102 137 34.2 

4412.31.40 Plywood sheets n/o 6 mm thick, with specified tropical wood outer ply, with face ply n.e.s.o.i., 

not surface–covered beyond clear/transparent 127 106 133 25.6 

1704.90.35 Sugar confections or sweetmeats ready for consumption, not containing cocoa, other than 

candied nuts or cough drops 131 137 130 –5.1 

7113.19.50 Precious metal (o/than silver) articles of jewelry and parts thereof, whether or not plated or clad 

with precious metal, n.e.s.o.i. 160 84 128 52.3 

7413.00.10 Copper, stranded wire, not electrically insulated, not fitted with fittings and not made up into 

articles 62 100 123 23.8 

2804.69.10 Silicon, containing by weight less than 99.99 percent but not less than 99 percent of silicon 92 134 116 –13.1 

Total of items shown 9,234 5,238 5,819 11.1 

All other HTS subheadings 13,320 13,301 14,038 5.5 

 Total of all commodities 22,554 18,539 19,857 7.1 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0714.20.20. bNot applicable. 
A–38 

TABLE A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by source, 2010–12 

% change,

Source 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Thousand $ 

Nigeria 25,153,807 31,003,705 17,723,567 –42.8

Angola 6,293,944 11,534,112 6,660,738 –42.3

South Africa 1,902,140 2,464,831 2,384,109 –3.3

Chad 1,186,314 2,991,226 2,376,665 –20.5

Gabon 1,124,244 477,521 1,271,621 166.3

Congo, Republic of 1,935,530 1,935,187 1,225,539 –36.7

Lesotho 280,342 314,311 300,609 –4.4

Kenya 220,636 288,273 287,737 –0.2

Mauritius 117,911 155,982 160,030 2.6

Cameroon 113,469 137,372 111,765 –18.6

Swaziland 92,798 77,121 62,373 –19.1

Malawi 47,191 56,146 46,307 –17.5

Togo 0 0 44,448 (a

)

Côte d’Ivoire 0 0 29,901 (a

)

Ethiopia 6,875 10,887 18,294 68.0

Ghana 2,053 414,094 16,988 –95.9

Tanzania 1,850 5,131 10,446 103.6

Botswana 11,559 15,479 10,427 –32.6

Senegal 7 3 5,634 209,266.1

Namibia 5 13 216 1,580.7

Cape Verde 146 154 117 –24.1

Uganda 345 787 64 –91.8

Mozambique 184 689 30 –95.7

Mali 4 2 21 1,192.0

Rwanda 10 17 8 –54.6

Zambia 0 10 7 –34.3

Burkina Faso 2 2 5 186.2

Guinea 0 0 3 (a

)

Niger 0 0 1 (a)

Gambia 5 1 0 –100.0

Congo, Democratic Republic of 147,042 0 0 (a

)

Mauritania 26,396 0 0 (a)

Total 38,664,807 51,883,054 32,747,670 –36.9

Source: USDOC.

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

 a

Not applicable. 
A–39 

TABLE A.18 U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA, by HTS provision, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 33,842 42,623 24,879 –41.62709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 1,518 4,811 3,234 –32.8 

8703.23.00 Mtr cars & o/mtr. vehicles for transport of persons, w/spark-ign. int. combust. recip. piston engine 

w/cyl. cap. o/1500 cc n/o 3000 cc 

1,471 1,995 1,872 –6.2 

2710.12.25 Naphthas (exc. motor fuel/mtr fuel blend. stock) fr petroleum oils & bitumin minerals (o/than 

crude) or preps 70%+ by wt. fr petroleum oils 

(

a) (a) 555 (b) 

2710.19.06 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous 

minerals, testing > 25 degrees A.P.I. 

(

c) (c) 453 (b) 

2710.12.45 Light oil mixt. of hydrocarbons fr petro oils & bitum min(o/than crude) or prep 70%+ wt. fr petro 

oils, n.e.s.o.i., n/o 50% any single hydrocarbon 

(

d) (d) 252 (b) 

7202.11.50 Ferromanganese containing by weight more than 4 percent of carbon 142 205 197 –3.5 6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers and shorts, not bibs, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not containing 

15% or more by weight of down, etc. 

123 141 135 –4.7 

6205.20.20 Men's or boys' shirts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 77 117 129 10.5 

6204.62.40 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches and shorts, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 116 126 105 –16.4 2710.12.15 Light oil motor fuel from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals (o/than crude) or preps. 70%+ by 

wt. from petroleum oils 

(

e) (e) 88 (b) 

6110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of manmade fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 66 73 68 –6.0 

0802.62.00 Macadamia nuts, shelled (

f) (f) 57 (b) 

6104.62.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 55 49 56 14.7 3823.70.60 Industrial fatty alcohols other than derived from fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin 40 47 54 14.6 6104.63.20 Women's or girls' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 23 41 47 15.0 

8703.24.00 Mtr cars & o/mtr. vehicles for transport of persons, w/spark-ign. int. combust. recip. piston engine 

w/cyl. cap. o/ 3000 cc 

58 35 43 22.8 

0805.10.00 Oranges, fresh or dried 39 38 40 4.1 6105.20.20 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted, of manmade fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 14 28 35 25.0 2401.20.85 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped, threshed or similarly processed, not from cigar leaf, 

described in addl US note 5 to chap 24 

29 35 34 –2.3 

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 84 62 32 –48.7 2204.21.50 Wine other than tokay (not carbonated), not over 14% alcohol, in containers not over 2 liters 27 27 29 7.6 6109.90.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers 10 18 27 48.8 

6103.43.15 Men's or boys' trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 21 26 26 1.0 8111.00.47 Unwrought manganese flake containing at least 99.5 percent by weight manganese 4 8 24 197.5 

Total of items shown 37,761 50,505 32,473 –35.7 

All other HTS provisions 903 1,378 275 –80.1 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA 38,665 51,883 32,748 –36.9 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11.45. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.19.06. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11.45. eTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11.15. 

fTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0802.60.80. 
A–40 

TABLE A.19 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by source, 2010–12 

% change,

Source 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Million $ 

Colombiaa 9,473 2,675 5,314 98.7

Ecuador 4,179 1,706 5,870 244.2

Perub

759 0 0 (c)

Total 14,411 4,380 11,183 155.3

Source: USDOC.

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

 a

Colombia’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective May 15, 2012. Imports from Colombia are 

included only through the end of May. Imports from Colombia under ATPA after it was no longer a designated ATPA 

beneficiary were reported as $222 million in 2012. 

 b

Peru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Imports from Peru are included only 

through the end of 2010. Imports from Peru under ATPA after it was no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary were 

reported as $4.8 million in 2011 and $113,000 in 2012. 

 c

Not applicable. 
A–41 

TABLE A.20 U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA, by HTS provision, 2010–12

% change, 

HTS Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00.10 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. 8,772 2,772 8,289 199.0 2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 3,172 857 1,518 77.1 2710.19.06 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous 

minerals, testing > 25 degrees A.P.I. (

a) (a) 316 (b) 

0603.11.00 Sweetheart, Spray and other Roses, fresh cut 314 140 245 75.0 0603.19.01 fresh cut, Anthuriums, Alstroemeria, Gypsophilia, Lilies, Snapdragons and flowers, n.e.s.o.i. (c) (c) 125 (b) 2710.12.45 Light oil mixt. of hydrocarbons fr petro oils & bitum min(o/than crude) or prep 70%+ wt. fr petro oils, 

n.e.s.o.i.,n/o 50% any single hydrocarbon (d) (d) 68 (b) 

0603.14.00 Chrysanthemums, fresh cut 97 34 53 55.6 1604.14.30 Tunas and skipjack, not in oil, in airtight containers, n/o 7 kg, not of U.S. possessions, over quota 44 10 53 428.1 

2710.12.25 Naphthas (exc. motor fuel/mtr fuel blend. stock) fr petroleum oils & bitumin minerals (o/than crude) 

or preps 70%+ by wt. fr petroleum oils (d) (d) 42 (b) 

1604.14.40 Tunas and skipjack, not in airtight containers, not in oil, in bulk or in immediate containers weighing 

with contents over 6.8 kg each 23 6 29 382.7 

0603.12.70 Other Carnations, fresh cut 40 19 27 42.8 0710.80.97 Vegetables n.e.s.o.i., uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, reduced in size 24 6 23 309.6 2008.99.15 Bananas, other than pulp, otherwise prepared or preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 14 4 23 419.3 

0804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 through May 

31, inclusive 12 15 21 42.3 

6203.42.40 Men's or boys' trousers and shorts, not bibs, not knitted or crocheted, of cotton, not containing 15% 

or more by weight of down, etc. 66 10 15 53.1 

0603.12.30 Miniature (spray) carnations, fresh cut 22 9 14 58.7 3904.10.00 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 23 8 14 73.3 1604.14.10 Tunas and skipjack, whole or in pieces, but not minced, in oil, in airtight containers 12 2 12 462.9 7610.10.00 Aluminum, doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 17 5 12 123.6 0714.90.10 Fresh or chilled dasheens, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets 12 3 11 234.1 1701.14.10 Other cane sugar, raw, in solid form, w/o added flavoring or coloring, subject to add. US 5 to Ch.17 (e) (e) 11 (b) 

0603.15.00 Fresh cut Lilies (Lillium spp.) (

f) (f) 9 (b) 

1704.90.35 Sugar confections or sweetmeats ready for consumption, not containing cocoa, other than candied 

nuts or cough drops 21 5 7 39.1 

9602.00.50 Vegetable, mineral or gum materials, worked and articles of these materials 11 4 7 67.2 3921.12.11 Nonadhesive plates, sheets, film, foil, strip, cellular, of polymers of vinyl chloride, with man-made 

textile fibers, over 70% plastics 14 5 7 38.6 

Total of items shown 12,711 3,914 10,948 179.7 

All other HTS provisions 1,700 466 235 –49.6 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption under ATPA 14,411 4,380 11,183 155.3 

Source: USDOC. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included." Colombia’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective May 15, 2012. Imports from Colombia are included only through the end of May. Imports from Colombia under ATPA after it was 

no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary were reported as $222 million in 2012. Peru’s status as an ATPA beneficiary country ended effective January 1, 2011. Imports from Peru are included only through the end of 2010. Imports from Peru under ATPA after it was no longer a designated ATPA beneficiary were reported as $4.8 million in 

2011. 

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.19.05. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0603.19.00. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11.45. eTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1701.11. 

fTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0603.19.0030. 
A–42 

TABLE A.21 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA/CBTPA, by source, 2010–12 

% change, 

Source 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Thousand $ 

Trinidad and Tobago 2,205,811 2,594,465 2,171,207 –16.3 

Haiti 364,114 474,602 436,783 –8.0 

Jamaica 83,910 179,045 206,046 15.1 

Belize 61,744 146,045 131,898 –9.7 

Bahamas 98,989 123,854 130,309 5.2 

Panamaa 28,435 55,184 26,319 –52.3 

St. Kitts-Nevis 20,466 27,273 22,350 –18.1 

Guyana 10,632 11,129 5,300 –52.4 

Barbados 7,233 4,493 3,812 –15.2 

St. Lucia 9,199 1,889 1,836 –2.8 

British Virgin Islands 86 136 451 231.8 

Grenada 150 257 341 32.8 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 124 88 138 56.5 

Dominica 53 149 117 –21.5 

Antigua Barbuda 21 23 30 28.5 

Aruba 566 249 27 –89.3 

Montserrat Island 0 0 24 (b

) 

Netherlands Antillesc

988 0 0 –100.0 

Total 2,892,521 3,618,883 3,136,986 –13.3 

Source: USDOC.

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

 aU.S. imports from Panama are included only for the period during which Panama was eligible for CBERA 

benefits before the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement entered into effect on October 31, 2013.

 b

Not applicable. 

 c

The Netherlands Antilles was dissolved on October 10, 2010. Imports from the Netherlands Antilles are included 

only through October 2010. After its dissolution, imports from the Netherlands Antilles under CBERA were reported 

as $206,000 in 2010 and $344,000 in 2011. 
A–43 

TABLE A.22 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA/CBTPA, by HTS provision, 2010–12HTS % change,provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Million $ 

2709.00.20 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude, testing 25 degrees A.P.I. or more 1,249 1,274 1,164 –8.72905.11.20 Methanol (Methyl alcohol), other than imported only for use in producing synthetic natural gas 

(SNG) or for direct use as fuel 890 1,097 1,022 –6.8

6109.10.00 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of cotton 204 213 225 5.4

6110.20.20 Sweaters, pullovers and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of cotton, n.e.s.o.i. 125 221 176 –20.2

2207.10.60 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of 80 percent vol. alcohol or higher, for nonbeverage purposes 10 239 150 –37.53903.11.00 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 95 122 129 5.92710.19.06 Distillate and residual fuel oil (including blends) derived from petroleum or oils from bituminous 

minerals, testing > 25 degrees A.P.I. (a) (a) 35 (b)

2933.61.00 Melamine 6 24 22 –9.00714.30.10 Fresh or chilled yams (Dioscorea spp.), whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets (c) (c) 16 (b)6109.90.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, of man-made fibers 20 18 16 –13.31701.14.10 Other cane sugar, raw, in solid form, w/o added flavoring or coloring, subject to add. US 5 to 

Ch.17 (d) (d) 13 (b)

8525.50.30 Transmission apparatus for television, n.e.s.o.i. 11 16 12 –22.50807.20.00 Papayas (papaws), fresh 12 13 11 –12.82009.19.00 Orange juice, not frozen, of a Brix value exceeding 20, unfermented 6 5 8 75.22009.11.00 Orange juice, frozen, unfermented and not containing added spirit 7 6 8 22.5

0804.30.40 Pineapples, fresh or dried, not reduced in size, in crates or other packages 8 7 6 –13.40804.50.40 Guavas, mangoes, and mangosteens, fresh, if entered during the period September 1 through 

May 31, inclusive 1 7 6 –14.6

2106.90.99 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included, not canned or frozen 6 4 6 59.02103.90.80 Mixed condiments and mixed seasonings, not described in add US note 3 to Ch. 21 5 6 6 3.02202.10.00 Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other 

sweetening matter or flavored 6 7 5 –18.1

2008.99.90 Fruit n.e.s.o.i., and other edible parts of plants n.e.s.o.i., other than pulp and excluding 

mixtures, otherwise prepared or preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 4 5 5 –0.2

2103.90.90 Sauces and preparations therefor, n.e.s.o.i. 4 5 5 2.62710.19.16 Kerosene-type jet fuel from petroleum oils and oils of bitumin minerals (o/than crude) or preps. 

70%+ by wt. from petroleum oils (e) (e) 5 (b)

2202.90.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i., not including fruit or vegetable juices of heading 2009 5 5 5 6.46110.30.30 Sweaters, pullovers and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, of manmade fibers, n.e.s.o.i. 2 4 5 12.9  Total of items shown 2,676 3,296 3,059 –7.2

 All other HTS provisions 217 323 78 –75.8 Total U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA/CBTPA 2,893 3,619 3,137 –13.3Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i" stands for "not elsewhere specified or included." Data for 2012 include 

U.S. imports from Panama only for the period during which Panama was eligible for CBERA benefits before the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement entered into effect on October 31, 2012.

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.19.05. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0714.20.20. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1701.11. eTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.19.15. 
A-44 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012 

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS217 United 

States—Continued 

Dumping and Subsidy 

Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd 

Amendment) 

Australia, Brazil, 

Chile, European 

Communities 

(EC), India, 

Indonesia, Japan, 

Korea, Thailand 

Complaining parties request consultations (12/21/00). 

Panel established (08/23/01) and composed (10/25/01). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/16/02). 

U.S. notifies Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) it will appeal 

panel decision (10/18/02). 

Appellate Body circulates its report (06/16/03). 

Arbitrator finds that U.S. has failed to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (01/15/04). 

Arbitrator circulates decisions relating to level of 

suspension of concessions to offset U.S. Byrd Amendment 

distributions (08/31/04). 

Authority to retaliate granted (11/26/04, 12/17/04). 

DSB authorizes or takes note of various requests or 

agreements to suspend concessions (2004–05). 

U.S. states at DSB meeting that recent changes bring U.S. 

law into conformity with its WTO obligations (02/17/06). 

Japan and EC notify DSB annually of the new list of 

products on which the additional import duty would apply, 

prior to the entry into force of a level of suspension of 

concessions (2006–12). 

DS294 United States—Laws, 

Regulations and 

Methodology for 

Calculating Dumping 

Margins (Zeroing) 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (06/12/03). 

Panel established (03/19/04) and composed (10/27/04). 

Panel report circulated (10/31/05). 

Appellate Body report circulated (04/18/06). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified (05/09/06). 

U.S. announces that it intends to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (05/30/06). 

U.S. and EC agree, pursuant to Dispute Settlement 

Understanding (DSU) Article 21.3(b), to the reasonable 

period of time for implementation (07/28/06). 

U.S. and EC reach an understanding on Article 21 and 22 

procedures (05/04/07). 

EC requests Article 21.5 consultations (07/09/07). 

Brazil and Korea request to join the consultations 

(07/20/07). 

EC requests establishment of Article 21.5 panel (09/13/07). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (06/11/09). 

EC requests authorization to suspend concessions or other 

obligations per Article 22.2 of DSU (01/29/10). 

U.S. informs DSB it objects to suspension level proposed 

by the EU (02/12/10). 

DSB refers the matter to arbitration (02/18/10). 

European Union and United States at various times during 

2010–early 2012 jointly requested that the arbitrator 

suspend work; work suspended through June 28, 2012. 

EU and U.S. inform the DSB of a memorandum between 

the U.S. and the EC which envisages a roadmap 

addressing the dispute (02/06/12). 

EU withdraws its request for authorization to suspend 

concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the 

DSU following completion by the U.S. of the steps 

undertaken pursuant to the roadmap notified in February 

2012 (06/22/12). 

Arbitrator informs the DSB of receipt of joint communication 

of June 22, 2012, from the EU and U.S. and that the U.S. 

and EU request that the arbitrator notify the DSB that it is 

not necessary for it to issue a report/ an award in this 

dispute; the arbitrator therefore considers that it has 

completed its work (07/02/12). 
A-45 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS316 European 

Communities—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large 

Civil Aircraft 

United States U.S. requests consultations with EC (10/06/04). 

Panel established (07/20/05) and composed (10/17/05). 

Panel circulates its report (06/30/10). 

EU appeals decision to Appellate Body (07/21/10); U.S. 

does the same (08/19/10). 

Appellate Body report circulated (05/18/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (06/01/11). 

EU informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendation (06/17/11). 

EU informs DSB it has taken steps to bring its measures 

into conformity with obligations (12/01/11). 

U.S. requests consultations with EU under Article 21.5 and 

requests authority to take countermeasures (12/09/11). 

EU objects to requested level of U.S. measures and 

requests matter be referred to arbitration under Article 22.6; 

DSB refers to arbitration (12/22/11). 

U.S. and EU request arbitrator to suspend work (01/19/12).

Arbitrator suspends work until either party requests 

resumption (01/20/12). 

DS322 United States—Measures 

Relating to Zeroing and 

Sunset Reviews 

Japan Japan requests consultations (11/24/04). 

Panel established (02/28/05) and composed (04/15/05). 

Panel report circulated (09/20/06). 

Appellate Body report circulated (01/9/07). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (01/23/07). 

Agreement reached on the reasonable period of time for 

implementation (05/04/07). 

Article 21.3(c) arbitration report circulated (05/11/07). 

Japan seeks authorization to suspend concessions 

(01/10/08). 

Japan asks for establishment of Article 21.5 panel 

(04/07/08). 

United States and Japan request arbitrator to suspend work 

(06/06/08). 

Article 21.5 panel report circulated (04/24/09). 

U.S. notifies DSB of intent to appeal (05/20/09). 

Article 21.5 Appellate Body report adopted (08/31/09). 

Japan requests arbitrator to resume arbitration proceedings 

(04/23/10). 

U.S. and Japan request arbitrator to suspend work 

(12/15/10). Subsequent requests continue suspension 

through August 21, 2012 (02/01/12). 

U.S. and Japan inform DSB of memorandum of 

understanding regarding the dispute (02/06/12). 

Japan withdraws request for authorization to suspend 

concessions/obligations under Article 22.6 after U.S. 

completes steps notified to the DSB in Feb. 2012 

(08/03/12). 

Arbitrator informs DSB, following receipt of request from 

Japan and U.S., that no award is necessary, that it is not 

necessary to issue a decision, and that work is considered 

completed (08/14/12). 
A-46 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS344 United States—Final 

Antidumping Measures on 

Stainless Steel from 

Mexico 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations (05/26/06). 

Panel established (10/26/06) and composed (12/20/06). 

Panel report circulated (12/20/07). 

Mexico notifies DSB of decision to appeal (01/31/08). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (05/20/08). 

Mexico requests that the reasonable period of time for U.S. 

implementation be determined through binding arbitration 

pursuant to Article 21.3(c) (08/11/08). 

Article 21.3 arbitration report circulated (10/31/08), setting 

April 30, 2009, as a reasonable time for the U.S. to 

implement. 

U.S. informs DSB that U.S. and Mexico concluded a 

sequencing agreement (05/20/09). 

Mexico requests establishment of a compliance panel 

(09/07/10). 

DSB agrees to refer the matter to the original panel if 

possible (09/21/10). 

Compliance panel composed (05/13/11). 

Panel chairman informs DSB that he expects to circulate a 

final report in March 2012 (11/09/11). 

Mexico asks compliance panel to suspend work until May 

14, 2012 (04/27/12). 

Mexico asks compliance panel to suspend work until May 

31, 2012 (05/14/12). 

Mexico asks compliance panel to suspend work until further

notice (05/31/12), and panel agrees. 

DS350 United States—Continued 

Existence and Application 

of Zeroing Methodology 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (10/02/06). 

Panel established (06/04/07) and composed (07/06/07). 

Panel report circulated (10/01/08). 

EC (11/06/08) and U.S. (11/18/08) notify DSB of decision to 

appeal. 

Appellate Body and modified panel reports adopted 

(02/19/09). 

U.S. and EC agree that a reasonable time for the U.S. to 

implement is Dec. 19, 2009 (06/02/09). 

EU and U.S. notify the DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 (01/04/10). 

EU and U.S. inform the DSB of a memorandum between 

the U.S. and European Commission which envisages a 

roadmap addressing the dispute (02/06/12). 

 
A-47 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS353 United States—Measures 

Affecting Trade in Large 

Civil Aircraft—Second 

Complaint 

European 

Communities 

EC requests consultations (06/27/05). 

Panel established (02/17/06) and composed (11/22/06). 

Panel chairman informs DSB multiple times that panel 

needs additional time to complete work in light of 

complexities of the dispute (05/18/07, 07/11/08, 12/16/09, 

07/07/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (03/31/11). 

EU notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to Appellate Body 

(04/01/11), and U.S. also notifies decision to appeal 

(04/28/11). 

Appellate Body report circulated to members (03/12/12) 

and adopted (03/23/12). 

U.S. informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings (04/13/12). 

EU and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of DSU and Article 7 of SCM Agreement 

(04/24/12). 

U.S. notifies DSB of withdrawal of subsidies and adverse 

effects of dispute, and that it fully complies with DSB 

recommendations and rulings (09/23/12). 

EU requests consultations under Article 21.5 (09/25/12). 

EU requests authority to take countermeasures under 

Article 22 of DSU and Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) (09/27/12). 

EU requests establishment of compliance panel (10/11/12).

Compliance panel composed (10/30/12). 

Compliance panel chairman informs DSB that panel will 

circulate report during first half of 2014 (01/15/13). 

U.S. objects to level of suspension of concessions/ 

obligations sought; U.S. seeks arbitration under Article 22.6 

of the DSU (10/22/12). 

At request of U.S. and EU, arbitrator to suspend arbitration 

proceedings (11/28/12). 

 

 
A-48 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS363 China—Measures 

Affecting Trading Rights 

and Distribution Services 

for Certain Publications 

and Audiovisual 

Entertainment Products 

United States U.S. requests consultations with China (04/10/07). 

Panel established (11/27/07) and composed (03/27/08). 

Panel report circulated (08/12/09). 

China (09/22/09) and U.S. (10/05/09) notify the DSB of their

respective decisions to appeal. 

Appellate Body report circulated to members (12/21/09). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (01/19/10). 

China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable period for China to implement the DSB 

recommendations is by March 14, 2011 (07/12/10). 

China reports to DSB that it has made efforts to implement 

DSB recommendations; U.S. expresses concern about lack 

of progress by China (03/25/11). 

U.S. and China inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (04/13/11). 

China reports to the DSB it has completed amendments to 

most measures and has signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the U.S. (02/22/12). 

China tells DSB that it has ensured full implementation of 

DSB recommendations and rulings except for measures 

concerning films for theatrical release. U.S. states that it is 

not in a position to agree that China has fully implemented 

DSB recommendations and rulings in all areas except films 

for theatrical release (03/23/12). 

China and the U.S. inform the DSB of key elements relating 

to theatrical release as set forth in the MOU noted at the 

Feb. 22, 2012, DSB meeting (05/09/12). 

China tells DSB it has taken all necessary steps and has 

complied with DSB recommendations. U.S. says that MOU 

represented significant progress but not a final resolution 

(05/24/12). 

DS379 United States—Definitive 

Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on 

Certain Products from 

China 

China China requests consultations with U.S. (09/19/08). 

Panel established (01/20/09) and composed (03/04/09). 

Panel report circulated (10/22/10). 

China notifies DSB it will appeal the panel’s decision to the 

Appellate Body (12/01/10). 

Appellate Body report circulated (03/11/11). 

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report (as 

modified) (03/25/11). 

China and the U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations is Feb. 25, 2012 (07/5/11). 

China and the U.S. inform the DSB that they have modified 

the reasonable time period, with the period to expire April 

25, 2012 (01/17/12). 

China and U.S. notify the DSB of agreed procedures under

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (05/11/12). 

U.S. tells DSB it has brought the measures at issue into full 

compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings 

(08/31/12), but China says that it does not agree with the 

U.S. claim to such effect (09/28/12). 
A-49 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS381 United States—Measures 

Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and 

Sale of Tuna and Tuna 

Products 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with the U.S. (10/24/08). 

Panel established (04/20/09) and composed (12/14/09). 

Panel chairman informs DSB panel expects to issue report 

in February 2011 (06/15/10). 

Parties agree on new panel member following death of one 

member (08/12/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/15/11). 

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal the panel’s 

decision (01/20/12); Mexico does the same (01/25/12). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (05/16/12) 

and adopted by DSB (06/13/12). 

U.S. states that it intends to implement the DSB 

recommendations and rulings (06/25/12), and the U.S. and 

Mexico inform the DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable time to do so is by July 13, 2013 (09/17/12). 

DS382 United States—AntiDumping Administrative 

Reviews and Other 

Measures Related to 

Imports of Certain Orange 

Juice from Brazil 

Brazil Brazil requests consultations with the U.S. (11/27/08). 

Panel established (09/25/09) and composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated (03/25/11). 

DSB adopts the panel report, and Brazil and U.S. notify the 

DSB that they have agreed that a reasonable time for the 

U.S. to implement the DSB recommendations expires on 

March 17, 2012 (06/17/11). 

U.S. informs the DSB that following a 5-year sunset review 

the USITC has recently determined to revoke the existing 

antidumping order on orange juice as of March 9, 2011 

(03/23/12). Brazil tells DSB it is still assessing whether the 

U.S. implementation measure would resolve the dispute. 

Brazil and the U.S. inform the DSB of agreed procedures 

regarding Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (04/03/12). 

Brazil and the U.S. inform the DSB of a mutually 

satisfactory solution to the dispute, and had reached a 

mutually satisfactory solution (02/14/13). 

DS384 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

(COOL) Requirements 

Canada Canada requests consultations with the U.S. (12/01/08). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

DS386 (11/19/09); panel composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (11/18/11). 

U.S. notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues 

of law and legal interpretations (03/23/12), and Canada 

notifies the DSB it will do the same (03/28/12). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (06/29/12) 

and adopted (07/23/12). 

U.S. informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings (08/21/12). 

Canada requests that reasonable time to implement be 

determined through binding arbitration (09/13/12), and 

requests that the Director-General appoint an arbitrator 

(09/26/12); arbitrator appointed (10/04/12). 

Arbitrator determines that the reasonable time is by May 23, 

2013 (12/04/12). 
A-50 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS386 United States—Certain 

Country of Origin Labelling 

Requirements 

Mexico Mexico requests consultations with the U.S. (12/17/08). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

DS384 (11/19/09); panel composed (05/10/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (11/18/11). 

U.S. notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues 

of law and legal interpretations (03/23/12), and Mexico 

notifies the DSB it will do the same (03/28/12). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (06/29/12) 

and adopted (07/23/12). 

U.S. informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings (08/21/12). 

Mexico requests that reasonable time to implement be 

determined through binding arbitration (09/13/12), and 

requests that the Director-General appoint an arbitrator 

(09/26/12); arbitrator appointed (10/04/12). 

Arbitrator determines that the reasonable time is by May 23, 

2013 (12/04/12). 

DS387 China—Grants, Loans and 

other Incentives 

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/19/08). 

DS389 European 

Communities—Certain 

Measures Affecting Poultry 

Meat and Poultry Meat 

Products from the United 

States 

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/16/09). 

Panel established (11/19/09). 

DS394 China—Measures Related 

to the Exportation of 

Various Raw Materials 

United States U.S. requests consultations (06/23/09). 

U.S. requests establishment of a panel (12/21/09). 

Single panel established to examine this dispute and 

disputes DS395 and DS398 (12/21/09); panel composed 

(03/29/10). 

Panel circulated to members (07/05/11). 

China notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal (08/31/11).

U.S. notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal (09/06/11). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (01/30/12).

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by Appellate Body (02/22/12). 

China informs DSB of its intention to implement DSB 

recommendations and of its need for a reasonable time to 

do so (03/23/12). 

China and the U.S. notify the DSB that they have agreed 

that the reasonable time is by Dec. 31, 2012 (05/24/12). 

China and the U.S. inform the DSB of agreed procedures 

under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (01/17/13). 
A-51 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS403 Philippines—Taxes on 

Distilled Spirits 

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/14/10). 

Single panel established to consider DS403 and DS396 

(complaint by the EU) (04/20/10); panel composed 

(07/05/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (08/15/11). 

Philippines notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal to the 

Appellate Body (09/23/11), as does EU (09/28/11). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (12/21/11).

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by Appellate Body (01/20/12). 

Philippines states that it intends to implement DSB’s 

recommendations and ruling and would require a 

reasonable time to do so (02/22/12). 

Philippines and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that 

the reasonable time is by March 8, 2013 (04/20/12). 

Philippines reports enactment of legislation that completes 

implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings 

(01/28/13). 

DS404 United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Certain Shrimp from 

Viet Nam 

Vietnam Vietnam requests consultations (02/01/10). 

Panel established (05/18/10) and composed (07/26/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (07/11/11). 

DSB adopts panel report (09/02/11). 

Vietnam and U.S. inform DSB they have agreed that a 

reasonable time for the U.S. to implement the DSB 

recommendations expires on July 2, 2012 (10/31/11). 

DS406 United States—Measures 

Affecting the Production 

and Sale of Clove Cigarettes 

Indonesia Indonesia requests consultations (04/07/10). 

Panel established (07/20/10) and composed (09/09/10). 

Panel report circulated to members (09/02/11). 

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 

Body (01/05/12). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (04/04/12) 

and adopted (04/24/12). 

U.S. informs DSB of its intent to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings and of need for a reasonable 

period of time to do so (05/24/12). 

Indonesia and the U.S. inform the DSB that the reasonable 

period of time is by July 24, 2013 (06/14/12). 

DS413 China—Certain Measures 

Affecting Electronic Payment 

Services 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10). 

Panel established (03/25/11) and composed (07/04/11). 

Panel report circulated to members (07/16/12) and adopted 

by DSB (08/31/12). 

China states that it intends to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

amount of time to do so (09/28/12). 

China and U.S. inform DSB that the reasonable period of 

time for China to implement is by July 31, 2013 (11/22/12).
A-52 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS414 China—Countervailing and 

Anti-Dumping Duties on 

Grain Oriented Flat-rolled 

Electrical Steel from the 

United States 

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10). 

Panel established (03/25/11) and composed (05/10/11). 

Panel report circulated to members (06/15/12). 

China notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 

Body (07/20/12). 

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (10/18/12) 

and adopted by DSB (11/16/12). 

China states that it intends to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

amount of time to do so (11/30/12). 

U.S. requests that the reasonable period of time be 

determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 

21.3(c) of the DSU (02/08/13). 

Director-General appoints arbitrator (02/28/13). 

DS419 China—Measures 

Concerning Wind Power 

Equipment 

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/22/10). 

EU and Japan request to join consultations (01/12/11 and 

01/17/11, respectively). 

DS420 United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from 

Korea 

Korea Korea requests consultations (01/31/11). 

Korea requests establishment of a panel (09/15/11). 

Korea withdraws request for panel (09/27/11). 

Korea requests establishment of a panel (02/09/12). 

Korea informs DSB of agreement on procedures between 

U.S. and Korea (02/14/12). 

Panel established (02/22/12). 

Prior to composition of the panel, Korea requests that panel 

proceedings be suspended in accordance with Article 

12.12 of the DSU until further notification (06/12/12). 

DS422 United States—AntiDumping Measures on 

Shrimp and Diamond 

Sawblades from China 

China China requests consultations (02/28/11). 

Panel established (10/25/11) and composed (12/21/11). 

Panel report circulated to members (06/08/12) and adopted 

by DSB (07/23/12). 

China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the 

reasonable period of time for the U.S. to implement is by 

March 23, 2013 (07/27/12). 

DS424 United States—AntiDumping Measures on 

Imports of Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Italy 

European Union EU requests consultations (04/01/11). 

Japan requests to join the consultations (04/18/11). 

DS427 

DS429 

DS430 

China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duty 

Measures on Broiler 

Products from the United 

States 

United States—AntiDumping Measures on 

Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Viet Nam 

India—Measures Concerning 

the Importation of Certain 

Agricultural Products from 

the United States 

United States 

Vietnam 

 United States 

U.S. requests consultations (09/20/11). 

Panel established (01/20/12) and composed (05/24/12). 

Chairman of panel notifies DSB that panel expects to 

conclude work by the end of June 2013 (11/23/12). 

Vietnam requests consultations (02/20/12). 

Panel established (02/27/13). 

U.S. requests consultations (03/06/12). 

Panel established (06/25/12) and composed (02/18/13). 
A-53 

TABLE A.23 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 2012–Continued

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year) 

DS431 

DS436 

DS437 

DS440 

DS444 

DS447 

DS448 

DS449 

DS450 

China—Measures Related 

to the Exportation of Rare 

Earths, Tungsten and 

Molybdenum 

United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India 

United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on 

Certain Products from China 

China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on 

Certain Automobiles from 

the United States 

Argentina—Measures 

Affecting the Importation of 

Goods 

United States—Measures 

Affecting the Importation of 

Animals, Meat and Other 

Animal Products from 

Argentina 

United States—Measures 

Affecting the Importation of 

Fresh Lemons 

United States—Countervailing and Anti-dumping 

Measures on Certain 

Products from China 

China—Certain Measures 

Affecting the Automobile and 

Automobile-Parts Industries 

United States 

India 

China 

United States 

United States 

Argentina 

Argentina 

China 

United States 

U.S. requests consultations (03/13/12). 

Single panel to examine DS431, DS432, and DS433 is 

established (07/23/12) and composed (09/24/12). 

India requests consultations (04/24/12). 

Panel established (08/31/12) and composed (02/18/13). 

China requests consultations (05/25/12). 

Panel established (09/28/12) and composed (11/26/12). 

U.S. requests consultations (07/05/12). 

Panel established (10/23/12) and composed (02/11/13). 

U.S. requests consultations (08/21/12). 

Single panel established to examine DS438, DS44, and 

DS445 (01/28/13). 

Argentina requests consultations (08/30/12). 

Panel established (01/28/13). 

Argentina requests consultations (09/03/12). 

Argentina requests establishment of a panel (12/06/12); 

establishment deferred (12/17/12). 

China requests consultations (09/17/12). 

Panel established (12/17/12) and composed (03/04/13). 

U.S. requests consultations (09/17/12). 

Source: WTO, “Chronological List of Disputes Cases,” 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm. 

Note: This list focuses on formal actions in disputes during 2012; some intermediate procedural actions are omitted. 

Selected pre-2012 and post-2012 actions are noted to place the 2012 actions in context. 
A-54 

TABLE A.24 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of USITC 

and USDOC, developments in 2012 

File no. Disputea Action (month/day/year) 

USA-CDA-2008-1904-

02 

Steel Wire Rod (AD) (Investigating authority: 

International Trade Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(06/06/08). 

Decision Date 1: 05/11/12. 

Decision Date 2: 10/25/12. 

USA-CDA-2009-1904-

01 

Steel Wire Rod (AD) (Investigating authority: 

International Trade Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(01/16/09). 

Oral argument (12/18/12). 

USA-MEX-2007-1904-

01 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(01/22/07). Oral argument 

(09/10/09). 

Decision Date 1: 04/14/10. 

Decision Date 2: 08/17/11. 

USA-MEX-2008-1904-

01 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(03/12/08). 

USA-MEX-2009-1904-

02 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(03/11/09). 

Oral argument (06/07/12). 

USA-MEX-2010-1904-

01 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(03/11/10). 

USA-MEX-2011-1904-

01 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(02/11/11). 

USA-MEX-2011-1904-

02 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(03/18/11). 

Oral argument (09/06/12). 

USA-MEX-2012-1904-

01 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(02/10/12). 

USA-MEX-2012-1904-

02 

Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(04/24/12). 

USA-MEX-2012-1904-

03 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube (AD) 

(Investigating authority: International Trade 

Administration) 

Request for panel review 

(10/24/12). 
A-55 

TABLE A.24 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of USITC 

and USDOC, developments in 2012–Continued

File no. Disputea Action (month/day/year) 

MEX-USA-2011-1904-

01 

MEX-USA-2012-1904-

01 

MEX-USA-2012-1904-

02 

Stearic Acid (CVD) (Investigating authority: 

Secretaría de Economía) 

Chicken Thighs and Legs (AD) (Investigating 

authority: Secretaría de Economía) 

Ethylene glycol Monobutyl Ether (AD) 

(Investigating authority: Secretaría de Economía) 

Request for panel review (11/04/11). 

Request for panel review (09/03/12). 

Request for panel review (10/09/12). 

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report: NAFTA and FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings,” http://www.naftasec-alena.org/en/StatusReport.aspx. 

Note: This list includes active cases during 2012, including those in which little if any formal action occurred during 

2012. 

 a

AD stands for antidumping duty and CVD stands for countervailing duty.
A–56 

TABLE A.25 U.S. merchandise trade with the European Union, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Domestic U.S. exports: 

0 Food and live animals 6,054 7,018 6,658 –5.1 1 Beverages and tobacco 1,477 1,494 1,563 4.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 9,630 11,129 10,300 –7.4 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 13,235 25,069 24,674 –1.6 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 265 430 463 7.5 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 53,368 51,923 52,269 0.7 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 13,687 15,764 14,991 –4.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 75,260 82,786 81,252 –1.9 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 27,421 27,996 27,865 –0.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 16,932 17,480 15,585 –10.8 

Total 217,329 241,089 235,620 –2.3 

U.S. imports for consumption: 

0 Food and live animals 5,365 6,260 6,640 6.1 1 Beverages and tobacco 9,149 10,212 10,691 4.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,645 3,057 3,310 8.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 18,991 24,250 24,170 –0.3 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 842 885 976 10.3 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 83,334 89,702 84,452 –5.9 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 29,948 36,268 37,537 3.5 7 Machinery and transport equipment 109,070 130,374 142,556 9.3 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 37,472 42,018 44,344 5.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 18,064 19,392 19,459 0.3 

Total 314,880 362,419 374,134 3.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. 
A–57 

TABLE A.26 Leading domestic U.S. exports to the European Union, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 22,447 24,700 23,974 –2.9 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 7,462 15,017 16,016 6.7 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 9,767 9,470 10,496 10.8 

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 6,620 8,892 7,363 –17.2 

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 3,894 6,304 6,107 –3.1 

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 6,483 3,229 3,725 15.3 8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), 

cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 1,591 1,535 3,669 139.1 

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 3,003 3,021 2,923 –3.2 

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than those pharmaceuticals in heading 3002 or 

3006; certified reference materials 2,296 2,368 2,326 –1.8 

8703.32 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 2,500 cc 33 344 2,267 558.7 

9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 1,951 2,113 2,096 –0.8 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 1,854 1,989 1,955 –1.7 

8411.99 Parts of gas turbines, n.e.s.o.i. (other than parts for turbojets or turbopropellers) 1,412 1,656 1,810 9.3 1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (a) (a) 1,481 (b) 

7112.99 Precious metal (other than of gold or platinum) waste and scrap, including metal clad with 

precious metals, n.e.s.o.i. 1,049 1,724 1,453 –15.7 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 3,610 5,615 1,380 –75.4 

3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 1,481 2,212 1,373 –37.9 8471.50 Processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 1,019 1,080 1,243 15.1 9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus (and apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking 

physiological parameters) n.e.s.o.i., and parts, etc. 1,425 1,374 1,212 –11.8 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 1,049 1,179 1,175 –0.4 2933.39 Heterocyclic compounds containing an unfused pyridine ring (whether or not hydrogenated) in the 

structure, n.e.s.o.i. 1,257 1,024 1,142 11.5 

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand executed works of art, framed or not framed 1,211 1,080 1,126 4.3 2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine ring (hydrogenated or not) or a piperazine ring in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 318 574 1,124 95.9 

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body (other than artificial joints) and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 823 754 1,049 39.1 9021.90 Appliances n.e.s.o.i. which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body, to compensate for a 

defect or disability; parts and accessories thereof 1,104 1,054 1,012 –4.0 

Total of items shown 83,159 98,309 99,496 1.2 

All other HTS subheadings 134,170 142,780 136,124 –4.7 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to the EU-27 217,329 241,089 235,620 –2.3 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. bNot applicable. 
A–58 

TABLE A.27 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from the European Union, by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 13,986 15,399 18,571 20.6 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 17,778 (b) 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 22,004 20,374 16,815 –17.5 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 10,382 12,634 14,839 17.5 

8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 5,399 5,909 6,510 10.2 2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 4,673 6,027 5,087 –15.6 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 5,228 6,043 4,785 –20.8 

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds; 

n.e.s.o.i. 7,339 6,770 4,694 –30.7 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 3,563 3,791 4,490 18.5 9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand executed works of art, framed or not framed 3,546 3,744 4,475 19.5 3004.39 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing hormones or other steroids used primarily as 

hormones, but not containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,938 3,414 4,027 18.0 

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 3,830 4,018 3,750 –6.7 7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 3,111 3,792 3,647 –3.8 3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 2,274 2,576 3,501 35.9 8411.12 Turbojets of a thrust exceeding 25 kn 2,350 2,602 3,477 33.6 3002.90 Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, etc. uses; toxins, cultures of micro-organisms 

(excluding yeasts) and similar products n.e.s.o.i. 2,436 4,864 3,276 –32.6 

2933.59 Heterocyclic compounds containing a pyrimidine ring (hydrogenated or not) or a piperazine ring in 

the structure, n.e.s.o.i. 2,536 2,920 3,258 11.6 

3004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 1,726 2,105 2,885 37.0 2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds; alloys and other 

products containing enriched uranium or plutonium 3,042 2,285 2,628 15.0 

2204.21 Wine of fresh grapes (other than sparkling wine) and grape must with fermentation prevented, etc. 

by adding alcohol, containers of not over 2 liters 2,146 2,493 2,572 3.2 

9021.39 Artificial parts of the body (other than artificial joints) and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 2,349 2,263 2,519 11.3 

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 1,916 2,222 2,193 –1.3 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 1,611 1,444 2,153 49.1 

2208.60 Vodka 1,467 1,666 1,705 2.3 8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically 

controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 1,281 1,605 1,701 6.0 

Total of items shown 111,131 120,959 141,336 16.8 

All other HTS subheadings 203,749 241,460 232,799 –3.6 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from the EU-27 314,880 362,419 374,134 3.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. 
A

–59

TABLE A.28 U.S. merchandise trade with the Canada, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 15,077 17,021 18,331 7.7 1 Beverages and tobacco 1,161 1,312 1,418 8.1 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 6,418 7,637 7,102 –7.0 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 11,542 16,630 17,333 4.2 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 569 511 566 10.7 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 25,401 28,901 29,441 1.9 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 30,866 34,420 35,555 3.3 7 Machinery and transport equipment 86,730 96,568 102,524 6.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 20,026 21,431 22,606 5.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 8,165 9,344 9,321 –0.2 

Total 205,956 233,774 244,199 4.5 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 15,794 17,424 18,821 8.0 1 Beverages and tobacco 780 845 889 5.2 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 10,474 11,732 11,688 –0.4 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 82,107 102,892 102,913 0.0 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1,191 2,188 2,070 –5.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 24,305 28,447 27,287 –4.1 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 36,987 40,506 39,314 –2.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 75,800 82,899 92,276 11.3 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 12,664 13,200 13,035 –1.2 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 15,435 16,263 15,633 –3.9 

Total 275,536 316,397 323,925 2.4 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. 
A–60 

TABLE A.29 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Canada, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8704.31 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with spark-ignition internal combustion piston 

engine, gvw not over 5 metric tons 6,513 6,359 6,581 3.5 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 5,217 5,622 5,942 5.7 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 4,963 5,076 5,304 4.5 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 5,170 (b) 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,237 4,640 5,060 9.1 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 4,266 4,544 4,320 –4.9 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 2,649 4,951 4,281 –13.5 

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway 

stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 3,257 3,029 3,723 22.9 

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 2,810 3,685 2,761 –25.1 8708.40 Gear boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 2,349 2,468 2,381 –3.5 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,750 2,060 2,190 6.3 2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 1,374 1,459 2,183 49.6 8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 965 1,709 2,032 18.9 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 1,975 2,330 1,939 –16.8 

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically 

controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 1,052 1,197 1,357 13.3 

8708.80 Suspension systems and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 1,003 1,151 1,272 10.5 7112.91 Gold waste and scrap, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing other 

precious metals 1,529 1,743 1,260 –27.7 

8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,310 1,120 1,227 9.6 

7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 1,032 1,174 1,162 –1.0 

8716.10 Trailers and semi-trailers for housing or camping 1,060 1,056 1,123 6.3 8716.39 Trailers and semi-trailers for the transport of goods, n.e.s.o.i. 649 928 1,101 18.6 

2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 913 941 1,098 16.7 8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes and parts thereof n.e.s.o.i., for motor vehicles 985 973 1,092 12.2 8704.23 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with compression-ignition internal combustion 

piston engine (diesel), gvw over 20 metric tons 610 807 1,047 29.7 

8523.49 Recorded optical media (c) (c) 1,037 (b) 

Total of items shown 52,469 59,021 66,640 12.9 

All other HTS subheadings 153,487 174,753 177,559 1.6 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to Canada 205,956 233,774 244,199 4.5 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 8523.40.10. 
A–61 

TABLE A.30 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Canada, by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 48,236 65,436 69,468 6.2 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 24,822 25,474 28,787 13.0 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 10,919 12,609 16,257 28.9 

2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 7,824 8,645 9,431 9.1 

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 13,646 12,825 7,927 –38.2 2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 7,122 (b) 

4407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, etc., over 

6 mm (0.236 in.) thick 2,685 2,658 3,246 22.1 

3104.20 Potassium chloride 2,929 3,560 3,225 –9.4 8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,345 2,615 2,972 13.6 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 2,800 2,503 2,758 10.2 

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway 

stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 2,568 2,486 2,612 5.1 

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 4,238 3,646 2,553 –30.0 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,862 2,195 2,294 4.5 7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 2,489 2,627 2,242 –14.7 7601.20 Aluminum alloys, unwrought 2,044 2,346 2,157 –8.0 2716.00 Electrical energy 2,071 2,096 1,914 –8.7 2711.12 Propane, liquefied 1,704 2,156 1,878 –12.9 3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 1,450 1,832 1,629 –11.1 2713.20 Petroleum bitumen 1,056 1,732 1,546 –10.8 8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,258 1,299 1,467 12.9 7106.91 Silver, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 1,008 1,382 1,453 5.2 4802.61 Uncoated paper/paperboard for writing/printing/other graphic purposes n.e.s.o.i., ov 10% total 

fiber by mechanical/chemical process, in rolls 1,713 1,639 1,401 –14.5 

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous 1,793 1,836 1,398 –23.9 

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 1,348 1,450 1,335 –8.0 8802.30 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not 

exceeding 15,000 kg 1,085 1,425 1,312 –7.9 

Total of items shown 143,890 166,475 178,384 7.2 

All other HTS subheadings 131,646 149,922 145,541 –2.9 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Canada 275,536 316,397 323,925 2.4 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. 
A–62 

TABLE A.31 U.S. merchandise trade with China, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 3,184 4,895 6,351 29.7 1 Beverages and tobacco 196 191 213 11.3 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 27,282 31,921 35,389 10.9 

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,333 2,008 2,519 25.4 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 430 188 349 85.7 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 12,416 14,030 13,065 –6.9 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 4,790 4,953 5,367 8.4 7 Machinery and transport equipment 29,292 31,702 32,209 1.6 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,516 5,961 7,205 20.9 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,306 1,048 840 –19.9 

Total 85,746 96,898 103,508 6.8 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 4,868 5,594 5,890 5.3 1 Beverages and tobacco 31 34 56 63.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,584 1,979 2,254 13.9 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 490 348 299 –14.1 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 48 50 56 12.8 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 10,713 13,858 14,146 2.1 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 37,561 42,202 45,569 8.0 7 Machinery and transport equipment 180,191 201,734 218,917 8.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 124,625 128,491 133,193 3.7 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,936 4,177 4,494 7.6 

Total 364,047 398,467 424,874 6.6 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A–63 

TABLE A.32 Leading domestic U.S. exports to China, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12HTS % change, provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (a) (a) 14,973 (b) 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 5,705 6,322 7,874 24.6 5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 2,064 2,562 3,422 33.6 7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 2,359 3,454 2,944 –14.8 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 1,657 2,912 2,881 –1.1 

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 2,025 2,731 2,370 –13.2 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,076 1,562 1,955 25.2 

8542.31 Processors or controllers 3,662 2,188 1,339 –38.8 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 288 850 1,319 55.2 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 572 828 1,222 47.6 

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 735 1,086 1,210 11.4 

4101.50 Whole raw bovine or equine hides and skins, of weight exceed 16 kg, fresh, pickled or 

otherwise preserved but not tanned or further prepared 471 618 827 33.8 

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

coniferous 545 782 702 –10.3 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 960 1,588 678 –57.3 2603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 593 687 664 –3.3 2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 910 707 653 –7.7 7403.11 Refined copper cathodes and sections of cathodes 196 5 628 12,850.4 2303.30 Brewing or distilling dregs and waste, whether or not in the form of pellets 504 340 618 82.0 9030.40 Instruments and apparatus n.e.s.o.i., specially designed for telecommunications (for example, 

cross-talk meters, gain measuring instruments etc.) 117 149 571 283.7 

4403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood or roughly squared, 

not treated 411 825 570 –31.0 

8408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel engines), 

n.e.s.o.i. 375 678 569 –16.1 

4707.30 Recovered (waste and scrap) paper or paperboard, made mainly of mechanical pulp (for 

example, newspapers, journals and similar printed matter 447 561 487 –13.1 

3824.90 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i.; residual 

products of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 303 310 473 52.3 

5502.00 Artificial filament tow 367 460 461 0.2 4702.00 Chemical woodpulp, dissolving grades 197 387 444 14.5  Total of items shown 26,541 32,593 49,854 53.0 

All other HTS subheadings 59,205 64,305 53,654 –16.6 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to China 85,746 96,898 103,508 6.8 Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. bNot applicable. 
A

–64

TABLE A.33 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from China, by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8471.30 Portable automatic data processing (ADP) machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of 

at least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 32,043 39,336 40,896 4.0 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 16,865 22,916 33,351 45.5 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 8,421 9,319 10,871 16.7 

9503.00 Toys, including riding toys o/than bicycles, puzzles, reduced scale models 9,775 9,401 9,307 –1.0 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or 

optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 9,937 8,780 8,582 –2.2 

9504.50 Video game consoles and machines, other than of 9504.30; parts and acc. (a) (a) 4,733 (b) 

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 3,104 3,614 4,225 16.9 8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 5,132 4,012 4,224 5.3 6403.99 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather and uppers of leather 

n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 4,721 4,399 4,148 –5.7 

6402.99 Footwear, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 3,626 3,697 3,977 7.6 8443.31 Machines which perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying or facsimile 

transmission, capable of connecting to an ADP machine or to a network 3,774 4,018 3,827 –4.8 

8504.40 Electrical static converters; power supplies for ADP machines or units of 8471 3,334 3,475 3,619 4.2 8443.99 Parts and accessories of printing machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 3,345 3,519 3,344 –5.0 8528.51 Monitors, other than crt, designed for use with ADP machines 3,975 3,452 3,138 –9.1 4202.92 Container bags, boxes, cases and satchels n.e.s.o.i., with outer surface of sheeting of plastics or 

of textile materials 2,690 2,893 3,071 6.1 

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 3,363 3,408 3,066 –10.0 8471.50 Processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 3,744 3,373 2,838 –15.9 

8525.80 Television cameras; digital cameras and video camera recorders 3,827 3,069 2,809 –8.5 6403.91 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather and uppers of leather 

n.e.s.o.i., covering the ankle 2,264 2,486 2,537 2.1 

9403.20 Metal furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 2,094 2,299 2,528 10.0 9401.61 Seats with wooden frames, upholstered, n.e.s.o.i. 2,173 2,085 2,464 18.2 9403.60 Wooden furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 2,409 2,311 2,390 3.4 6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, not knitted or 

crocheted 2,259 2,092 2,335 11.6 

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 1,570 3,365 2,255 –33.0 6404.19 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials, n.e.s.o.i. 431 623 2,242 260.1 

Total of items shown 134,877 147,941 166,780 12.7 

All other HTS subheadings 229,170 250,526 258,094 3.0 

Total U.S. imports for consumption from China 364,047 398,467 424,874 6.6 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 9504.10. bNot applicable. 
A–65 

TABLE A.34 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 10,357 13,566 14,099 3.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 314 350 375 7.1 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 5,489 6,987 7,092 1.5 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 14,149 23,286 23,660 1.6 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 819 972 935 –3.7 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 19,260 22,576 24,908 10.3 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 19,386 22,657 25,303 11.7 7 Machinery and transport equipment 46,292 52,691 60,691 15.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 10,230 10,614 11,425 7.6 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 5,306 6,210 6,671 7.4 

Total 131,602 159,910 175,159 9.5 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 11,786 14,017 14,382 2.6 1 Beverages and tobacco 2,566 2,730 2,908 6.5 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,447 1,870 1,629 –12.9 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 33,086 44,484 39,383 –11.5 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 51 71 88 23.6 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,031 4,836 5,121 5.9 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 14,785 18,994 19,768 4.1 7 Machinery and transport equipment 127,754 138,733 153,184 10.4 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 22,308 24,460 27,171 11.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 11,009 12,476 12,774 2.4 

Total 228,824 262,671 276,408 5.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A–66 

TABLE A.35 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Mexico, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 11,648 (b) 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 4,071 5,826 8,269 41.9 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,792 4,751 4,971 4.6 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 1,568 2,658 2,560 –3.7 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,243 1,408 2,219 57.7 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 1,514 1,841 2,178 18.3 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or 

optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 1,068 858 2,165 152.5 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,322 1,940 2,009 3.5 

8408.20 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel), for the 

propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock 1,214 1,682 1,865 10.9 

1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (c) (c) 1,860 (b) 

3926.90 Articles of plastics, n.e.s.o.i. 1,402 1,458 1,684 15.5 

8708.40 Gear boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 1,253 1,421 1,645 15.7 2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 1,039 1,748 1,584 –9.4 8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits, boards, panels etc. for electric control or 

distribution of electricity, n.e.s.o.i. 1,198 1,264 1,456 15.2 

2902.43 Para-xylene (1,4–dimethylbenzene) 1,019 1,516 1,423 –6.2 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,090 1,183 1,309 10.7 

7326.90 Articles of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i. 984 1,077 1,268 17.7 8544.49 Insulated electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 1000 v, not fitted with connectors 808 883 1,236 39.9 2909.19 Acyclic ethers (excluding diethyl ether) and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated 

derivatives 577 792 1,219 54.0 

8536.90 Electrical apparatus for switching, protecting or making connections to or in electrical circuits, 

for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 v, n.e.s.o.i. 814 887 1,134 27.8 

1001.99 Wheat & meslin other than durum or seed wheat (d) (d) 1,116 (b) 

8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), 

n.e.s.o.i. 733 798 976 22.4 

2603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 141 813 922 13.4 8708.50 Drive axles with differential and non-drive axles and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 592 778 917 17.9 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 659 641 880 37.3 

 Total of items shown 28,100 36,223 58,514 61.5 

All other HTS subheadings 103,502 123,687 116,646 –5.7 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to Mexico 131,602 159,910 175,159 9.5 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1001.90. 
A–67 

TABLE A.36 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Mexico, by HTS subheading, 2010–12HTS % change, provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 29,152 40,165 36,776 –8.4 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 12,115 11,415 12,208 6.9 

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, incorporating a screen or video display device, color 13,397 11,973 11,477 –4.1 

8471.50 Processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 9,252 10,503 11,055 5.3 

8704.31 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with spark-ignition internal combustion piston 

engine, gvw not over 5 metric tons 7,307 7,494 9,016 20.3 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 4,691 5,234 5,958 13.8 

8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets for vehicles, aircraft and ships 3,768 4,735 5,499 16.1 7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 3,984 5,543 5,427 –2.1 9401.90 Parts of seats (except parts of medical, dentist, barber and similar seats), n.e.s.o.i. 3,480 3,917 4,850 23.8 

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 2,867 4,074 4,477 9.9 7106.91 Silver, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 1,973 3,433 3,469 1.1 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,296 2,680 3,391 26.5 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,365 2,488 3,347 34.5 

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 1,563 2,211 3,238 46.4 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,017 2,531 3,185 25.8 

8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of 

electricity, for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 v 2,102 2,328 2,846 22.2 

8704.22 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with compression-ignition internal combustion 

piston engine (diesel), gvw over 5 but not over 20 metric tons 1,861 2,568 2,842 10.6 

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 2,512 2,680 2,682 0.0 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with separate external doors 1,894 2,168 2,241 3.3 8708.40 Gear boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 1,669 1,907 2,089 9.5 8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), 

n.e.s.o.i. 1,687 1,906 2,069 8.5 

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway 

stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 926 1,775 2,051 15.5 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 6,491 3,734 1,924 –48.5 2203.00 Beer made from malt 1,591 1,677 1,819 8.5 8708.95 Safety airbag with inflator system and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 1,293 1,396 1,646 18.0  Total of items shown 121,252 140,538 145,579 3.6 

All other HTS subheadings 107,572 122,133 130,829 7.1 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Mexico 228,824 262,671 276,408 5.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."
A–68 

TABLE A.37 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 10,792 13,106 12,413 –5.3 1 Beverages and tobacco 576 690 644 –6.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,859 4,160 3,681 –11.5 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,806 2,517 2,627 4.4 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 62 54 60 12.2 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 11,082 11,967 12,474 4.2 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 2,906 3,349 3,311 –1.1 7 Machinery and transport equipment 14,640 15,612 19,597 25.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 8,138 8,767 8,755 –0.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,865 1,188 1,035 –12.9 

Total 55,727 61,409 64,599 5.2 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 569 604 611 1.3 1 Beverages and tobacco 76 80 87 8.9 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 509 575 610 6.2 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 480 484 536 10.6 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 35 38 42 10.8 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 8,983 9,050 9,088 0.4 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 8,626 10,018 11,123 11.0 7 Machinery and transport equipment 87,683 93,552 108,403 15.9 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 9,612 10,427 10,180 –2.4 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 3,364 3,076 3,858 25.4 

Total 119,938 127,901 144,538 13.0 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A–69 

TABLE A.38 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Japan, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 4,214 4,024 7,017 74.4 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 3,024 3,830 2,979 –22.2 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 1,582 2,079 2,161 4.0 

1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (a) (a) 1,126 (b) 

1001.99 Wheat & meslin other than durum or seed wheat (c) (c) 1,073 (b) 0203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., fresh or chilled 776 976 1,008 3.2 9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 719 794 935 17.7 

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 456 1,199 897 –25.2 9018.39 Medical etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 741 785 762 –2.9 0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 678 791 759 –4.1 2909.19 Acyclic ethers (excluding diethyl ether) and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated 

derivatives 641 634 685 8.1 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 637 594 627 5.5 2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 635 690 625 –9.4 1214.90 Forage products, n.e.s.o.i., including rutabagas (swedes), mangolds, fodder roots, hay, clover, 

forage kale, vetches etc., whether or not in pellet form 446 503 593 18.0 

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 335 461 570 23.6 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 299 467 570 22.0 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (d) (d) 536 (b) 8529.90 Parts (except antennas and reflectors) for use with radio transmission, radar, radio navigational 

aid, reception and television apparatus, n.e.s.o.i. 147 294 526 79.1 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 497 628 484 –23.0 3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than those pharmaceuticals in heading 3002 

or 3006; certified reference materials 515 504 476 –5.5 

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds; alloys and other 

products containing enriched uranium or plutonium 716 615 476 –22.7 

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 183 137 448 227.3 7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 272 429 425 –1.0 9021.39 Artificial parts of the body (other than artificial joints) and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 480 492 412 –16.2 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 146 263 365 38.9 

 Total of items shown 18,139 21,190 26,533 25.2  All other HTS subheadings 37,588 40,218 38,066 –5.4 

Total domestic U.S. exports to Japan 55,727 61,409 64,599 5.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i.." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1001.90. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. 
A–70 

TABLE A.39 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Japan, by HTS subheading, 2010–12HTS % change, provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 17,196 17,343 22,252 28.3 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 13,283 11,655 13,834 18.7 

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printing machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 3,969 4,108 3,708 –9.7 

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 2,068 2,553 3,226 26.4 8708.40 Gear boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 1,625 2,013 2,941 46.1 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,382 2,493 2,927 17.4 

8703.22 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,000 cc but not over 1,500 cc 2,182 1,941 2,715 39.8 

8429.52 Mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders with 360 degree revolving superstructure, 

self-propelled 634 1,571 2,697 71.7 

8525.80 Television cameras; digital cameras and video camera recorders 2,363 2,110 2,277 7.9 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 1,766 2,618 2,121 –19.0 

8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 874 1,149 1,372 19.5 2933.79 Lactams (excluding 6–hexanelactam), n.e.s.o.i. 880 1,102 1,112 0.8 

8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), 

n.e.s.o.i. 879 881 1,099 24.7 

8408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel engines), n.e.s.o.i. 655 937 1,078 15.1 8486.90 Parts and accessories 867 1,000 968 –3.2 8457.10 Machining centers for working metal 383 679 941 38.6 8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 829 822 915 11.3 9102.11 Wrist watches, battery powered, with cases of materials (except of or clad with precious metal) 

n.e.s.o.i., with mechanical display only 671 842 863 2.4 

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically 

controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 619 678 798 17.6 

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing 

cars) 922 917 752 –18.0 

3818.00 Chemical elements doped for use in electronics, in the form of discs, wafers or similar forms; 

chemical compounds doped for use in electronics 786 843 738 –12.5 

9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus (and apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for 

checking physiological parameters) n.e.s.o.i., and parts, etc. 690 660 726 9.9 

8542.31 Processors or controllers 860 690 723 4.7 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 550 596 719 20.8 

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 753 891 673 –24.5  Total of items shown 58,687 61,094 72,174 18.1 

All other HTS subheadings 61,251 66,807 72,364 8.3 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Japan 119,938 127,901 144,538 13.0 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."
A

–71

TABLE A.40 U.S. merchandise trade with Korea, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 4,461 5,973 5,078 –15.0 1 Beverages and tobacco 53 57 81 41.2 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 3,553 4,473 4,048 –9.5 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,517 2,575 1,608 –37.5 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 89 74 43 –41.3 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 5,982 6,418 6,715 4.6 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,906 2,303 2,258 –1.9 7 Machinery and transport equipment 14,390 14,936 15,760 5.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 3,857 3,773 3,807 0.9 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,028 729 606 –16.9 

Total 36,836 41,311 40,004 –3.2 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 334 381 393 3.2 1 Beverages and tobacco 81 84 114 35.3 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 376 509 530 4.2 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,659 2,198 2,267 3.2 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 3 2 2 42.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,172 2,734 2,840 3.9 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,909 7,887 8,977 13.8 7 Machinery and transport equipment 34,078 38,605 39,054 1.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,299 2,710 2,756 1.7 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,003 897 941 4.9 

Total 47,914 56,006 57,874 3.3 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A–72 

TABLE A.41 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Korea, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,579 1,855 2,585 39.4 8542.31 Processors or controllers 235 964 1,976 105.0 8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 1,986 1,487 1,803 21.3 

8542.32 Memories 645 1,289 1,018 –21.0 7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 882 1,131 951 –15.9 

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 424 1,020 683 –33.1 

1001.99 Wheat & meslin other than durum or seed wheat (a) (a) 645 (b) 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 1,422 1,845 618 –66.5 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 246 344 541 57.2 

2926.10 Acrylonitrile 484 424 521 23.0 8486.90 Parts and accessories 350 477 454 –4.9 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 449 338 409 20.9 2707.30 Xylenes 379 511 397 –22.3 1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (c) (c) 395 (b) 9031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices or for inspecting 

photomasks or reticles used in manufg semiconductor devices 172 262 388 47.9 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 377 314 317 1.0 0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 121 346 307 –11.3 7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 215 294 287 –2.5 0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 212 368 268 –27.3 8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 238 189 252 33.2 4101.50 Whole raw bovine or equine hides and skins, of weight exceed 16 kg, fresh, pickled or 

otherwise preserved but not tanned or further prepared 133 180 250 38.3 

1214.90 Forage products, n.e.s.o.i., including rutabagas (swedes), mangolds, fodder roots, hay, clover, 

forage kale, vetches etc., whether or not in pellet form 179 201 234 16.6 

0805.10 Oranges, fresh 114 152 216 42.0 8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 720 368 215 –41.6 2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products 

which have a predominate (wt.) aromatic constituent, n.e.s.o.i. 305 340 214 –37.1 

Total of items shown 11,867 14,699 15,943 8.5 

All other HTS subheadings 24,969 26,612 24,061 –9.6 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to Korea 36,836 41,311 40,004 –3.2 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1001.90. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. 
A–73 

TABLE A.42 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Korea, by HTS subheading, 2010–12HTS % change, provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 5,625 7,617 9,079 19.2 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 7,490 7,617 4,501 –40.9 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 1,185 1,584 1,953 23.3 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,535 1,990 1,817 –8.7 

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,308 1,375 1,621 17.8 

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and 

racing cars) 949 1,180 1,299 10.0 

8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or 

optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 2,629 1,522 1,136 –25.4 

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with separate external doors 863 948 979 3.3 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 731 915 968 5.8 7306.29 Seamed steel casing or tubing of kind used in drill. oil/gas, w/ext. diam. 406.4 mm or less or 

o/than circ. x-sect 485 676 831 22.9 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 353 544 782 43.7 8429.52 Mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders with 360 degree revolving superstructure, 

self-propelled 97 282 652 131.4 

2902.20 Benzene 424 540 593 9.6 8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least 

a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 164 543 566 4.3 

8542.32 Memories 838 538 542 0.8 

8471.41 ADP machines comprising in same housing at least a central processing unit and an input and 

output unit, whether or not combined, n.e.s.o.i. 70 182 517 183.9 

7306.19 Seamed (o/than welded stainless steel) pipe, w/ext. diam 406.4 mm or less or o/than circ. xsect, line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines 190 417 514 23.3 8450.20 Household- or laundry-type washing machines, with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 kg 644 537 492 –8.4 8451.29 Drying machines (except centrifugal type) for textile yarns, fabrics or made up textile articles, 

with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 kg 525 540 477 –11.6 

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 334 283 460 62.4 

8708.40 Gear boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 131 148 442 199.3 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 336 360 409 13.6 

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway 

stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 116 434 402 –7.3 

8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes and parts thereof, for motor vehicles 225 288 378 31.0 8517.70 Parts of telecommunications apparatus 401 384 359 –6.5 

Total of items shown 27,648 31,445 31,767 1.0 

All other HTS subheadings 20,266 24,561 26,107 6.3 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Korea 47,914 56,006 57,874 3.3 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."
A

–74

TABLE A.43 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 374 304 323 6.2 1 Beverages and tobacco 8 13 11 –11.8 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 697 1,185 826 –30.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 4,188 6,325 7,176 13.5 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 15 11 12 14.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 7,342 9,274 8,506 –8.3 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,704 1,766 1,904 7.8 7 Machinery and transport equipment 13,045 15,347 15,398 0.3 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,012 2,203 2,303 4.5 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 773 847 793 –6.4 

Total 30,157 37,275 37,252 –0.1 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 2,432 3,563 2,875 –19.3 1 Beverages and tobacco 324 295 339 14.9 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,942 2,045 2,045 0.0 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 7,171 9,156 8,852 –3.3 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 40 53 56 5.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,092 2,676 3,634 35.8 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 4,080 6,191 6,295 1.7 7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,462 4,342 4,798 10.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 907 812 809 –0.4 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 953 1,235 2,018 63.3 

Total 23,402 30,368 31,720 4.5 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. 
A

–75

TABLE A.44 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Brazil, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 3,978 4,822 4,742 –1.7 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 1,892 2,440 3,876 58.8 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 1,284 (b) 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 1,228 1,713 1,237 –27.8 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 509 615 707 15.1 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 475 624 403 –35.4 2815.12 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), in aqueous solution (soda lye or liquid soda) 199 342 379 10.9 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 272 300 314 4.9 

3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate) and mixtures thereof with 

diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 255 491 306 –37.7 

3808.91 Insecticides 152 187 267 43.0 8411.99 Parts of gas turbines, n.e.s.o.i. (other than parts for turbojets or turbopropellers) 25 116 260 125.2 

3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 60 181 242 34.0 2902.50 Styrene (vinylbenzene; phenylethylene) 196 222 242 9.2 2711.12 Propane, liquefied 225 269 239 –11.2 8431.49 Parts and attachments, n.e.s.o.i., for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders etc. 

and other grading, scraping, etc. machinery 239 274 226 –17.6 

3907.20 Polyethers n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 140 192 221 15.3 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 52 56 218 285.3 9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts 

and accessories thereof 202 199 204 2.5 

2930.90 Organo-sulfur compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 198 206 197 –4.7 8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 148 134 191 42.5 3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than those pharmaceuticals in heading 3002 

or 3006; certified reference materials 128 171 190 11.3 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 164 211 188 –10.9 8411.82 Gas turbines, except turbojets and turbopropellers, of a power exceeding 5,000 kw 34 55 184 234.2 3906.90 Acrylic polymers n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 142 189 182 –3.7 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or 

optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 184 209 173 –17.1 

 Total of items shown 11,098 14,217 16,673 17.3 

All other HTS subheadings 19,059 23,057 20,579 –10.7 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to Brazil 30,157 37,275 37,252 –0.1 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. 
A

–76

TABLE A.45 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Brazil, by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 5,188 6,498 5,374 –17.3 7207.12 Semifinished products of iron or nonalloy steel, under 0.25% (wt.) carbon, rectangular cross 

section, width not less than twice the thickness 312 1,702 1,890 11.0 

2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 952 1,319 1,816 37.8 

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% vol. or higher 248 568 1,463 157.5 

0901.11 Coffee, not roasted, not decaffeinated 1,064 1,865 1,242 –33.4 7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5% (wt.) or less phosphorus, in primary forms 650 1,130 882 –21.9 4703.29 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, 

nonconiferous 912 911 820 –9.9 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 371 395 694 75.6 6802.93 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of granite 412 447 477 6.6 8802.30 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not exceeding 

15,000 kg 438 429 458 6.9 

8412.90 Parts for engines and motors, n.e.s.o.i. 88 175 438 150.9 8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines, n.e.s.o.i. 331 472 416 –11.8 

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 206 365 395 8.5 

8429.20 Graders and levelers, self-propelled 141 249 338 35.9 2401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 295 271 299 10.1 2902.43 Para-xylene (1,4–dimethylbenzene) 176 231 280 21.2 2902.20 Benzene 261 192 271 41.2 7202.93 Ferroniobium 201 244 269 10.2 4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing 

cars) 278 278 256 –8.1 

2711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons in a gaseous state, n.e.s.o.i. (other than natural 

gas) 222 282 251 –10.7 

2711.14 Ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, liquefied 188 255 244 –4.3 4409.10 Wood continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, v-jointed, beaded, molded, etc.) along any 

of its edges or faces, planed, etc. or not, coniferous 171 162 217 34.0 

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 0 3 215 7,006.3 1602.50 Meat or meat offal of bovine animals, prepared or preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 85 146 193 32.4 

8414.30 Compressors used in refrigerating equipment (including air conditioning) 182 176 166 –6.0 

Total of items shown 13,373 18,765 19,366 3.2 

All other HTS subheadings 10,029 11,603 12,354 6.5 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Brazil 23,402 30,368 31,720 4.5 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."
A

–77

TABLE A.46 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 2,115 2,530 2,103 –16.9 1 Beverages and tobacco 51 46 56 22.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 2,707 3,284 3,109 –5.3 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 138 117 459 292.5 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 17 10 9 –10.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,091 4,648 4,340 –6.6 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,122 1,334 1,159 –13.2 7 Machinery and transport equipment 10,402 9,067 8,052 –11.2 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 2,501 2,235 2,104 –5.9 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 759 503 441 –12.4 

Total 23,904 23,775 21,832 –8.2 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 279 331 346 4.5 1 Beverages and tobacco 15 18 21 16.8 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 256 284 231 –18.6 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 150 158 305 93.2 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 13 14 16 12.2 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 1,308 1,497 1,623 8.4 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 5,155 6,079 6,530 7.4 7 Machinery and transport equipment 21,997 25,989 22,926 –11.8 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 4,955 5,268 5,539 5.1 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,441 1,574 1,184 –24.8  Total 35,568 41,213 38,722 –6.0 Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A

–78

TABLE A.47 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Taiwan, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated 

circuits 2,492 1,371 1,935 41.1 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 715 1,339 1,235 –7.7 1201.90 Soybeans, whether or not broken, other than seed (a) (a) 763 (b) 

8542.32 Memories 892 1,344 678 –49.6 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,056 600 641 6.9 9031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices or for inspecting 

photomasks or reticles used in manufg semiconductor devices 526 443 466 5.3 

8486.90 Parts and accessories 578 422 406 –3.7 8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 572 569 406 –28.7 

1001.99 Wheat & meslin other than durum or seed wheat (c) (c) 357 (b) 2710.12 Light oils and preparations (d) (d) 352 (b) 8542.31 Processors or controllers 592 412 347 –15.8 1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 613 807 310 –61.5 8475.90 Parts of machines for assembling electric or electronic lamps, tubes etc. in glass envelopes and 

for manufacturing or hot working glass or glassware 223 393 293 –25.4 

2902.44 Mixed xylene isomers 186 253 254 0.5 7204.21 Stainless steel waste and scrap 349 268 227 –15.0 3824.90 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i.; residual 

products of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 182 203 202 –0.4 

7106.10 Silver powder 180 264 181 –31.4 2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds; alloys and other 

products containing enriched uranium or plutonium 164 163 171 4.4 

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 203 142 168 18.4 

0207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal (including livers) frozen 104 109 160 47.3 8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 194 161 159 –1.0 2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 181 197 159 –19.5 5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 190 175 156 –10.9 2933.71 6–hexanelactam (epsilon-caprolactam) 133 231 153 –34.0 3908.10 Polyamide–6, –11, –12, –6,6, –6,9, –6,10, or –6,12 (nylon type), in primary forms 148 223 145 –34.8 

 Total of items shown 10,473 10,088 10,325 2.4 

All other HTS subheadings 13,430 13,687 11,507 –15.9 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to Taiwan 23,904 23,775 21,832 –8.2 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1201.00. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 1001.90. dTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. 
A–79 

TABLE A.48 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Taiwan, by HTS subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 4,246 6,609 2,410 –63.5 8526.91 Radio navigational aid apparatus 1,294 978 1,377 40.7 8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or 

optical readers, transcribing machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 1,541 1,426 1,301 –8.8 

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,248 1,139 1,134 –0.4 8542.32 Memories 895 1,072 1,060 –1.1 8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 882 874 950 8.8 8542.31 Processors or controllers 994 956 889 –7.0 8525.80 Television cameras; digital cameras and video camera recorders 300 401 546 36.1 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 414 391 544 39.2 

8523.51 Solid state non volatile storage devices 480 579 514 –11.2 7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts n.e.s.o.i., with or without their nuts or washers, of iron or steel 417 513 510 –0.6 

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 373 256 478 87.0 8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for 

use on bicycles 374 426 446 4.8 

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 351 399 437 9.5 8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least 

a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 131 773 436 –43.6 

7318.14 Self-tapping screws, threaded, of iron or steel 362 388 427 10.0 

8712.00 Bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorized 346 411 427 3.9 8534.00 Printed circuits 329 353 351 –0.7 

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 168 269 324 20.2 

8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically 

controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 270 302 321 6.1 

7318.16 Nuts, threaded, of iron or steel 240 311 310 –0.4 8504.40 Electrical static converters; power supplies for ADP machines or units of 8471 301 355 308 –13.3 9506.91 Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics; n.e.s.o.i.; parts 

and accessories thereof 318 312 288 –7.5 

8523.41 Unrecorded optical media (a) (a) 269 (b) 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 227 247 268 8.5 

Total of items shown 16,503 19,742 16,325 –17.3 

All other HTS subheadings 19,066 21,471 22,397 4.3 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Taiwan 35,568 41,213 38,722 –6.0 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 8523.40.10. bNot applicable. 
A–80 

TABLE A.49 U.S. merchandise trade with India, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 475 554 636 14.8 1 Beverages and tobacco 5 5 5 2.7 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 1,136 1,550 1,536 –0.8 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 1,093 1,848 1,717 –7.1 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 154 10 102 880.8 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 3,737 4,357 3,450 –20.8 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 1,829 1,785 1,351 –24.3 7 Machinery and transport equipment 5,125 5,074 5,367 5.8 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 1,296 1,344 1,511 12.4 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 1,544 1,141 3,297 188.8 

Total 16,394 17,670 18,972 7.4 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 1,186 1,720 1,905 10.7 1 Beverages and tobacco 31 33 49 46.4 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 562 1,363 3,904 186.5 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 2,324 3,130 2,968 –5.2 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 97 133 106 –20.4 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 4,954 6,215 7,479 20.4 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 10,465 12,342 12,132 –1.7 7 Machinery and transport equipment 3,738 4,224 4,753 12.5 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 5,938 6,425 6,269 –2.4 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 320 418 542 29.7  Total 29,614 36,003 40,105 11.4 Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification.
A

–81

TABLE A.50 Leading domestic U.S. exports to India by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 1,179 769 2,903 277.5 8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 1,156 620 1,215 95.9 2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 462 917 856 –6.7 3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 1,079 1,237 557 –55.0 

2707.99 Oils and products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar, n.e.s.o.i.; similar products 

which have a predominate (wt.) aromatic constituent, n.e.s.o.i. 407 537 485 –9.6 

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 254 416 379 –8.8 0802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 196 256 279 8.8 7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 825 577 262 –54.6 2809.20 Phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids 153 272 221 –18.7 8431.49 Parts and attachments, n.e.s.o.i., for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders etc. 

and other grading, scraping, etc. machinery 31 103 214 107.4 

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 38 107 196 83.8 8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 188 178 171 –4.0 

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or 

paperboard 126 150 145 –3.3 

4801.00 Newsprint, in rolls or sheets 135 186 128 –31.1 9027.10 Gas or smoke analysis apparatus 10 14 125 766.4 8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines, n.e.s.o.i. 99 112 118 5.5 

2907.11 Phenol (hydroxybenzene) and its salts 54 56 115 104.1 3824.90 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i.; residual 

products of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i. 77 85 109 27.6 

2926.10 Acrylonitrile 84 89 101 12.6 

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts 

and accessories thereof 106 109 100 –8.4 

0808.10 Apples, fresh 38 81 97 19.5 1507.10 Soybean oil and its fractions, crude, whether or not degummed 133 (a) 96 384,492.9 

2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 94 94 90 –3.9 

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 48 82 90 9.5 3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than those pharmaceuticals in heading 

3002 or 3006; certified reference materials 56 91 88 –3.5 

Total of items shown 7,027 7,141 9,141 28.0 

All other HTS subheadings 9,367 10,529 9,832 –6.6 

 Total domestic U.S. exports to India 16,394 17,670 18,972 7.4 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included." 

aLess than $1 million. 
A–82 

TABLE A.51 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from India, by HTS subheading, 2010–12HTS % change, provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 5,166 6,263 5,398 –13.8 3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc. and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 1,840 2,465 3,500 42.0 

1302.32 Mucilages and thickeners, whether or not modified, derived from locust beans, locust bean 

seeds or guar seeds 221 914 3,373 269.2 

2710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 2,405 (b) 

7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 1,138 1,127 1,103 –2.1 6302.31 Bed linen (other than printed) of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 584 635 764 20.4 6302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen of cotton terry toweling or similar cotton terry fabrics 465 532 575 8.3 2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from 

petroleum oils or bitum. min. 202 425 552 30.0 

0306.17 Other shrimps and prawns, cooked in shell or uncooked, dried, salted or in brine, frozen (c) (c) 531 (b) 3004.20 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 256 361 378 4.5 6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 395 399 341 –14.5 7113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver 291 343 335 –2.2 0801.32 Cashew nuts, fresh or dried, shelled 184 307 264 –13.9 8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 180 199 221 11.1 2902.20 Benzene 69 163 210 29.0 6206.30 Women's or girls' blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 313 241 208 –13.8 

6205.20 Men's or boys' shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 207 250 207 –17.3 2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 67 213 205 –3.7 

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a screen or video display device 327 282 200 –29.2 7304.29 Casing and tubing of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas, of iron (except cast iron) or steel 130 192 200 4.0 7210.49 Flat-rolled iron or nonalloy steel products, not corrugated, 600 mm or more wide, plated or 

coated with zinc other than electrolytically 100 151 197 30.0 

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 203 237 192 –18.8 6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments of cotton, knitted or crocheted 202 233 191 –18.2 8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines, n.e.s.o.i. 114 173 188 8.3 

8481.90 Parts for taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including pressure 

reducing and thermostatically controlled valves 115 170 188 10.2 

Total of items shown 12,769 16,276 21,927 34.7 

All other HTS subheadings 16,845 19,728 18,179 –7.9 

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from India 29,614 36,003 40,105 11.4 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable. cTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0306.13. 
A–83 

TABLE A.52 U.S. merchandise trade with Russia, by SITC codes (revision 3), 2010–12

% change, 

SITC Codea Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

Exports: 

0 Food and live animals 1,067 1,164 1,525 31.0 1 Beverages and tobacco 52 53 68 29.3 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 186 176 238 34.7 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 47 45 47 4.4 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes 1 1 1 –0.7 5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 911 951 1,013 6.6 6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 302 383 347 –9.5 7 Machinery and transport equipment 2,647 4,276 6,083 42.3 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 414 560 620 10.6 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 29 27 34 23.6 

Total 5,657 7,637 9,976 30.6 

Imports: 

0 Food and live animals 285 282 244 –13.5 1 Beverages and tobacco 142 90 63 –30.3 2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels 270 244 212 –13.2 3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials 17,319 23,869 20,740 –13.1 4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes (b) (b) (b) 54.6 

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s. 2,563 3,139 2,321 –26.1 

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material 3,945 5,098 4,605 –9.7 7 Machinery and transport equipment 282 350 379 8.3 8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 353 503 431 –14.3 9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC 39 34 54 56.7 

 Total 25,199 33,610 29,049 –13.6 

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s." stands for "not elsewhere specified."

aSITC stands for Standard International Trade Classification. bLess than $1 million.
A–84 

TABLE A.53 Leading domestic U.S. exports to Russia, by Schedule B subheading, 2010–12

HTS % change, 

provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 

Million $ 

8800.00 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof 243 674 1,445 114.3 8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 78 231 410 77.1 

8431.43 Parts for boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i. 206 316 336 6.2 0207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal (including livers) frozen 315 243 296 22.0 0102.21 Live purebred breeding cattle (a) (a) 235 (b) 

8502.39 Generating sets, electric, n.e.s.o.i. 23 49 225 355.0 0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 95 130 221 69.9 0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 92 183 213 16.4 8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not over 3,000 cc 39 81 197 145.1 

3904.10 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms 154 215 193 –10.2 8802.60 Spacecraft (including satellites) and suborbital and spacecraft launch vehicles (c) (c) 178 (b) 8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 12 72 152 112.3 8701.30 Track-laying tractors 56 113 138 21.5 8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), 

cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 3 18 117 544.3 

8430.41 Boring or sinking machinery, n.e.s.o.i., self-propelled 49 113 110 –2.3 

8414.80 Air pumps and air or other gas compressors, n.e.s.o.i.; ventilating or recycling hoods 

incorporating a fan, n.e.s.o.i. 104 44 101 128.6 

0802.12 Almonds, fresh or dried, shelled 55 74 96 29.0 8704.10 Dumpers (dump trucks) designed for off-highway use 83 100 79 –20.5 8479.89 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 58 70 79 12.8 8431.49 Parts and attachments, n.e.s.o.i., for derricks, cranes, self-propelled bulldozers, graders etc. 

and other grading, scraping, etc. machinery 49 66 78 17.6 

3002.10 Antisera and other blood fractions, and modified immunological products 52 52 74 41.6 2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 34 41 68 66.0 9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 38 54 62 14.0 

8429.51 Mechanical front-end shovel loaders, self-propelled 17 38 58 50.2 3912.11 Cellulose acetates, non-plasticized, in primary forms 54 52 53 3.1 

Total of items shown 1,908 3,031 5,213 72.0 

All other HTS subheadings 3,749 4,606 4,763 3.4 

Total domestic U.S. exports to Russia 5,657 7,637 9,976 30.6 

Source: USDOC.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 0102 and 0102.10.00. bNot applicable. cLess than $1 million. 
A

–85

TABLE A.54 Leading U.S. imports for consumption from Russia, by HTS subheading, 2010–12HTS % change,provision Description 2010 2011 2012 2011–12

Million $ 

2710.19 Petroleum oils & oils (not light) from bituminous minerals or preps n.e.s.o.i. 70%+ by wt. from petroleum 

oils or bitum. min. 10,376 16,880 16,618 –1.6

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 4,062 3,514 2,093 –40.42710.12 Light oils and preparations (a) (a) 1,291 (b)

7207.12 Semifinished products of iron or nonalloy steel, under 0.25% (wt.) carbon, rectangular cross section, 

width not less than twice the thickness 480 525 890 69.6

2844.20 Uranium and its compounds enriched in u235; plutonium and its compounds; alloys and other products 

containing enriched uranium or plutonium 1,049 950 854 –10.1

7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5% (wt.) or less phosphorus, in primary forms 447 596 637 6.97601.20 Aluminum alloys, unwrought 199 292 381 30.27110.21 Palladium, unwrought or in powder form 241 765 355 –53.62814.10 Anhydrous ammonia 99 296 316 7.07502.10 Nickel, not alloyed, unwrought 685 510 289 –43.37601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 250 279 272 –2.42713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 405 560 244 –56.42711.29 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons in a gaseous state, n.e.s.o.i. (other than natural gas) 383 518 229 –55.93102.10 Urea, whether or not in aqueous solution 20 17 223 1,232.43102.80 Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution 140 180 193 7.50306.14 Crabs, including in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, frozen 216 207 175 –15.83104.20 Potassium chloride 358 555 168 –69.77115.90 Articles n.e.s.o.i., of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal 147 180 158 –12.17202.21 Ferrosilicon, containing more than 55% (wt.) silicon 159 134 153 14.28108.90 Titanium and articles thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 211 146 153 5.02901.21 Ethylene (ethene) 237 215 128 –40.24412.32 Plywood n.e.s.o.i., not of bamboo, not over 6 mm thickness with at least one outer ply of non-coniferous 

wood 90 91 106 16.4

7208.37 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, width of 600 mm or more, in coils, hot-rolled worked only, of 

a thickness 4.75 mm but not over 10 mm n.e.s.o.i. 28 64 103 61.6

9306.30 Cartridges and parts thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 88 72 102 41.9

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 99 101 93 –7.7

Total of items shown 20,469 27,646 26,226 –5.1

All other HTS subheadings 4,731 5,963 2,823 –52.7

 Total U.S. imports for consumption from Russia 25,199 33,610 29,049 –13.6

Source: USDOC.Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. The abbreviation "n.e.s.o.i." stands for "not elsewhere specified or included."

aTrade in 2010 and 2011 reported under HTS tariff line 2710.11. bNot applicable.