United States

International Trade Commission

The Year in Trade 2017

Operation of the Trade Agreements 

Program

69th Report

August 2018 

Publication Number: 4817
United States International Trade Commission

Commissioners

David S. Johanson, Chairman

Irving A. Williamson

Meredith M. Broadbent

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Jason E. Kearns

Catherine DeFilippo

Director, Office of Operations

William Powers

Director, Office of Economics

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
The Year in Trade 2017

Operation of the Trade Agreements 

Program

69th Report

August 2018 

Publication Number: 4817
This report was prepared principally by:

Project Leader

Joanne Guth, Office of Economics

Deputy Project Leader

Tamara Gurevich, Office of Economics

Office of Economics

Justino De La Cruz, Pamela Davis, Stephanie Fortune-Taylor, Alexander Hammer, Lin Jones, Grace 

Kenneally, Alissa Tafti, Edward Wilson, and Heather Wickramarachi

Office of General Counsel

William W. Gearhart

Office of Industries

Arthur Chambers, Natalie Hanson, Tamar Khachaturian, 

Sarah Oliver, and Laura Rodriguez

Office of Investigations

Brenna Cole, Mary Messer, and Salvatore Mineo

Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements

Donnette Rimmer and Daniel Shepherdson

Office of Unfair Import Investigations

David Lloyd

Office of Analysis and Research Services

Maureen Letostak, David Lundy, and Laura Thayn

Editorial Review

Judy Edelhoff and Peg Hausman

Statistical Review

Russell Duncan

Content Reviewer

Janis Summers

Administrative Support

Nabil Abbyad and Meryem Demirkaya

Help Desk and Customer Service Division (CIO)

Under the direction of

Arona Butcher, Chief

Country and Regional Analysis Division

Office of Economics
U.S International Trade Commission | 1

Preface

This report is the 69th 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) 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 2017. 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 by congressional legislation.
2 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 3

Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................... 1

Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................11

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................15

Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade..........................................29

Scope and Approach of the Report .......................................................................................... 29

Organization of the Report....................................................................................................... 29

Sources...................................................................................................................................... 30

Overview of the U.S. and Global Economies in 2017 ............................................................... 31

U.S. Economic Trends in 2017............................................................................................... 31

Global Economic Trends in 2017 .......................................................................................... 31

Exchange Rate Trends............................................................................................................... 33

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2017...................................................................................................... 34

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category...................................................................... 36

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners.................................................................... 37

U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement Partners.................................................................. 40

U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs................................................................... 40

U.S. Trade in Services in 2017................................................................................................... 40

U.S. Services Trade by Product Category.............................................................................. 41

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners............................................................................ 43

Timeline of Selected Key Trade Activities in 2017.................................................................... 45

Chapter 2 Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations..........................53

Import Relief Laws.................................................................................................................... 53

Safeguard Actions................................................................................................................. 53

Laws against Unfair Trade Practices......................................................................................... 54

Section 301............................................................................................................................ 54

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews..................................... 59

Section 337 Investigations.................................................................................................... 64

National Security Investigations............................................................................................... 66

Trade Adjustment Assistance ................................................................................................... 69

Assistance for Workers......................................................................................................... 69

Assistance for Firms.............................................................................................................. 72

Tariff Preference Programs....................................................................................................... 73

Generalized System of Preferences...................................................................................... 73

African Growth and Opportunity Act.................................................................................... 77

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.............................................................................. 81
The Year in Trade 2017

4 | www.usitc.gov

Chapter 3 The World Trade Organization..........................................................89

WTO .......................................................................................................................................... 89

Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference ................................................................................. 89

General Council..................................................................................................................... 90

Agreement on Trade Facilitation .......................................................................................... 93

Plurilateral Agreements Already in Force............................................................................. 94

Selected Plurilateral Agreements under Discussion............................................................. 96

Dispute Settlement Body.......................................................................................................... 97

New Requests for Consultations......................................................................................... 100

New Panels Established in 2017 That Involve the United States ....................................... 102

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2017 That Involve 

the United States ................................................................................................................ 104

Chapter 4 Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities..............................113

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development................................................. 113

Ministerial Council Meeting................................................................................................ 113

Trade Committee ................................................................................................................ 114

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ........................................................................................ 114

Background ......................................................................................................................... 114

2017 APEC Developments................................................................................................... 115

Negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement .................................................................... 117

Trade and Investment Framework Agreements..................................................................... 118

Developments in TIFA Negotiations during 2017............................................................... 120

Developments in Existing TIFAs during 2017...................................................................... 121

Chapter 5 U.S. Free Trade Agreements............................................................127

U.S. Trade with FTA Partners in 2017..................................................................................... 127

U.S. Total Merchandise Trade with FTA Partners............................................................... 127

U.S. Imports Entered under FTAs........................................................................................ 130

Developments in FTA Negotiations during 2017.................................................................... 132

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)........................................................................................... 132

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement.................................. 132

Developments in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)................................ 133

Renegotiation of the NAFTA ............................................................................................... 133

NAFTA’s Commission for Labor Cooperation ..................................................................... 135

NAFTA’s Commission for Environmental Cooperation....................................................... 136

NAFTA Dispute Settlement ................................................................................................. 137

Developments in Other U.S. FTAs Already in Force during 2017 ........................................... 139

U.S.-Australia FTA................................................................................................................ 140

U.S.-Bahrain FTA ................................................................................................................. 140
Table of Contents

U.S International Trade Commission | 5

CAFTA-DR ............................................................................................................................ 141

U.S.-Chile FTA...................................................................................................................... 142

U.S.-Colombia TPA .............................................................................................................. 142

U.S.-Israel FTA ..................................................................................................................... 143

U.S.-Jordan FTA................................................................................................................... 144

U.S.-Korea FTA (KORUS)...................................................................................................... 144

U.S.-Morocco FTA ............................................................................................................... 145

U.S.-Oman FTA.................................................................................................................... 146

U.S.-Panama TPA................................................................................................................. 146

U.S.-Peru TPA ...................................................................................................................... 147

U.S.-Singapore FTA.............................................................................................................. 147

Chapter 6 U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners...........................149

European Union ...................................................................................................................... 149

U.S.-EU Trade ...................................................................................................................... 149

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 151

China ....................................................................................................................................... 156

U.S.-China Trade.................................................................................................................. 156

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 159

Canada .................................................................................................................................... 162

U.S.-Canada Trade............................................................................................................... 162

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 164

Mexico..................................................................................................................................... 167

U.S.-Mexico Trade............................................................................................................... 167

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 169

Japan ....................................................................................................................................... 171

U.S.-Japan Trade ................................................................................................................. 171

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 173

Republic of Korea.................................................................................................................... 175

U.S.-South Korea Trade....................................................................................................... 175

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 178

India ........................................................................................................................................ 179

U.S.-India Trade................................................................................................................... 179

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 182

Taiwan..................................................................................................................................... 183

U.S.-Taiwan Trade............................................................................................................... 183

Trade Developments........................................................................................................... 185

Bibliography ...................................................................................................189

Appendix A Data Tables..................................................................................221

Appendix B Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report............303
The Year in Trade 2017

6 | www.usitc.gov

Boxes

Box 2.1 National security investigations on steel and aluminum, developments 

January–March 2018................................................................................................................................... 68

Figures

Figure ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2003–17................................................................. 16

Figure ES.2 U.S. goods and services trade with major bilateral trading partners, 2017 ............................ 23

Figure 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2013–17 .............................................. 31

Figure 1.2 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and major trading partners, 

2015–17 ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 1.3 Indexes of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................................ 34

Figure 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2015–17..................................................................... 35

Figure 1.5 Leading U.S. export markets, by share, 2017 ............................................................................ 39

Figure 1.6 Leading U.S. import sources, by share, 2017............................................................................. 39

Figure 1.7 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with the world, 2015–17 ....................................... 41

Figure 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2017 ............................................ 44

Figure 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources for private services, by share, 2017............................................. 44

Figure 2.1 Share of TAA petitions certified by industry sector in FY 2017 ................................................. 72

Figure 3.1 Timeline for the WTO Dispute Settlement Process................................................................... 98

Figure 6.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2013–17........................................................................ 150

Figure 6.2 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with the EU, 2013–17.......................................... 150

Figure 6.3 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2013–17 ......................................................................... 158

Figure 6.4 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with China, 2013–17............................................ 158

Figure 6.5 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2013–17 ...................................................................... 163

Figure 6.6 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Canada, 2013–17......................................... 163

Figure 6.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2013–17....................................................................... 168

Figure 6.8 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Mexico, 2013–17......................................... 168

Figure 6.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2013–17 ......................................................................... 172

Figure 6.10 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Japan, 2013–17 ......................................... 172

Figure 6.11 U.S. merchandise trade with South Korea, 2013–17............................................................. 177

Figure 6.12 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with South Korea, 2013–17............................... 177

Figure 6.13 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2013–17 ........................................................................ 181

Figure 6.14 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with India, 2013–17........................................... 181

Figure 6.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2013–17..................................................................... 184

Figure 6.16 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Taiwan, 2013–17 ....................................... 184
Table of Contents

U.S International Trade Commission | 7

Tables

Table 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by USITC digest sector, 

2016–17 (million dollars) ............................................................................................................................ 36

Table 1.2 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 

2017 (million dollars) .................................................................................................................................. 38

Table 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 

2016–17 (million dollars) ............................................................................................................................ 38

Table 1.4 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with major trading partners and the world, 2017 

(million dollars) ........................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2017 ................................................... 61

Table 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2017................................................. 63

Table 2.3 TAA certifications, by region, FY 2017 ........................................................................................ 71

Table 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) beneficiaries, 

2015–17 ...................................................................................................................................................... 76

Table 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from Nepal, 2015–17.................................................................. 77

Table 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA beneficiaries, 2015–17............................................ 80

Table 2.7 U.S. general imports of apparel under AGOA, by country, 2015–17.......................................... 81

Table 2.8 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA/CBTPA beneficiaries, 2015–17............................... 83

Table 2.9 U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti, 2015–17.............................................................................. 85

Table 4.1 U.S. trade and investment framework agreements in 2017 .................................................... 119

Table 5.1 Total U.S. exports to FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17.................................................. 128

Table 5.2 Total U.S. imports from FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17 ............................................. 129

Table 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade balance with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17........................ 130

Table 5.4 U.S. imports for consumption that entered under FTA provisions, 

by FTA partner, 2015–17 .......................................................................................................................... 131

Table 5.5 Ratio of U.S. imports for consumption under FTAs to U.S. general imports,

by partner, 2015–17................................................................................................................................. 132

Table 5.6 Timetable of major NAFTA negotiations, 2017–18................................................................... 134

Table 5.7 Active files as of yearend 2017 under Articles 14 and 15 of the 

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation................................................................... 136

Table 5.8 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews through 2017 ........................................ 139

Table A.1 U.S. total exports to the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 ........................................... 223

Table A.2 U.S. general imports from the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17.................................. 223

Table A.3 Leading U.S. total exports to the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17........................ 224

Table A.4 Leading U.S. general imports from the world, by HTS subheading, 2015–17.......................... 225

Table A.5 U.S. merchandise trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2017............................ 226

Table A.6 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise export markets, 2017 .............................................. 226

Table A.7 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise import sources, 2017............................................... 227

Table A.8 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2015–17........................................... 228

Table A.9 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2015–17...................................... 228

Table A.10 Antidumping cases active in 2017, by USITC investigation number ...................................... 229
The Year in Trade 2017

8 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.11 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in 

effect as of December 31, 2017................................................................................................................ 233

Table A.12 Countervailing duty cases active in 2017, by USITC investigation number............................ 240

Table A.13 Countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in effect 

as of December 31, 2017 .......................................................................................................................... 242

Table A.14 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspended 

investigations completed in 2017, by date of completion. ...................................................................... 244

Table A.15 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by 

the Commission during 2017 and those pending on December 31, 2017 ............................................... 246

Table A.16 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2017.................................... 254

Table A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, by source, 2015–17............................................. 260

Table A.18 Value of U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, 

by USITC digest sector, 2015–17............................................................................................................... 261

Table A.19 Share of U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, 

by USITC digest sector, 2015–17............................................................................................................... 261

Table A.20 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, 

by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17......................................................................................................... 262

Table A.21 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA 

(excluding GSP), by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ............................................................................. 263

Table A.22 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA 

(excluding GSP), by source, 2015–17........................................................................................................ 264

Table A.23 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, 

by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17......................................................................................................... 265

Table A.24 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2015–17......................................... 266

Table A.25 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, 

developments in 2017 .............................................................................................................................. 267

Table A.26 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year 

review determinations of USITC and USDOC, developments in 2017...................................................... 278

Table A.27 U.S. total exports to the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 .............................................. 279

Table A.28 U.S. general imports from the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17..................................... 279

Table A.29 Leading U.S. total exports to the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17........................... 280

Table A.30 Leading U.S. total imports from the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17...................... 281

Table A.31 U.S. total exports to China, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17................................................ 282

Table A.32 U.S. general imports from China, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17....................................... 282

Table A.33 Leading U.S. total exports to China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ............................ 283

Table A.34 Leading U.S. general imports from China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17................... 284

Table A.35 U.S. total exports to Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17............................................. 285

Table A.36 U.S. general imports from Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17.................................... 285

Table A.37 Leading U.S. total exports to Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ......................... 286

Table A.38 Leading U.S. general imports from Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ................ 287

Table A.39 U.S. total exports to Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 ............................................. 288

Table A.40 U.S. general imports from Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17.................................... 288

Table A.41 Leading U.S. total exports to Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17.......................... 289

Table A.42 Leading U.S. general imports from Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ................ 290
Table of Contents

U.S International Trade Commission | 9

Table A.43 U.S. total exports to Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17................................................ 291

Table A.44 U.S. general imports from Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 ...................................... 291

Table A.45 Leading U.S. total exports to Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ............................ 292

Table A.46 Leading U.S. total imports from Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 ....................... 293

Table A.47 U.S. total exports to South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 ..................................... 294

Table A.48 U.S general imports from South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17............................. 294

Table A.49 Leading U.S. total exports to South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17.................. 295

Table A.50 Leading U.S. general imports from South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 

2015–17 .................................................................................................................................................... 296

Table A.51 U.S. total exports to India, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17................................................. 297

Table A.52 U.S. general imports from India, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17........................................ 297

Table A.53 Leading U.S. total exports to India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17.............................. 298

Table A.54 Leading U.S. general imports from India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17 .................... 299

Table A.55 U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17 ............................................. 300

Table A.56 U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17.................................... 300

Table A.57 Leading U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17.......................... 301

Table A.58 Leading U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17................. 302

Table B.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2003–17 (million dollars) ....................................... 305

Table B.2 U.S. goods and services trade with major bilateral trade partners, 2017 

(million dollars) ......................................................................................................................................... 305

Table B.3 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2013–17 ............................................. 305

Table B.4 Economic (GDP) growth trends in the world, the United States, and major 

trading partners 2015–17 (percent) ......................................................................................................... 306

Table B.5 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2013–17 ....................... 307

Table B.6 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2017 ............................. 308

Table B.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with selected major trading 

partners and the world ............................................................................................................................. 309

Table B.8 U.S. private cross-border services trade with major trading partners 

and the world, 2017.................................................................................................................................. 310

Table B.9 TAA petitions certified, by industry sector, FY 2017 ................................................................ 310
10 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 11

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronyms Term

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act

AIT American Institute in Taiwan

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ATAP U.S.-Israel Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products

BDCs beneficiary developing countries

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC)

Brexit Britain’s vote to leave the European Union

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

CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market

CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act

CBP Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)

CED Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (U.S.-China)

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CLC Commission for Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)

CNL competitive need limitation

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

CRS Congressional Research Service

CSPV crystalline silicon photovoltaic (cells)

CTI Committee on Trade and Investment (APEC)

CTPA U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

CVD countervailing duty

DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)

DSB Dispute Settlement Body (WTO)

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EDA Economic Development Administration (USDOC)

EGA Environmental Goods Agreement

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EIAP Earned Import Allowance Program

EIU Economist Intelligence Unit

ETA Employment and Training Administration (USDOL)

EU European Union

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA)

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FDI foreign direct investment

Fed. Reg. Federal Register

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FTA free trade agreement

FTAAP Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific

FTC Free Trade Commission (under U.S. FTAs)

FY fiscal year

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GCC Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council)

GDP gross domestic product

GMP good manufacturing practice
The Year in Trade 2017

12 | www.usitc.gov

Acronyms Term

GPA Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO)

GSP Generalized System of Preferences

GVC global value chain

HELP Haiti Economic Lift Program

HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act

HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

ICT information and communications technology

ILAB Bureau of International Labor Affairs (USDOL)

IMF International Monetary Fund

IP intellectual property

IPR intellectual property rights

ITA Information Technology Agreement (WTO)

JCCT Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade

KORUS U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement

LDBDC least-developed beneficiary developing country

LDCs lesser-developed countries

LTFV less than fair value

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (Japan)

MOU memorandum of understanding

MSMEs micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises

MRA mutual recognition agreement

MRL maximum residue limit

mt metric tons

n.d. not dated

NAALC North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NAO National Administrative Office (NAFTA)

n.e.s.o.i. not elsewhere specified or included

n.i.e. not included elsewhere

NTPA Nepal Trade Preference Act

NTPP Nepal Trade Preference Program

NTR normal trade relations (U.S. equivalent to most-favored-nation treatment)

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

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

OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel (USDOC)

PSU Policy Support Unit (APEC)

PTPA U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement

Pub. L. Public Law

RTA regional trade agreement

S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue (U.S.-China)

SACU Southern Africa Customs Union

SAT Tax Administration Service (Mexico)

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary (standards)

SSA sub-Saharan Africa

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance

TAAEA Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act

TAARA Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015

TEC Transatlantic Economic Council
Abbreviations and Acronyms

U.S International Trade Commission | 13

Acronyms Term

TECRO Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

TICFA Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement

TIFA Trade and Investment Framework Agreement

TiSA Trade in Services Agreement

TiVA Trade in Value Added (OECD–WTO initiative)

TPA trade promotion agreement

TPEA Trade Preferences Extension Act

TPF U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership

TPLs tariff preference levels

TRAs Trade Readjustment Allowances

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

TRQ tariff-rate quota

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (U.S.-EU)

UN United Nations

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USCC U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOL U.S. Department of Labor

USDOS U.S. Department of State

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USITC U.S. International Trade Commission

USTR U.S. Trade Representative

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WTO World Trade Organization
14 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 15

Executive Summary

The level of U.S. imports and U.S. exports of goods and services depends on many factors, including the 

strength of the U.S. and global economies. Growth in these economies contributes to growth in crossborder trade. The rate of global economic growth increased in 2017, rising from 2.5 percent in 2016 to 

3.3 percent in 2017. Economic growth in the United States also increased in 2017: U.S. real gross 

domestic product (GDP) grew 2.3 percent in 2017, compared to an increase of 1.5 percent in 2016. 

Overall global economic growth was fueled by growth of advanced economies such as the United States 

and top trading partners including the European Union (EU), Canada, and Japan. Some emerging and 

developing economies—e.g., China, South Korea, and Taiwan—also contributed to global economic 

growth. India and Mexico, however, grew at a slower rate in 2017 than in 2016.

Both U.S. exports and U.S. imports of goods increased in value in 2017. The value of U.S. merchandise 

exports totaled $1,546.7 billion in 2017, up 6.6 percent ($95.7 billion) from $1,451.0 billion in 2016. The 

value of U.S. merchandise imports totaled $2,342.9 billion in 2017, up 7.1 percent ($155.1 billion) from 

$2,187.8 billion in 2016. The largest increase in both U.S. imports and U.S. exports was in energy-related 

products. In particular, the increase in the value of U.S. imports of crude petroleum was due to the 

increase in the price of U.S. crude, whereas the increase in the value of U.S. exports of crude was driven 

by increases in both the price and volume of U.S. crude exports, resulting in a decline in the sector’s 

deficit to $4.5 billion. The agricultural sector was the only goods sector to experience a trade surplus in 

2017, with $5.7 billion more in exports than imports. The trade deficit in the other sectors of the U.S. 

economy increased. Overall, U.S. imports increased more than U.S. exports in terms of value, resulting in 

an increase in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit from $752.5 billion in 2016 to $811.2 billion in 2017 

(figure ES.1). 

U.S. two-way cross-border trade in private services, which excludes exports and imports of government 

goods and services n.i.e., increased 5.0 percent to $1,277.7 billion in 2017. U.S. exports of private 

services grew 3.8 percent to $761.7 billion in 2017, while U.S. imports of private services grew 6.8 

percent to reach $516.0 billion in 2017. As a result, the U.S. surplus in private services fell from $250.4 

billion in 2016 to $245.7 billion in 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

16 | www.usitc.gov

Figure ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2003–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, “Table 1.2: U.S. International Transactions, Expanded 

Detail,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.1. 

In 2017, the U.S. dollar depreciated 6.3 percent against a broad trade-weighted index of major foreign 

currencies, including against some major emerging-market currencies, such as the Mexican peso and the 

Chinese yuan. Between January 1 and December 31, 2017, the U.S. dollar depreciated by 12.0 percent 

against the euro, 9.4 percent against the United Kingdom (UK) pound, 6.5 percent against the Chinese 

yuan, and 6.1 percent against the Mexican peso. 

Key Trade Developments in 2017

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations

Safeguard actions: The U.S. International Trade Commission (the Commission) conducted two new 

safeguard investigations during 2017, both under the global safeguard provisions in sections 201–204 of 

the Trade Act of 1974. The first investigation concerned imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells 

(CSPV cells); the second, imports of large residential washers (washers). Both investigations were 

conducted following receipt of a petition from a domestic producer of each article. The Commission 

made affirmative injury determinations in each investigation and, to address the serious injury, 

recommended remedy measures to the President.

Section 301: There were two ongoing investigations in 2017 under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

The first investigation was instituted in 1987 and concerned various EU meat hormone directives, which 

prohibit the use of certain hormones that promote growth in farm animals. Following a successful 

challenge at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States imposed additional duties on 

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Goods Services
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 17

certain imports from the EU in 1999. In 2012, the United States and the EU signed a provisional 

settlement, and the United States lifted the additional duties. In December 2016, representatives of the 

U.S. beef industry filed a request with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) asking that the 

additional duties be reinstated, and USTR initiated a process to consider whether to reinstate the 

additional duties.

The second investigation was self-initiated by the USTR in August 2017. The investigation is considering 

whether a wide variety of acts, policies, and practices by the government of China related to technology 

transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are actionable under section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. 

Under the statute, USTR generally has up to 12 months from the date of initiation to determine whether 

the statutory requirements under section 301 have been met and, if so, what action to take. The China 

technology transfer 301 investigation was ongoing at the end of 2017.

Special 301: In the 2017 Special 301 Report, USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of 

intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in more than 100 countries. The 2017 Special 301 Report

listed 11 countries on the priority watch list (Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, 

Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela) and 23 countries on the watch list. In December 2017, USTR 

issued the 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets report, which highlighted over 25 internetbased markets and 12 countries with physical marketplaces (e.g., shops) that reportedly engage in or 

facilitate substantial copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.

Antidumping duty investigations: The Commission instituted 58 new antidumping investigations and 

made 54 preliminary determinations and 36 final determinations during 2017. Antidumping duty orders 

were issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) in 33 of the final investigations on 15 

products from 16 countries.

Countervailing duty investigations: The Commission instituted 26 new countervailing duty 

investigations, and made 17 preliminary determinations and 16 final determinations during 2017. 

Countervailing duty orders were issued by the USDOC in 11 of the final investigations on 9 products 

from 5 countries.

Sunset reviews: During 2017, the Commission instituted 32 sunset reviews of existing antidumping duty 

and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements that had been in effect for five years, as 

required by law. The Commission completed 46 reviews, resulting in the continuation of 45 antidumping 

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

Section 129 investigations: Section 129 of the U.S. Uruguay Round Agreements Act established a 

procedure by which the Administration may respond to certain adverse WTO panel or Appellate Body 

reports. On December 18, 2017, USDOC initiated a section 129 proceeding in connection with the 

recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in United States—AntiDumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea (DS464). The section 

129 proceeding is expected to be completed in 2018.

Section 337 investigations: During calendar year 2017, there were 130 active section 337 investigations 

and ancillary proceedings alleging unfair import practices, such as patent infringement. Seventy-four of 

these active investigations were instituted in 2017. Of the 74 new proceedings, 59 were new section 337 

investigations and 15 were new ancillary (secondary) proceedings relating to previously concluded 
The Year in Trade 2017

18 | www.usitc.gov

investigations. The Commission completed a total of 64 investigations and ancillary proceedings under 

section 337 in 2017, and issued 5 general exclusion orders, 12 limited exclusion orders, and 30 cease and 

desist orders.

Commission proceedings in 2017 involved a wide variety of products. As in prior years, technology 

products were the single largest category, with about 38 percent of the active proceedings involving 

computer and telecommunications equipment and another 6 percent involving consumer electronics. In 

addition, pharmaceuticals and medical devices were at issue in about 13 percent of the active 

proceedings and automotive, transportation, and manufacturing products were at issue in about 10 

percent of the active proceedings.

National Security Investigations: In April 2017, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce initiated two new 

investigations under the national security provisions of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 

the first such investigations since 2001. The first investigation concerned imports of steel and the second 

concerned imports of aluminum. Both investigations were in progress at the end of 2017.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) 

received 1,037 petitions for TAA, down 30.8 percent from the 1,498 petitions received in FY 2016. The 

USDOL certified 844 petitions covering 94,017 workers as eligible for TAA, and denied 234 petitions 

covering 32,038 workers. In FY 2016, the latest data available, USDOC certified 68 petitions as eligible 

for assistance under the TAA for Firms program, and approved 75 adjustment proposals.

Trade Preference Programs

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): U.S. imports under GSP increased 11.9 percent, reaching

$21.2 billion in 2017. These imports accounted for 9.9 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary 

countries and 0.9 percent of total U.S. imports. The top five beneficiary countries (India, Thailand, Brazil, 

Indonesia, and Turkey) accounted for 74.5 percent of GSP imports.

Based on the 2016/2017 GSP Annual Review directed by USTR, new duty-free status under the GSP 

program was extended to all GSP beneficiaries for 23 categories of travel goods (including luggage, 

backpacks, handbags, and wallets) that had become eligible for duty-free treatment when exported by 

least-developed beneficiary developing countries and African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 

countries in 2016. On December 22, 2017, Argentina’s GSP eligibility was reinstated after a nearly sixyear suspension. Ukraine’s GSP eligibility was partially removed on December 22, 2017, due to failure to 

adequately protect IPRs. Also, in June 2017, USTR self-initiated a country practice review of Bolivia’s 

eligibility for GSP benefits because of worker rights issues.

Nepal Trade Preference Act (NTPA): The NTPA was implemented in December 2016 to improve Nepal’s 

export competitiveness and help Nepal’s economic recovery following a 2015 earthquake. In 2017, the 

first full year that the NTPA was in effect, U.S. imports from Nepal under NTPA were $2.3 million, 

accounting for 2.5 percent of total U.S. imports from Nepal.

African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): In 2017, 38 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries were 

eligible for AGOA benefits. An additional two countries—The Gambia and Swaziland—were redesignated as eligible for AGOA benefits effective December 22, 2017, bringing the total as of yearend 

2017 to 40 SSA countries. Of these countries, 27 were also eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits 
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 19

for all or part of 2017. Togo, the host of the 16th annual AGOA Forum held on August 8–10, 2017, 

became eligible for apparel benefits on August 22, 2017. Also, USTR initiated an out-of-cycle review of 

AGOA eligibility for Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda on June 20, 2017.

In 2017, imports entering the United States exclusively under AGOA (excluding GSP) were valued at 

$12.5 billion, a 32.4 percent increase from 2016. The increase in U.S. imports under AGOA in 2017 can 

be attributed to an increase in the value and quantity of imports of crude petroleum. An additional $1.3 

billion from AGOA beneficiary countries entered the United States duty-free under GSP. In total, AGOA 

and GSP preference programs accounted for 55.4 percent of total imports from AGOA beneficiary 

countries in 2017.

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA): At yearend 2017, 17 countries and dependent 

territories were eligible for CBERA preferences, and 8 of those countries were designated eligible for 

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) preferences. In 2017, the value of U.S. imports under 

CBERA (including CBTPA) increased by 10.3 percent to $961 million, mainly reflecting an increase in U.S. 

imports of methanol and polystyrene from Trinidad and Tobago and The Bahamas, respectively, which 

are both major imports under CBERA. U.S. imports under CBERA of crude petroleum continued to 

decline as U.S. production increased. Trinidad and Tobago was the leading supplier of U.S. imports under 

CBERA in 2017, followed by Haiti.

Haiti initiatives: While the value of U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti increased 2.1 percent to $866.7 

million in 2017, the value of such imports entering under the Haitian Hemisphere Opportunity through 

Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 and 2008 (HOPE Acts) increased 7.9 percent to $577.0 million. 

The latter accounted for just over two-thirds of total U.S. apparel imports that entered from Haiti dutyfree, with the remainder entering under CBERA. Garments of manmade fibers accounted for a growing 

share of U.S. apparel imports from Haiti, in contrast to the declining share accounted for by cotton 

apparel. The main factors in the overall level of U.S. apparel imports from Haiti are trade preferences 

under the HOPE Acts, proximity to the U.S. market, low labor costs, and a recent infusion of foreign 

investment in Haiti.

World Trade Organization (WTO) 

WTO developments: The 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization was held 

December 10–13, 2017, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. As a result of this conference, the ministers decided 

to open negotiations on possible disciplines on fisheries subsidies; WTO members agreed to continue 

their moratorium on collecting customs duties on electronic commerce transactions; and members 

agreed to continue their moratorium on certain forms of dispute settlement cases—so-called 

nonviolation and situation complaints—involving IPRs. While members agreed at the Ministerial 

Conference to consider establishing a formal working group to discuss micro, small, and medium-size 

enterprises, they were unable to reach agreement on the issue of public stockholding of foodstuffs for 

food security purposes, as well as a number of issues involving ongoing negotiations in the Doha 

Development Agenda.

In other WTO developments, WTO membership remained at 164 in 2017, with South Sudan requesting 

WTO observer status in November 2017. Roberto Azevêdo was reappointed as WTO Director-General 

for a second term of four years, which began in September 2017. On February 22, 2017, the WTO 
The Year in Trade 2017

20 | www.usitc.gov

Agreement on Trade Facilitation entered into force, after ratification by a two-thirds majority of WTO 

members. WTO members that participated in the 2012–15 negotiations to expand the so-called WTO 

Information Technology Agreement implemented their second set of tariff reductions for over 200 

information technology products on July 1, 2017. Negotiation for an agreement on trade in 

environmental goods remained at an impasse in 2017.

WTO dispute settlement: During 2017, WTO members filed 17 requests for WTO dispute settlement 

consultations in new disputes, which was about the average for the five preceding years. The United 

States was the complainant in 3 of the 17 requests filed during 2017, and the named respondent in 4. 

Two of the 3 new requests filed by the United States during 2017 concerned measures maintained by 

the Canadian province of British Columbia governing the sale of wine in grocery stores. The third request 

was related to subsides paid by China to producers of primary aluminum. The United States was the 

named respondent in 4 new disputes—3 filed by Canada on U.S. countervailing duty and antidumping 

measures, and 1 filed by Turkey on U.S. countervailing duty measures.

Four new dispute settlement panels were established during 2017 in which the United States was either 

the complainant or the respondent. The United States was the complaining party in two disputes 

involving China, and the responding party in two disputes filed by India and Turkey, respectively.

In the President’s 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, the United States summarized its 

concerns about the WTO dispute settlement process. In particular, the report described longstanding 

concerns that WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body have been adding to or 

diminishing the rights and obligations of WTO members under the WTO Agreement by not applying the 

WTO Agreement as written. The report also described a number of other concerns, including concerns 

raised at 2017 WTO Dispute Settlement Body meetings about service on the Appellate Body by persons 

who are no longer Appellate Body members. Since the summer of 2017, U.S. officials have had the view 

that this issue must be resolved before the United States will consider supporting new appointments to 

the Appellate Body.

OECD, APEC, TiSA, and TIFAs

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD ministerial council 

meeting was held in Paris, France, on June 7–8, 2017. Discussions centered on how to share the gains 

from globalization more broadly. In 2017, the OECD Trade Committee focused its work on broad areas 

involving trade and the digital economy, as well as on trade and investment matters. At the September 

2016 G20 Summit, the OECD was tasked by G20 ministers with actively facilitating the work of the 

Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. November 2017 marked the Global Forum’s first ministerial 

meeting.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC): Under Vietnam’s leadership in 2017, cooperation among 

APEC member economies focused on “Creating New Dynamism, Fostering a Shared Future.” According 

to APEC, this cooperation pursued the following four priorities: “promoting sustainable, innovative and 

inclusive growth; deepening regional economic integration; strengthening micro, small and medium 

enterprises’ (MSMEs) competitiveness and innovation in the digital age; and enhancing food security 

and sustainable agriculture in response to climate change.”
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 21

APEC highlights in 2017 included the completion of three major reports: two on digital trade and 

electronic commerce (e-commerce), and one on the investment climate for global value chains (GVCs). 

Other important highlights included (1) projects and a workshop on facilitating MSMEs’ use of IPRs and 

promoting MSMEs’ participation in the global economy through GVCs and e-commerce; (2) case studies 

on environmental services; and (3) efforts to advance the realization of the Free Trade Area of the Asia 

Pacific through capacity building and an information-sharing mechanism.

Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA): In 2017, the 23 participants conducted no new rounds of trade 

negotiations, and as of the end of 2017, none were scheduled for 2018.

Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs): TIFAs provide a framework to expand trade and 

investment and a forum to resolve trade and investment issues between the United States and various 

trading partners. By yearend 2017, the United States had entered into 57 TIFAs, including a new TIFA 

with Paraguay on January 13, 2017. A number of TIFA Council meetings took place in 2017, including 

those with Central Asia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, 

Thailand, and Vietnam.

U.S. Free Trade Agreements 

U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) in force in 2017: The United States was party to 14 FTAs involving a 

total of 20 countries as of December 31, 2017. Starting with the most recent agreement, the FTAs in 

force during 2017 were Panama (which entered into force in 2012); Colombia (2012); South Korea 

(2012); Oman (2009); Peru (2009); several countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic 

(CAFTA-DR), which includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua 

(2006–07) and Costa Rica (2009); Bahrain (2006); Morocco (2006); Australia (2005); Chile (2004); 

Singapore (2004); Jordan (2001); Canada and Mexico (1994); and Israel (1985).

FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: In 2017, total two-way (exports and imports) 

merchandise trade between the United States and its 20 FTA partners was $1.5 trillion, which accounted 

for 39.0 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. trade with the NAFTA countries 

(Canada and Mexico) continued to contribute the most to all U.S. trade with FTA partners, accounting 

for $1.1 trillion, or 75.1 percent. U.S. exports to the NAFTA countries rose 5.8 percent to $525.4 billion. 

U.S. imports from the NAFTA countries rose 7.4 percent to $614.0 billion from 2016 to 2017. As a result, 

the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its NAFTA partners increased by 17.6 percent to $88.6 billion.

U.S. trade with non-NAFTA FTA partners was valued at $378.0 billion in 2017, which was a 3.7 percent 

increase from 2016. U.S. exports to these FTA partners increased 8.8 percent to $195.0 billion, while 

U.S. imports from these partners increased 3.7 percent to $183.0 billion from 2016 to 2017. As result, 

the U.S. merchandise trade surplus with these countries recovered to its 2015 level, rising 333.9 percent 

to $12.0 billion in 2017.

The value of imports that entered into the United States under FTAs and subject to FTA duty reductions 

and eliminations totaled $385.1 billion in 2017, a rise of 2.8 percent from 2016. Imports subject to FTA 

duty reductions and eliminations accounted for nearly half (48.3 percent) of total imports from FTA 

partners in 2017 and 16.5 percent of total U.S. imports from the world. (The majority of U.S. imports 

from FTA partners that do not enter under an FTA generally enter free of duty under normal trade 

relations rates, although some also face duties.) Imports under the FTA with Chile, which grew $1.3 
The Year in Trade 2017

22 | www.usitc.gov

billion (26.6 percent), represented the largest percentage increase, while imports from Mexico 

accounted for the greatest change in value, rising by $11.9 billion (7.0 percent). Imports under FTAs with 

Peru and Bahrain also increased significantly, by 24.5 percent ($651 million) and 16.5 percent ($82 

million), respectively.

FTA negotiations: In January 2017, the United States formally withdrew from the recently signed TransPacific Partnership agreement with 11 Pacific Rim partners. Also in January 2017, U.S. and EU officials 

issued a joint report on the status of negotiations towards a Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership (TTIP). The report highlighted areas that still needed “significant work.” No TTIP negotiations 

were held in 2017.

Developments with FTAs already in force: U.S. officials met with a number of partners representing 

member states of the 14 U.S. FTAs in force during 2017. Discussions with U.S. partners focused largely 

on the topics of labor issues and environmental provisions included in most of these agreements. Under 

the U.S.-Korea FTA, two special sessions of the Joint Committee were held in 2017 to discuss possible 

amendments and modifications to the agreement.

NAFTA developments: On May 18, 2017, USTR notified Congress that the President intended to initiate 

negotiations with Canada and Mexico to modernize NAFTA. The negotiations began on August 16, 2017, 

in Washington, DC, with two primary goals: (1) to update NAFTA with modern provisions on digital 

trade, intellectual property, cybersecurity, good regulatory practices, and treatment of state-owned 

enterprises; and (2) to rebalance NAFTA and reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico. By 

the end of 2017, five negotiating rounds had been completed.

At the end of 2017, two complaint files remained active under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American 

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. One, which was submitted in 2016, involved Mexico, and 

another, submitted in 2017, involved Canada. In 2017, there were three submissions under review at 

the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, two involving Mexico, and one involving the 

United States.

NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2017, there were 5 active Chapter 11 cases (investor-state disputes) filed 

against the United States, 4 of them filed by Canadian investors and 1 filed by Mexican investors; 11 

filed by U.S. investors against Canada; and 4 filed against Mexico—3 by U.S. investors and 1 by Canadian 

investors. At the end of 2017, the NAFTA Secretariat listed six binational panels active under Chapter 19 

(Review and Dispute Settlement in Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Matters); these are reviews of 

final determinations made by national authorities in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Two of 

the reviews concern cases filed by the United States contesting Mexico’s determinations; three concern 

cases filed by Canada contesting U.S. determinations; and the sixth concerns a case filed by Mexico

contesting U.S. determinations.

Trade Activities with Major Trading Partners

This report reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with its largest trading partners each year. This year, the 

report covers the following eight trading partners: the EU, China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, South Korea, 

India, and Taiwan (ordered by the value of their two-way merchandise trade). For each trading partner, 

the chapter summarizes U.S. bilateral trade, including two-way merchandise and private services trade 
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 23

(figure ES.2). Each partner description is followed by summaries of the major bilateral trade-related 

developments during 2017.

Figure ES.2 U.S. goods and services trade with major bilateral trading partners, 2017

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 26, 2018); USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, 

& IIP, International Transactions, Tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2018 (accessed April 26, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.2. 

European Union

The EU as a single entity continued to be the United States’ largest merchandise trading partner in 2017. 

U.S. two-way (exports plus imports) merchandise trade with the EU increased 4.7 percent to $718.5 

billion in 2017, accounting for 18.5 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. exports to the EU were 

$283.5 billion, which ranked the EU as the top U.S. export market for the second year in a row, 

surpassing Canada. U.S. merchandise imports from the EU were $434.9 billion, second to those from 

China. Both U.S. exports and U.S. imports with the EU increased in 2017, but U.S. imports grew more, 

widening the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU from $146.8 billion in 2016 to $151.4 billion in 

2017. Leading U.S. exports to the EU included civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; medicaments 

(medicines); refined petroleum products; crude petroleum; and certain immunological products. 

Leading U.S. imports were passenger motor vehicles, medicaments, parts of turbojets and 

turbopropellers, light oils, and airplanes and other aircraft.

The EU was also the United States’ largest trading partner in terms of private services in 2017, 

accounting for 33.4 percent of total U.S. trade in private services. U.S. services imports increased more 

than U.S. services exports, shrinking the U.S. trade surplus in services with the EU from $61.7 billion in 

2016 to $49.9 billion in 2017.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

EU China Canada Mexico Japan South Korea India Taiwan

Billion $

Goods exports Goods imports Services exports Services imports
The Year in Trade 2017

24 | www.usitc.gov

Among the important U.S.-EU trade developments in 2017 were a bilateral agreement on insurance and 

reinsurance measures, the first annual review of the functioning of the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield, and an 

updated mutual recognition agreement on good manufacturing practices in pharmaceutical products.

Under the framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council, the eighth workshop for small- and 

medium-sized enterprises was held. As noted earlier, TTIP negotiations remained dormant in 2017.

China

In 2017, China remained the United States’ largest single-country trading partner based on two-way 

merchandise trade, accounting for 16.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. two-way 

merchandise trade with China amounted to $635.9 billion in 2017, an increase of 10.0 percent from the 

$578.2 billion recorded in 2016. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China remained higher than the 

U.S. trade deficit with any other trading partner in 2017, amounting to $375.2 billion. Its $28.2 billion 

increase (8.1 percent) relative to the year before reflected a $42.3 billion increase in U.S. merchandise 

imports from China that outpaced a $14.8 billion increase in U.S. merchandise exports to China in 2017. 

Leading U.S. exports to China in 2017 were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; soybeans; small 

passenger motor vehicles; petroleum; and semiconductors. Leading U.S. imports from China were 

cellphones; portable computers and tablets; telecommunications equipment; computer parts and 

accessories; and tricycles, scooters, and related toys.

In 2017, China continued to be the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner based on 

two-way services trade of $73.0 billion. U.S. services trade with China amounted to 5.7 percent of total 

U.S. cross-border services trade in 2017. The U.S. cross-border trade surplus in services with China 

increased $600 million in 2016 to $38.2 billion. However, the rate of growth in the United States’ 

services imports from China outpaced that of the United States’ services exports to China. From 2016 to 

2017, U.S. services exports to China grew by $1.9 billion, or 3.6 percent, while U.S. services imports from 

China grew by $1.4 billion, or 8.6 percent.

In 2017, the most prominent bilateral trade issues were discussed in the context of a newly formed U.S.-

China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED). Major topics addressed by U.S. and Chinese officials in 

the CED in 2017 included China’s protection and enforcement of IPRs; Chinese technology transfer 

policies and practices; and the implementation of China’s new Cybersecurity Law and China’s new 

Standardization Law.

Canada

In 2017, Canada was the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner after China for the 

third consecutive year. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with Canada rose 7.0 percent to $582.4 

billion in 2017, accounting for 15.0 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. Both U.S. 

merchandise exports and imports with Canada increased in 2017 from the previous year, but imports 

outpaced exports, resulting in a $6.5 billion increase in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Canada 

to $17.5 billion. Leading U.S. exports to Canada in 2017 included passenger motor vehicles; motor 

vehicles for goods transport; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; crude petroleum; and light petroleum 

oils. Top U.S. imports from Canada included crude petroleum, passenger motor vehicles, natural gas, 

and coniferous sawn wood.
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 25

Canada remained the second-largest single-country U.S. trading partner for services in 2017, after the 

United Kingdom. Two-way services trade with Canada grew in 2017 to $90.8 billion, while the U.S. 

surplus in services increased to $25.8 billion, up from $23.8 billion the year before.

In 2017, a major focus of U.S.-Canada trade relations was the renegotiation of NAFTA, which began on 

August 16, 2017. In addition, lacking a successor agreement to replace the U.S.-Canada Agreement on 

Softwood Lumber—which expired in October 2015—the United States initiated antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations on certain U.S. imports of softwood lumber from Canada in 2017. In 

response, Canada initiated dispute settlement proceedings against the United States in the WTO and 

NAFTA. In other developments, the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council continued to 

meet in 2017 to address regulatory issues that hinder cross-border trade and investment.

Mexico

In 2017, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country two-way merchandise trading 

partner. Total two-way merchandise trade increased 6.4 percent to $557.0 billion in 2017, which 

accounted for 14.3 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled 

$243.0 billion in 2017, and U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico totaled $314.0 billion. The resulting 

merchandise trade deficit of $71.0 billion was up $6.7 billion from 2016. In 2017, leading U.S. exports to 

Mexico were light oils; computer parts and accessories; refined petroleum products; processors and 

controllers; and internal combustion diesel engines. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included 

passenger motor vehicles; computers; motor vehicles for goods transport; crude petroleum; 

telecommunications equipment; and color TV reception apparatus.

Mexico was the United States’ sixth-largest trading partner in services after Germany. U.S. services 

exports to Mexico increased 3.9 percent ($1.2 billion) and imports from Mexico increased 7.0 percent 

($1.7 billion) in 2017, resulting in a narrowing of the U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico to $6.6 

billion in 2017.

A major focus of U.S.-Mexico trade relations in 2017 was the renegotiation of NAFTA. Joint efforts to 

modernize border procedures and facilities also continued in 2017. After the successful conclusion of a 

pilot program to address cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) started accepting applications from Mexicodomiciled motor carriers interested in conducting long-haul operations beyond the U.S. commercial 

zones. In 2017, reports from the FMCSA showed that the safety records of Mexican-owned or Mexicodomiciled motor carriers surpassed those of U.S. carriers.

Japan

In 2017, Japan remained the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner in terms of twoway trade, accounting for 5.3 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. The value of U.S. merchandise 

trade with Japan grew 4.6 percent, from $195.3 billion in 2016 to $204.2 billion in 2017. At the same 

time, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Japan was fairly stable, rising by $38 million in 2017 to 

$68.8 billion, as U.S. imports increased more than U.S. exports. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were 

civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; liquefied propane; corn; semiconductor manufacturing machines; 

and medicaments. Leading U.S. imports from Japan were passenger motor vehicles, parts for airplanes 

or helicopters, motor vehicle gearboxes, and parts for printers.
The Year in Trade 2017

26 | www.usitc.gov

In 2017, Japan was once again the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner based on 

two-way services trade. U.S. services exports to Japan rose by $1.9 billion, or 4.2 percent, to $45.4 

billion in 2017, while U.S. services imports from Japan rose by $1.2 billion, or 3.0 percent, to $27.5 

billion. As a result, the U.S. surplus in services trade with Japan grew to $17.1 billion from $16.0 billion 

the year before.

Economic dialogue between the United States and Japan in 2017 focused on a variety of trade issues, 

including agricultural trade developments and the efficiency of the Japanese regulatory review process 

for medical devices and pharmaceuticals. According to USTR, one of the Administration’s top trade 

policy goals was to resolve Japanese import barriers for U.S. lamb, beef, horticultural products, and 

processed foods.

Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea (South Korea) continued to be the United States’ sixth-largest single-country 

merchandise trading partner in 2017, accounting for 3.1 percent of U.S. trade with the world. Two-way 

merchandise trade was valued at $119.4 billion, up from $112.2 billion in 2016. U.S. merchandise 

exports to South Korea were valued at $48.3 billion in 2017, while U.S. merchandise imports from South 

Korea totaled $71.2 billion. This resulted in a trade deficit with South Korea of $22.9 billion in 2017, 

down 17.0 percent from 2016. Leading U.S. exports to South Korea included machines for 

semiconductor or integrated circuit manufacturing; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; processors or 

controllers; passenger motor vehicles; and crude petroleum. Leading U.S. imports from South Korea 

included passenger motor vehicles, cellphones, computer parts and accessories, refined petroleum 

products, and microchips.

In 2017, South Korea became the United States’ 9th-largest single-country services trading partner 

based on two-way trade, up from 10th-largest in 2016. U.S. services exports to South Korea increased 

10.0 percent in 2017 to reach a new high of $22.8 billion. U.S. services imports from South Korea also 

increased in 2017, by 7.2 percent, to reach $9.4 billion. Because U.S. services exports grew more than 

U.S. services imports, the U.S. services trade surplus with South Korea increased by 12.0 percent, from 

$12.0 billion in 2016 to $13.4 billion in 2017.

In 2017, U.S. trade relations with South Korea occurred within the framework of the U.S.-Korea FTA, 

which entered into force on March 15, 2012. The United States and South Korea held two special 

sessions of the Joint Committee in 2017 to discuss possible amendments or modifications to the 

agreement, and in December 2017, it was announced that negotiations would begin in January 2018.

India

In 2017, India was the United States’ ninth-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way 

merchandise trade, maintaining this position since 2016. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with India 

increased by 9.8 percent to $74.3 billion in 2017, accounting for 1.9 percent of U.S. merchandise trade 

with the world, the same as in 2016. U.S. merchandise exports to India were $25.7 billion in 2017 and 

U.S. merchandise imports from India were $48.6 billion, resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit 

with India of $22.9 billion in 2017, down from $24.3 billion in 2016. Leading U.S. exports to India in 2017 

were nonindustrial diamonds; nonmonetary gold; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; bituminous coal; 
Executive Summary

U.S International Trade Commission | 27

and almonds. Leading U.S. imports from India in 2017 were nonindustrial diamonds, certain 

medicaments, frozen shrimp, light oils, and gold jewelry.

India was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country trading partner for services and was the only 

country among the top ten services trading partners with which the United States had a services trade 

deficit in 2017. The services trade deficit with India increased 5.3 percent to $5.8 billion in 2017.

In 2017, the U.S. Trade Representative and the Minister of Commerce and Industry of India met for the 

11th meeting of the India and the United States Trade Policy Forum, where a wide variety of topics were 

addressed. IPR protection remained one of the top bilateral trade issues between the two countries in 

2017.

Taiwan 

In 2017, Taiwan became the United States’ 11th-largest single-country trading partner, dropping from 

the 10th position in 2016. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with Taiwan increased 4.5 percent to $68.2 

billion from $65.2 billion in 2016, continuing to account for 1.8 percent of the United States’ total 

merchandise trade with the world. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan in 2017 was $16.7 

billion, a 26.7 percent increase from its 2016 trade deficit of $13.2 billion. The top U.S. exports to Taiwan

in 2017 were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; machines for semiconductor or integrated circuit 

manufacturing; processors or controllers; computer memories; and machines for semiconductor boules 

or wafer manufacturing. The top U.S. imports from Taiwan were microchips; telecommunications 

equipment; processors or controllers; computer parts and accessories; and portable computers and 

tablets.

U.S.-Taiwan two-way services trade fell 8.8 percent to $17.2 billion in 2017, accounting for 1.4 percent

of all U.S. services trade. U.S. services exports to Taiwan fell by 18.4 percent to $9.2 billion, while

imports rose 5.5 percent to $8.1 billion, resulting in a 68.6 percent decline in the U.S. services trade

surplus with Taiwan to $1.1 billion in 2017. The drop in U.S. services exports to Taiwan was due to a

reduction in charges for the use of intellectual property and maintenance and repair services.

The primary forum for bilateral discussions on trade and investment issues is the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). While there was no TIFA Council meeting in 2017, U.S. and 

Taiwan officials followed up on issues raised in the 2016 TIFA Council meeting. The main issues under 

discussion remained IPRs, agriculture, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.
28 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 29

Chapter 1 

Introduction and 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 2017. Section 163(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2213(c)) 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.” Section 1 of Executive Order 11846 defines 

the trade agreements program to include “all activities consisting of, or related to, the negotiation or 

administration of international agreements which primarily concern trade,”1 and section 163(a) of the 

Trade Act of 1974 sets out the types of information that the President is to include in his annual report 

to the Congress on the operation of the trade agreements program.2 This report seeks to provide 

information on the activities defined in the Executive Order and, to the extent appropriate and to the 

extent that there were developments to report and information was publicly available, the elements set 

out in section 163(a).

Organization of the Report

This first chapter gives an overview of the international economic and trade environment within which 

U.S. trade policy was conducted in 2017. It also provides a timeline of selected key trade activities. 

Chapter 2 covers the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations in 2017, including tariff 

preference programs such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Chapter 3 focuses on U.S. 

participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO), including developments in major WTO dispute 

settlement cases during 2017. Chapter 4 covers 2017 developments at the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), as well as 

negotiations on an agreement on trade in services and developments with trade and investment 

1 Executive Order 11846 of March 27, 1975, Administration of the Trade Agreements Program, 40 FR 14291, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp., 971. 2 Section 163(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 states that the President’s report is to cover the following: “(A) new 

trade negotiations; (B) changes made in duties and nontariff barriers and other distortions of trade of the United 

States; (C) reciprocal concessions obtained; (D) changes in trade agreements (including the incorporation therein 

of actions taken for import relief and compensation provided therefor); (E) the extension or withdrawal of 

nondiscriminatory treatment by the United States with respect to the products of foreign countries; (F) the 

extension, modification, withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of preferential treatment to exports of developing 

countries; (G) the results of actions to obtain the removal of foreign trade restrictions (including discriminatory 

restrictions) against United States exports and the removal of foreign practices which discriminate against United 

States service industries (including transportation and tourism) and investment; (H) the measures being taken to 

seek the removal of other significant foreign import restrictions; (I) each of the referrals made under section 

2171(d)(1)(B) of this title and any action taken with respect to such referral; and (J) other information relating to 

the trade agreements program and to the agreements entered into thereunder.”
The Year in Trade 2017

30 | www.usitc.gov

framework agreements. Chapter 5 describes U.S. negotiation of and participation in free trade 

agreements (FTAs) in 2017, and chapter 6 covers trade data and trade relations in 2017 with selected 

U.S. trading partners.

Sources 

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, Federal Register

notices, and news releases, including publications and news releases by the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (USITC or the Commission) and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). 

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

International Monetary Fund, World Bank, OECD, WTO, United Nations, and foreign governments. 

When primary-source information is unavailable, the report draws on professional journals, trade 

publications, and news reports for supplemental factual information.

Like past reports, The Year in Trade 2017 relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census) of the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) for the U.S. merchandise trade statistics presented throughout 

the report. Most tables in the report present U.S. merchandise trade statistics using “total exports” and 

“general imports” as measures,3 except for data on imports that have entered the United States with a 

claim of eligibility under trade preference programs and FTAs. Such data require an analysis of U.S. 

“imports for consumption”—goods that have been cleared by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

enter the customs territory of the United States with required duties paid.4 Also, much of the trade data 

used in the report, including U.S. services and merchandise trade data, are revised over time, so earlier 

years’ trade statistics in this report may not always match the data presented in previous reports. Most 

of the merchandise trade data used in this report can be accessed using the USITC’s DataWeb database 

(https://dataweb.usitc.gov).

Chapters 1 and 6 also offer data on services trade. The information on services trade is based on data for 

cross-border trade in private services, which exclude government sales and purchases of goods and 

services not included elsewhere. The source of these data is the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of 

the USDOC.

3 “Total exports” measures the total physical movement of goods out of the United States to foreign countries, 

whether such goods are exported from the U.S. customs territory or from a U.S. Customs bonded warehouse or a 

U.S. Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). Total exports is the sum of domestic exports and “foreign exports” (also known as 

re-exports). “General imports” measures the total physical arrivals of merchandise from foreign countries, whether 

such merchandise enters the U.S. customs territory immediately or is entered into bonded warehouses or FTZs 

under U.S. Customs custody. These two measures are the broadest measures of U.S. merchandise trade reported 

by the Census Bureau and they are used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis with adjustments to report on U.S. 

trade flows in official government balance of payment statistics. These are also the measures most commonly used 

internationally.

4 For more information about measures of U.S. merchandise exports and imports, see the “Trade Measure 

Definitions” section of USITC, Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade, 2015, September 2016.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 31

Overview of the U.S. and Global Economies in 

2017

U.S. Economic Trends in 2017 

The level of U.S. imports and exports of goods and services depends on many factors, including the 

strength of the U.S. and global economies. The United States had a $19.4 trillion economy in 2017.5 The 

U.S. economy grew faster in 2017 than in 2016: U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) increased 2.3 

percent in 2017, compared to the growth rate of 1.5 percent in 2016 (figure 1.1).6 The largest factors 

behind the higher growth rate were the following four industries: professional and business services; 

finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing; manufacturing; and retail trade.7

Figure 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, “Real Gross Domestic Product,” March 26, 2018.

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.3. 

Global Economic Trends in 2017

The global economic growth rate rose from 2.5 percent in 2016 to 3.3 percent in 2017 (figure 1.2).8 The 

advanced economies grew faster in 2017 than in 2016. The change in the growth rate of emerging and 

5 USDOC, BEA, “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2017 (Second Estimate),” February 28, 2018. 6 Real GDP is a measure of the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of 

the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes.

7 USDOC, BEA, “Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product by Industry,” April 19, 2018. 8 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 2.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Percent
The Year in Trade 2017

32 | www.usitc.gov

developing economies was small—0.1 percentage point from 2016 to 2017—and was primarily due to 

the relatively unchanged high rate of growth of the Chinese economy. Among the United States’ top

eight trading partners, only India and Mexico showed slower growth rates in 2017 than in 2016 (figure 

1.2).9

Figure 1.2 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and major trading partners, 2015–

17

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017 (accessed March 26, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.4.

Worldwide growth can be attributed to the strengthening of domestic demand in advanced economies 

and in China. Canada showed one of the larger improvements in terms of growth, doubling its real GDP 

growth rate from 1.5 percent in 2016 to 3.0 percent in 2017 due to increased domestic demand.10 On 

the other hand, India’s growth rate slowed down, decreasing from 7.1 percent in 2016 to 6.7 percent in 

2017. This was attributed to changes in government policies, such as the introduction of a goods and 

services tax, as well as a currency exchange initiative.11 South Korea’s economy continued to grow 

modestly, increasing its growth rate from 2.8 percent in 2016 to 3.0 percent in 2017. Despite this 

increase, South Korea’s rate of growth was below the world average in 2017.12

 9 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 2. 10 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 14; Hasselback, “IMF Predicts Canada Will Pass the U.S.,” July 24, 

2017.

11 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 2. The currency exchange initiative—removal of India’s two 

highest-denomination notes (500 and 1,000 rupee) from circulation—was implemented by India’s government in 

November 2016 with the aim of fighting “black money”—cash used for illegal activities, e.g., corruption and tax 

evasion. Rogoff, “India’s Currency Exchange,” November 22, 2016. 12 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 16.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

World United

States

European

Union

China Canada Mexico Japan South

Korea

India Taiwan

Percent

2015 2016 2017
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 33

Overall world trade volume for goods and services increased by 4.2 percent in 2017, compared to a 2.4 

percent increase in 2016.13 Both advanced and emerging economies showed increased growth rates in 

imports and exports in 2017, but emerging economies’ trade flows grew at a higher rate.14 In 2017, 

exports from emerging economies grew 4.8 percent, up from 2.5 percent in 2016. This is compared to 

3.8 percent for advanced economies, up from 2.2 percent in 2016. Imports grew by 4.4 percent, up from 

2.0 percent, in emerging economies, and by 4.0 percent, up from 2.7 percent, in advanced economies 

over the same period.15

Exchange Rate Trends

The U.S. dollar depreciated relative to the broad dollar index, falling 6.3 percent between January and 

December of 2017.16 This trend was driven by the depreciation of the U.S. dollar against major world 

currencies (figure 1.3). Between January 1 and December 31, 2017, the U.S. dollar depreciated by 12.0 

percent against the euro; 9.4 percent against the United Kingdom (UK) pound; 6.8 percent against the 

Canadian dollar; 6.6 percent against the Indian rupee; 6.5 percent against the Chinese yuan; 6.1 percent 

against the Mexican peso; and 4.2 percent against the Japanese yen.17

 13 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 14. 14 IMF divides the world into two groups: advanced and emerging economies. There are 39 advanced economies 

and 154 emerging economies. Both groups are listed in IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 220–25. 15 IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 14 (table 1.1). 16 The broad dollar index is a weighted average of the foreign exchange values of the U.S. dollar against the 

currencies of a large group of major U.S. trading partners. In this study, dollar appreciation is measured as the 

increase in the broad dollar index from January 3, 2017, to December 29, 2017. Federal Reserve System, “Real 

Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Broad,” n.d. (accessed March 30, 2018). 17 Federal Reserve System, “Foreign Exchange Rates” (accessed March 26, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

34 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 1.3 Indexes of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2017

Source: Federal Reserve System, “Foreign Exchange Rates” (accessed March 26, 2018).

Note: This figure shows the units of the foreign currency per unit of the U.S. dollar. A decrease in the index represents a 

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

U.S. dollar relative to the foreign currency.

The depreciation of the dollar was partly driven by changes in the economic performance of major U.S. 

trading partners. As reported by some major U.S. investment banks, during 2017 the euro and pound 

were recovering from an earlier drop caused by uncertainty over the Brexit vote. At the same time, the 

German and French economies were experiencing increased growth. These factors boosted demand for 

the euro among global investors. On the other hand, 2017 was a year of uncertainty over the current 

monetary and trade policy of the United States. This uncertainty led to a reduction in demand for the 

U.S. dollar, causing depreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to other major foreign currencies.18 The broad 

fall of the U.S. dollar in 2017 contrasts with its mixed performance against major currencies in 2016.19

U.S. Trade in Goods in 2017

The value of U.S. merchandise exports was $1,546.7 billion in 2017, a 6.6 percent increase from the 

2016 level (figure 1.4 and appendix table A.1). U.S. merchandise imports totaled $2,342.9 billion over 

the same period, a 7.1 percent increase from the 2016 level (figure 1.4 and appendix table A.2).20 U.S. 

imports increased more than U.S. exports, leading to a $59.4 billion increase in the U.S. merchandise 

 18 See, e.g., J.P. Morgan, Dollar Declines as Global Growth Takes Off, February 8, 2018 (accessed June 28, 2018); 

Morgan Stanley, Gauging the U.S. Dollar Drop, n.d. (accessed June 28, 2018). 19 USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 34. 20 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

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

US$ Depreciation US$ Appreciation

Euro Pound Canadian dollar Yuan Rupee Yen Peso
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 35

trade deficit to $796.2 million in 2017.21 The agricultural sector was the only sector that experienced a 

trade surplus in 2017, exporting $5.7 billion in agricultural products in excess of imports.

Figure 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2015–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5. 

Energy-related products had the largest absolute and relative (percentage) increase in imports and 

exports: exports rose 45.5 percent in 2017, and imports increased by 25.5 percent over the same period 

(table 1.1). A number of factors contributed to the rise in exports and imports. First, both U.S. 

production of and demand for crude petroleum increased in 2017. However, the increase in production 

exceeded the increase in demand, lowering demand for U.S. imports and increasing U.S. exports in 

volume terms. Domestic production of petroleum products increased from 8.7 million barrels per day in 

2016 to 9.3 million barrels per day in 2017.22 Over the same period, domestic consumption of petroleum 

products increased from 19.7 million barrels per day to 19.9 million barrels per day.23 Second, another

factor contributing to the increase in the value of exports of U.S. crude was the removal of the U.S. 

government ban on most exports of U.S. crude to countries other than Canada in December 2015, which 

increased the volume of U.S. exports.24 

Third, an increase in the price of crude petroleum contributed to the increase in both exports and 

imports. Indeed, the increase in the value of U.S. imports of crude was primarily driven by the increase 

in the price of U.S. crude. International price benchmarks for crude petroleum that declined in 2016 

21 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018). 22 EIA, “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” March 2018, 2, 5. 23 EIA, “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” March 2018, 2, 5. 24 U.S. crude oil exports to Canada for consumption in Canada have been authorized since the 1980s.

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
The Year in Trade 2017

36 | www.usitc.gov

recovered slightly in 2017.25 While the volume of U.S. imports of crude petroleum increased by 1.0 

percent, export volumes increased by 88.6 percent, nearly doubling from 2.16 billion barrels in 2016 to 

4.08 billion barrels in 2017.26

U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category

Exports

Transportation equipment continued to be the largest U.S. export sector in 2017, accounting for 21.0 

percent of all U.S. exports. It was followed by electronic products (17.3 percent of exports) and chemical 

and related products (14.7 percent of exports) (table 1.1 and appendix table A.1). The top export 

products were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; refined petroleum products; light oils; crude 

petroleum; soybeans; and nonmonetary gold (appendix table A.3).

Table 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by USITC digest sector, 2016–17 (million dollars)

Sector 2016 2017

change 

2016–17

% change 

2016–17 2016 2017

change 

2016–17

% change 

2016–17

Exports Imports

Agricultural products 148,683 153,116 4,433 3.0 139,153 147,406 8,253 5.9

Forest products 37,707 39,698 1,991 5.3 43,118 44,856 1,738 4.0

Chemicals and related 

products 218,089 227,270 9,181 4.2 259,846 268,112 8,266 3.2

Energy-related products 98,418 143,236 44,818 45.5 157,826 198,096 40,270 25.5

Textiles and apparel 21,656 22,082 426 2.0 120,265 121,423 1,158 1.0

Footwear 1,368 1,430 62 4.5 25,634 25,654 20 0.1

Minerals and metals 128,684 136,452 7,769 6.0 183,522 200,714 17,192 9.4

Machinery 128,097 135,945 7,848 6.1 179,537 196,414 16,878 9.4

Transportation 

equipment 320,022 325,434 5,412 1.7 418,286 434,894 16,608 4.0

Electronic products 260,407 268,278 7,870 3.0 449,951 484,271 34,321 7.6

Miscellaneous 

manufactures 47,754 49,138 1,383 2.9 124,973 130,453 5,481 4.4

Special provisions 40,125 44,655 4,530 11.3 85,695 90,610 4,915 5.7

Total 1,451,011 1,546,733 95,722 6.6 2,187,805 2,342,905 155,100 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Exports in all merchandise sectors increased in 2017.27 The largest increase in both value and 

percentage terms occurred in the energy-related products sector (up $44.9 billion to $143.2 billion). It 

 25 The Brent benchmark increased from an average of $43 per barrel in 2016 to an average of about $51 per barrel 

in 2017. EIA, Spot Prices database (accessed April 17, 2018). 26 EIA, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin database (accessed April 17, 2018); EIA, U.S. Exports database (accessed 

April 17, 2018). U.S. crude imports increased from 2.87 billion barrels in 2016 to 2.89 billion barrels in 2017.

27 These merchandise sectors are defined by the Commission. Each USITC digest sector encompasses a number of 

8-digit subheadings in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which classifies tradable goods.

The sectors are listed and defined in USITC, “Frequently Asked Questions,” Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade, 2016, 

September 2017. “Special provisions” is not considered a merchandise sector; it represents trade under HTS 

chapters 98 and 99. Exports in this category primarily represent low-value goods and articles that have been 

repaired.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 37

was followed by chemicals and related products (up $9.2 billion to $227.3 billion) and electronic 

products (up $7.9 billion to $268.3 billion). At the product level, there were both increases and 

decreases in top exports. The largest increases at the product level were all in the energy-related 

products sector,28 including exports of crude petroleum (up $12.4 billion to $21.8 billion), refined 

petroleum products (up $10.4 billion to $48.0 billion), light oils (up $5.5 billion to $29.8 billion), 

bituminous coal (up $5.3 billion to $9.5 billion), and liquefied propane products (up $4.7 billion to $12.2 

billion). The largest declines were in passenger motor vehicles, where exports declined by $4.0 billion to 

$59.3 billion.29 It was followed by medicaments in measured doses, exports of which declined by $2.1 

billion to $17.1 billion (appendix table A.3).

Imports

Electronic products and transportation equipment continued to be the two top import sectors in 2017, 

accounting for 20.7 percent and 18.6 percent of total 2017 U.S. imports, respectively (table 1.1 and 

appendix table A.2). Passenger motor vehicles were the largest U.S. import product, valued at $186.4 

billion in 2017. 30 They were followed by crude petroleum ($132.9 billion), cellphones ($55.9 billion), 

medicaments ($50.3 billion), and telecommunications equipment ($47.4 billion) (appendix table A.4).

The value of U.S. imports in all 11 sectors increased in 2017 (table 1.1 and appendix table A.2).31 The 

largest increase in both value and percent terms occurred in the energy-related products sector. Imports 

of energy-related products grew by $40.3 billion (25.5 percent) from $157.8 billion in 2016 to $198.1 

billion in 2017; U.S. crude petroleum imports alone grew by $31.1 billion to $132.9 billion. Growth in 

these products was followed by a $34.3 billion increase in imports of electronic products, from $450.0 

billion in 2016 to $484.3 billion in 2017; a $17.2 billion (9.4 percent) increase in imports of minerals and 

metals to $200.7 billion in 2017; and a $16.9 billion (9.4 percent) increase in imports of machinery to 

$196.4 billion in 2017. The smallest increase in imports between 2016 and 2017, both in value ($20 

million) and percentage terms (0.1 percent), was in the footwear sector (table 1.1 and appendix table 

A.2).

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Leading Partners 

Table 1.2 shows U.S. trade with major trading partners, ranked by total trade (exports plus imports) in 

2017. In 2017, the European Union (EU) remained the United States’ top trading partner in terms of 

two-way merchandise trade, followed by China, Canada, and Mexico. Ranked by exports, the EU was the 

leading market for U.S. exports at $283.5 billion (18.3 percent of total exports). Canada was the second 

largest, just shy of the EU value at $282.5 billion (18.3 percent) (figure 1.5). Ranked by general U.S. 

28 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed March 16, 2018). “Energy-related products” includes the following 3 HTS 6-digit 

lines: 2709.00, 2710.12, and 2710.19.

29 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed March 16, 2018). “Passenger motor vehicles” includes the following 10 HTS 6-digit 

lines: 8703.21, 8703.22, 8703.23, 8703.24, 8703.31, 8703.32, 8703.33, 8703.90, 8704.21, and 8704.31.

30 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed March 16, 2018). “Passenger motor vehicles” includes the following 10 HTS 6-digit 

lines: 8703.21, 8703.22, 8703.23, 8703.24, 8703.31, 8703.32, 8703.33, 8703.90, 8704.21, and 8704.31.

31 The category “Special Provisions” represents trade under HTS chapters 98 and 99. Imports in this category 

primarily represent goods that have been returned with no value added abroad, goods that have been repaired, 

and low-value imports.
The Year in Trade 2017

38 | www.usitc.gov

imports, China was the leading source of imports into the United States at $505.6 billion (21.6 percent of 

imports), followed by the EU at $434.9 billion (18.6 percent) (figure 1.6).

32

Table 1.2 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2017 (million dollars)

Trading partner U.S. total exports U.S. general imports Trade balance

Two-way trade (exports 

plus imports)

EU 283,517 434,933 -151,416 718,451

China 130,370 505,597 -375,228 635,967

Canada 282,472 299,975 -17,504 582,447

Mexico 242,989 314,045 -71,057 557,034

Japan 67,696 136,544 -68,848 204,239

South Korea 48,277 71,164 -22,887 119,441

India 25,700 48,631 -22,931 74,332

Taiwan 25,754 42,492 -16,737 68,246

All others 418,969 405,632 13,337 824,600

Total 1,546,733 2,342,905 -796,172 3,889,638

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

U.S. merchandise exports to nearly all leading trading partners increased from 2016 to 2017 (table 1.3). 

Exports declined only to Taiwan (down by $283 million or 1.1 percent). The largest increase in value was 

a $15.7 billion increase in exports to Canada ($282.5 billion in 2017, up from $266.8 billion in 2016). It 

was followed by a $14.8 billion increase in exports to China ($130.4 billion in 2017, up from $115.6 

billion in 2016). In percentage terms, the largest increase in exports between 2016 and 2017 was to 

India (18.7 percent), followed by South Korea (14.1 percent) and China (12.8 percent). 

Table 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2016–17 (million dollars)

Sector 2016 2017

change 

2016–17

% change 

2016–17 2016 2017

change 

2016–17

% change 

2016–17

Exports Imports

EU 269,617 283,517 13,901 5.2 416,377 434,933 18,556 4.5

China 115,602 130,370 14,767 12.8 462,618 505,597 42,979 9.3

Canada 266,797 282,472 15,674 5.9 277,756 299,975 22,220 8.0

Mexico 229,702 242,989 13,287 5.8 294,056 314,045 19,989 6.8

Japan 63,236 67,696 4,460 7.1 132,046 136,544 4,497 3.4

South 

Korea 42,309 48,277 5,967 14.1 69,881 71,164 1,283 1.8

India 21,652 25,700 4,048 18.7 46,032 48,631 2,599 5.6

Taiwan 26,037 25,754 -283 -1.1 39,248 42,492 3,244 8.3

All others 416,059 439,958 23,899 5.7 449,791 489,524 39,733 8.8

Total 1,451,011 1,546,733 95,722 6.6 2,187,805 2,342,905 155,100 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

 32 For U.S. trade with the top 15 single-country U.S. trading partners, including the EU member states listed 

separately, see appendix tables A.5–A.7.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 39

Figure 1.5 Leading U.S. export markets, by share, 2017

Source: DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.6. 

Figure 1.6 Leading U.S. import sources, by share, 2017

Source: DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.6. 

All others 28%

EU 18%

Canada 18%

Mexico 16% China 9%

Japan 4%

South Korea 3%

Taiwan 2%

India 2%

All others 19% China 22%

EU 19%

Mexico 14%

Canada 13%

Japan 6%

South Korea 3%

India 2%

Taiwan 2%
The Year in Trade 2017

40 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. merchandise imports from all of the major trading partners increased in 2017. The largest rise in 

value was a $43.0 billion increase in imports from China (up 9.3 percent), a $22.2 billion increase in 

imports from Canada (up 8.0 percent), and a $20.0 billion increase in imports from Mexico (up 6.8 

percent).

U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement Partners

In 2017, two-way total merchandise trade (total exports plus general imports) between the United 

States and its FTA partners amounted to $1,517.5 billion, accounting for 39.0 percent of total U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world ($3,889.6 billion).33 This was somewhat higher than in 2016, when 

two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its FTA partners totaled $1,424.1 billion, or 

39.1 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade.

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs was $385.1 billion in 2017, a 2.8 percent increase from the 

2016 value of $374.4 billion. These imports accounted for 48.3 percent of total imports from FTA 

partners in 2017 and for 16.5 percent of total U.S. imports from the world.

U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs

The value of U.S. imports entered under trade preference programs with developing countries was 

much smaller than that of U.S. imports claiming eligibility under FTAs. U.S. imports under trade 

preference programs increased from $29.3 billion in 2016 to $34.7 billion in 2017; they accounted for 

1.4 percent of total U.S. imports during 2017, whereas in 2016 they accounted for 1.3 percent of 

imports. Imports that claimed eligibility under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences program 

totaled $21.2 billion in 2017; imports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act totaled $12.5 

billion; imports under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act and the Caribbean Basin Trade 

Partnership Act totaled $1.0 billion; imports under the Haiti initiatives totaled $0.6 billion; and imports 

under the Nepal Trade Preference Program totaled $0.002 billion ($2 million).34

U.S. Trade in Services in 2017

Total U.S. cross-border trade in private services (hereafter “services”) grew by 5.0 percent between 

2016 and 2017.35 During that period, U.S. exports of services increased by 3.8 percent from $733.6 

billion to $761.7 billion, while U.S. services imports grew at a rate of 6.8 percent from $483.1 billion to 

 33 U.S. trade with its FTA partners is discussed in chapter 5. 34 U.S. imports under preferential trade programs are discussed in chapter 2. 35 USDOC, BEA, International Transactions data, “Table 3.1. U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018. 

These data represent U.S. cross-border trade in private services, which exclude data on imports and exports of 

government goods and services, and roughly correspond to modes 1, 2, and 4 (cross-border trade, consumption 

abroad, and the presence of natural persons) in the “modes of supply” framework for services trade set out by the 

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). BEA data on foreign affiliate transactions, which roughly 

correspond to mode 3 (commercial presence), are not covered in this report. For more information on the four 

modes of supply under the GATS, see WTO, “Basic Purpose and Concepts” (accessed May 7, 2018).
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 41

$516.0 billion.36 The U.S. surplus in cross-border services trade decreased 1.9 percent in 2017 to $245.7 

billion (figure 1.7). U.S. exports in 9 of the 10 largest services export categories grew in 2017, while U.S. 

exports of travel services declined. The services export categories with the highest growth rates in 2017 

included research and development services (15.0 percent), insurance services (9.0 percent), and 

financial services (8.4 percent). U.S. imports of services grew in all of the top 10 services import 

categories.

Figure 1.7 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with the world, 2015–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, and International Investment Position, 

International Transactions, Table 1.2, “U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7. 

U.S. Services Trade by Product Category37

Exports

U.S. travel services exports, valued at $203.7 billion in 2017, accounted for the largest share (26.7 

percent) of total U.S. cross-border services exports in 2017 (appendix table A.8).38 Other large U.S. 

36 While the BEA did revise the preliminary 2016 trade in services data reported in The Year in Trade 2016, BEA 

reported no services-specific methodological adjustments that would have impacted the revision. USITC, The Year 

in Trade 2016, July 2017; USDOC, BEA, “Annual Update of the U.S. International Transactions Accounts,” July 2017. 37 Appendix tables A.8 and A.9 provide additional data on U.S. cross-border trade in private services, broken down 

by product category.

38 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 business or personal travel by a foreign visitor. USDOC, BEA, “Information on Goods and 

Services,” February 6, 2018.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Trade balance
The Year in Trade 2017

42 | www.usitc.gov

services export categories included charges for the use of intellectual property not included elsewhere 

(n.i.e.) ($127.9 billion or 16.8 percent of total exports), financial services ($106.4 billion or 14.0 percent), 

and professional and management consulting services ($78.7 billion or 10.3 percent).39 After 

experiencing slow growth of 0.2 percent in 2016, total U.S. services exports grew by 3.8 percent in 2017. 

The fastest-growing category of services exports was research and development services, which grew 

15.0 percent in 2017, compared to 7.6 percent growth in 2016.40 In several services categories, exports 

increased in 2017 following a decrease in 2016. These include financial services (8.4 percent in 2017, 

compared to -4.3 percent in 2016);41 air passenger fares (0.9 percent in 2017, compared to -7.6 percent 

in 2016); technical, trade-related, and other business services (6.2 percent in 2017, compared to -12.1 

percent in 2016); and air transport (5.6 percent in 2017, compared to -0.8 percent in 2016). The only 

category that experienced a decline in export growth in 2017 was travel services (-1.1 percent, 

compared with 0.3 percent in 2016).42

Imports

Categories that accounted for the largest shares of U.S. cross-border services imports in 2017 included 

travel services (with $135.2 billion or 26.2 percent of total U.S. imports), insurance services ($49.7 billion 

or 9.6 percent), charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. ($48.4 billion or 9.4 percent), and 

professional and management consulting services ($42.9 billion or 8.3 percent) (appendix table A.9). 

Technical, trade-related, and other business services43 experienced the fastest import growth (9.9 

percent) in 2017, followed by travel, computer services, financial services, and charges for use of 

intellectual property n.i.e. (with growth rates of 9.4 percent, 9.2 percent, 9.2 percent, and 8.9 percent, 

respectively). All of the top 10 services import segments experienced positive growth in 2017, including 

those segments which experienced a decline in 2016. These include professional and management 

consulting services (which increased 6.8 percent in 2017, following a decline of 0.6 percent in 2016); sea 

transport (up 5.7 percent, following a decline of 5.9 percent in 2016); financial services (up 9.2 percent, 

 39 U.S. exports of charges for the use of intellectual property “not included elsewhere” (n.i.e.) include “charges for 

the use of proprietary rights, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and charges for licenses to use, 

reproduce, distribute, and sell or purchase intellectual property.” USDOC, BEA, “Information on Goods and 

Services,” February 6, 2018. 40 According to the BEA, research and development is “creative work aimed at discovering new knowledge or 

developing new or significantly improved goods and services.” This category includes both commercial and noncommercial product development, as well as fees associated with the development of intellectual property 

protected by patents, trademarks or copyrights and fees for the development of general use software. It also 

includes fees for testing related to product development. These services are traded by providing research services 

to foreign clients. USDOC, BEA, Quarterly Survey of Transactions, September 2016, 21. 41 Four subcategories are reported within financial services: securities brokerage, underwriting, and related 

services; financial management, financial advisory, and custody services; credit card and other credit-related 

services; and securities lending, electronic funds transfer, and other services. The first two categories experienced 

export decreases in 2016, while exports in all categories grew in 2017.

42 The two travel services subcategories that experienced declines in 2017 were other business travel, which 

includes all business travel except expenditures by border, seasonal, and other short-term workers, and other 

personal travel, which includes all personal travel not related to health or education.

43 Technical, trade-related, and other business services include architectural and engineering, construction, audiovisual, waste treatment, operational leasing, trade-related, and other business services. USDOC, BEA, “Information 

on Goods and Services,” February 6, 2018.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 43

following a decline of 0.4 percent in 2016); and technical, trade-related, and other business services (up 

9.9 percent, following a decline of 9.4 percent in 2016).

U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners

The EU was the largest export market for U.S. services in 2017, as well as the largest foreign supplier of 

U.S. services imports (table 1.4).44 In that year, the EU accounted for $238.4 billion (31.3 percent) of 

total U.S. services exports and $188.5 billion (36.5 percent) of total U.S. services imports (figures 1.8 and 

1.9).45 After the EU, the top markets for U.S. services exports were Canada, China, and Japan, while the 

top sources of imports were Canada, India, and Japan. The United States maintained a services trade 

surplus with every major services trading partner except for India, with which it posted a $5.8 billion 

deficit in 2017.46 The two segments that accounted for the largest shares of U.S. services imports from 

India in 2016 (latest data available) were computer services (53.2 percent), and research and 

development services (13.5 percent). The United States posted trade deficits with India in these two 

services segments.47

Table 1.4 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with major trading partners and the world, 2017 

(million dollars)

Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports Trade balance

Two-way trade 

(exports plus 

imports)

EU 238,425 (

a

)188,496 49,929 426,921

Canada 58,307 32,515 25,792 90,822

Japan 45,421 28,353 17,068 73,774

China 55,585 17,421 38,164 73,006

Mexico 32,795 26,150 6,645 58,945

India 22,763 28,562 -5,799 51,325

Brazil 25,132 6,469 18,663 31,601

South Korea 22,835 9,424 13,411 32,259

Australia 21,909 7,192 14,717 29,101

Singapore 17,843 7,499 10,344 25,342

Taiwan 9,195 8,053 1,142 17,248

All others 211,519 155,881 55,638 367,400

Total 761,729 516,015 245,714 1,277,744

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, and International Investment Position, 

International Transactions, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2018.

a U.S. imports from the EU in 2017 are overstated because the data include government goods and services n.i.e.

 44 The UK (an EU member) was the largest single-country market for both exports and imports of U.S. services in 

2017. Despite legal proceedings to exit the European Union, the UK is still reported in BEA aggregate EU statistics. 

USDOC, BEA, “Information on Goods and Services,” February 6, 2018. 45 Data on U.S. services imports from the EU include government goods and services n.i.e. 46 The United States also registers a services trade deficit with Italy, which is a member state of the EU. Among 

single-country trading partners, Italy ranked as the United States’ 15th-largest services trading partner in 2017. 47 USDOC, BEA, International Services Data, “Table 2.3, U.S. Trade In Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type 

of Service, India,” October 24, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

44 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2017

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, and International Investment Position, 

International Transactions, tables 1.2 and 1.3, U.S. International Trade in Services, March 21, 2018.

Note: Data are preliminary. Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. Underlying data can be found in 

appendix table B.8.

Figure 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources for private services, by share, 2017

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, and International Investment Position, 

International Transactions, tables 1.2 and 1.3, U.S. International Trade in Services, March 21, 2018.

All other 32% EU 31%

Canada 8%

China 7%

Mexico Japan 6% 4%

Brazil 3%

South Korea 3%

India 3%

Australia 3%

EU 37%

Canada 6%

India 6% Japan 5%

Mexico 5%

China 3%

All other 38%
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 45

Note: Data are preliminary. Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. Underlying data can be found in 

appendix table B.8. 

Timeline of Selected Key Trade Activities in 

2017

The following timeline presents selected key trade events between the United States and its trading 

partners in 2017. Some of these developments are presented in more detail in chapters 2 through 6.

January

6–11: The Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) leaders’ and ministerial meetings 

convene in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, with 

discussions focusing on sustainable growth and 

strengthening regional economic integration.

9: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 

(USTR) releases its 2016 Report to Congress on 

China’s WTO Compliance. 

12: The United States requests World Trade 

Organization (WTO) consultations with China 

regarding Chinese subsidies to primary 

aluminum producers (WT/DS519).

12: The fourth meeting of the Joint Committee 

under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 

(KORUS) is held in Seoul, South Korea.

13: The United States and Paraguay sign a Trade 

and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

17–20: The World Economic Forum annual 

meeting is held in Davos, Switzerland.

18: The United States requests WTO dispute 

settlement consultations with Canada regarding 

measures governing the sale of wine in grocery 

stores (DS520).

19: The U.S.-Mongolia Agreement on 

Transparency in Matters Related to 

International Trade and Investment enters into 

force.

22: The second meeting of the U.S.-Panama 

Free Trade Commission is convened in 

Washington, DC.

25: The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) 

establishes a panel requested by the United 

States to examine China’s domestic support for 

agricultural products (DS511).

30: The United States officially withdraws from 

the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

February

6: The USITC announces three new 

investigations on digital trade and the impact of 

barriers to digital trade on the competitiveness 

of U.S. firms in international markets. These 

investigations were requested by the USTR in a 

letter received on January 13, 2017.

10: President Donald Trump and Japan’s Prime 

Minister Abe hold their first official meeting in 

Washington, DC, to discuss a variety of 

economic and political issues of mutual interest. 

Two of the issues were the creation of a 

reoccurring U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue to 

deepen economic ties and the pursuit of a U.S.-

Japan bilateral trade agreement in the wake of 

the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership Agreement.

22: The WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation 

enters into force.

March

1: USTR releases its 2017 Trade Policy Agenda

and 2016 Annual Report. 
The Year in Trade 2017

46 | www.usitc.gov

2: The United States and the European Union 

(EU) agree to amend the Pharmaceutical Annex 

to the 1998 U.S.-EU Mutual Recognition 

Agreement.

8: Turkey requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding 

countervailing measures on certain pipe and 

tube products from Turkey (DS523).

21: The WTO DSB establishes a panel to review 

a complaint by India regarding certain U.S. 

measures at the state level to promote 

renewable energy (DS510).

22: The United States and Taiwan sign a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) to 

combat intellectual property rights (IPR) 

infringement and trade fraud crimes.

23: The United States and Laos hold the 

inaugural meeting under the U.S.-Laos TIFA.

27–28: The United States and Afghanistan hold 

an annual meeting under the U.S.-Afghanistan 

TIFA.

27–28: The United States and Vietnam hold the 

first annual meeting under the U.S.-Vietnam 

TIFA since 2011.

30: Senior officials from the United States and 

the 10 members of the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN) meet to discuss their 

economic agenda, including proposals for 

advancing work under the U.S.-ASEAN TIFA, 

such as on digital trade and ways to support 

small and medium-sized enterprises in global 

trade.

31: USTR releases its National Trade Estimate 

on Foreign Trade Barriers report for 2017.

31: Executive Order 13786 directs the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (USDOC) and USTR to 

submit the “Omnibus Report on Significant 

Trade Deficits,” which examines the causes of 

U.S. trade deficits by country.

April

3: The United States and Guatemala reach an 

agreement to accelerate the elimination of 

tariffs on U.S. fresh, frozen, and chilled poultry 

exports and for Guatemala to establish a tariffrate quota allowing imports of up to 1,000 

metric tons of processed chicken leg quarters to 

enter duty free each year through December 

31, 2021.

3: The United States and Thailand hold the first 

of two TIFA meetings for the year.

13: A WTO arbitrator determines that the 

“reasonable period of time” for the United 

States to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings related to U.S. 

antidumping and countervailing duty measures 

on large residential washers from South Korea 

is 15 months, expiring on December 26, 2017 

(DS464).

17–20: President Trump and Japanese Prime 

Minister Abe meet in both Palm Beach, Florida, 

and Washington, DC, to discuss a variety of 

economic and political issues, including a 

number of trade issues and coordinated 

economic pressure on North Korea. The trade 

discussions centered on tariff rate increases 

President Trump was considering on some 

trading partners, potential U.S. airplane sales to 

Japan, and the launch of the contemporaneous 

U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue in Tokyo, led by 

Vice President Michael Pence and Deputy Prime 

Minister Aso of Japan.

19: USDOC initiates a section 232 national 

security investigation on steel.

20: The U.S.-Nepal TIFA Council holds its third 

meeting to promote expanded bilateral trade 

and investment in goods and services.

21: The U.S.-Tunisia TIFA Council holds its 

seventh meeting, discussing market access, 

growth, and cooperation in organic product 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 47

certification, technology transfer, and capacity 

building.

26: USDOC initiates a section 232 national 

security investigation on aluminum.

28: USTR releases its 2017 Special 301 Report

on the global state of intellectual property 

rights protection and enforcement. This year’s 

report places 11 countries on USTR’s “Priority 

Watch List,” signifying countries USTR deems 

most problematic with respect to protection 

and enforcement of intellectual property rights. 

These countries are Algeria, Argentina, Chile, 

China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, 

Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

May

17: The United States and Bangladesh hold the 

3rd Council meeting under the Trade and 

Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement.

17: USITC institutes a safeguard investigation on 

crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.

18: The Trump Administration announces its 

intent to renegotiate the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

20–21: The 23rd meeting of Ministers 

Responsible for Trade under APEC is convened 

in Hanoi, Vietnam, with discussions focusing on 

efforts to facilitate digital trade in the region, 

expand services markets, strengthen 

intellectual property rights protections, and 

eliminate barriers to agriculture and food trade. 

USTR Robert Lighthizer holds bilateral meetings 

with the following economies: Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, Vietnam, China, and Australia.

22: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

report and the panel report in the complaint by 

China regarding certain U.S. methodologies and 

their application to antidumping proceedings 

involving China (DS471).

22: The WTO DSB establishes a compliance 

panel in response to a request by India in a case 

concerning prohibitions by India on the 

importation of various U.S. agricultural products 

because of concerns related to avian influenza 

(DS430).

22: The WTO DSB authorizes Mexico to suspend 

the application of tariff concessions to the 

United States in the case regarding U.S. 

measures concerning the importation, 

marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna products 

(DS381).

30: The United States and Vietnam hold a 

second meeting under the U.S.-Vietnam TIFA 

this year. USTR Lighthizer meets with 

Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc 

to discuss the U.S.-Vietnam trade relationship 

and outstanding bilateral trade issues.

June

5: USITC institutes a safeguard investigation on 

large residential washers.

7–8: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development holds its 

Ministerial Council meeting in Paris, France.

9: The WTO DSB panel circulates its report in 

the complaint by the EU regarding U.S. 

measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft 

(second complaint) (DS353).

12–13: The United States and Indonesia meet 

under their TIFA.

12–13: The United States and Thailand meet 

under their TIFA for the second time in 2017.

19: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute 

settlement panel to review the complaint by 

Turkey regarding U.S. countervailing duties on 

imports of Turkish steel pipes and tubes 

(DS523).
The Year in Trade 2017

48 | www.usitc.gov

20: USTR announces initiation of an out-of-cycle 

African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 

review for Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda.

27–29: Following a 90-day notification to 

Congress and a public comment period, USTR 

holds public hearings on NAFTA renegotiations 

in Washington, DC.

29: USTR’s annual review under the Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP) results in the USTR 

self-initiating a country-practice review of 

Bolivia’s compliance with GSP eligibility criteria 

related to child labor.

29: USTR Lighthizer meets with New Zealand 

Minister of Trade Todd McClay. Opportunities 

to deepen the trade partnership and coordinate 

solutions on global dairy market challenges 

were discussed.

30: USTR Lighthizer meets with Japan Trade 

Minister Hiroshige Seko to discuss bilateral 

trade relations and cooperation against thirdparty trade-distorting practices.

July

1: The second set of tariff reductions takes 

place under the expansion of the Information 

Technology Agreement.

7–8: The G20 Summit takes place in Hamburg, 

Germany. President Trump and Chinese 

President Xi Jinping meet to discuss reciprocal 

trade and market access.

11: The United States and the Philippines meet 

under their TIFA.

12: USTR Lighthizer formally notifies South 

Korea that the United States is calling for a 

special session of the KORUS Joint Committee 

to discuss possible amendments and 

modifications to KORUS.

17: The United States and Malaysia meet under 

the TIFA and agree to work together to address 

outstanding issues, including by establishing 

working groups related to goods, intellectual 

property, financial services, labor, and the 

environment.

17: USTR Lighthizer releases objectives for the 

renegotiation of NAFTA.

18: U.S. Commerce Department Secretary 

Wilbur Ross and U.S. Treasury Department 

Secretary Steven Mnuchin meet with China’s 

Vice Premier Wang Yang for the first session of 

the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic 

Dialogue in Washington, DC.

24–25: The inaugural meeting of the U.S.-UK 

Trade and Investment Working Group takes 

place in Washington, DC, to discuss the future 

trade relationship between the United States 

and the United Kingdom (UK) after the UK 

leaves the EU.

31: USTR announces reallocation of the unused 

in-quota quantity of the WTO tariff-rate quota 

for raw cane sugar for fiscal year (FY) 2017.

31: USTR announces revised FY 2017 tariff-rate 

quota allocations for raw cane sugar.

August

7–10: The United States co-hosts the 16th 

AGOA Forum with Togo in Lomé, Togo, with 

government officials, civil society leaders, 

business representatives, and representatives 

from the U.S.-sponsored African Women’s 

Entrepreneurship Program in attendance.

8: U.S. and Cambodian officials meet under 

their TIFA.

14: President Trump instructs USTR Lighthizer 

to determine whether to investigate any of 

China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions that 

may be considered unreasonable or 

discriminatory, or may be harming U.S. 

intellectual property rights, innovation, and 

technical development.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 49

16–20: The first round of NAFTA renegotiations 

takes place in Washington, DC.

18: USTR Lighthizer, upon consultation with U.S. 

governmental and private sector advisory 

committees, launches an investigation of China 

regarding intellectual property, innovation, and 

technology under Section 301 of the Trade Act 

of 1974.

22: The first Special Session of the U.S.-Korea 

FTA Joint Committee is held under the KORUS 

FTA.

September

1–5: The second round of NAFTA renegotiations 

takes place in Mexico City, Mexico.

9: USTR holds consultations with ASEAN 

economic ministers in Manila, Philippines.

18–19: U.S. and EU officials meet for the first 

annual review of the functioning of the Privacy 

Shield, a mechanism for companies to transfer 

personal data from the EU to the United States 

that is consistent with EU law.

21: South Korea’s Minister for Trade Hyunchong Kim formally requests the second special 

session of the Joint Committee under KORUS.

21: U.S. President Trump and Japanese Prime 

Minister Abe meet in New York to discuss a 

variety of economic and political issues of 

mutual interest, including coordinated action on 

North Korea, during the United Nations General 

Assembly meeting.

22: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

report and the panel report in the complaint by 

the EU relating to U.S. conditional tax incentives 

for large civil aircraft (DS487).

22: U.S. and EU officials sign a “covered 

agreement” on prudential measures affecting 

insurance and reinsurance. The agreement 

would help level the regulatory playing field for 

U.S.-based insurers and reinsurers doing

business in the EU.

22: The WTO DSB establishes a dispute 

settlement panel requested by the United 

States to examine China’s administration of its 

tariff-rate quotas for certain agricultural 

products (DS517).

23–27: The third round of NAFTA renegotiations 

takes place in Ottawa, Canada. Progress is made 

in the areas of telecommunications, 

competition policy, digital trade, good 

regulatory practices, and customs and trade 

facilitation.

28: The United States files a second request for 

WTO dispute settlement consultations with 

Canada regarding measures governing the sale 

of wine in grocery stores. The United States 

identifies successor laws and regulations that 

entered into force after the original 

consultations request (DS531).

October

3: The United States and Ukraine hold the 7th 

U.S.-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council

meeting under their Trade and Investment

Cooperation Agreement.

4: A second Special Session of the U.S.-Korea 

FTA Joint Committee is held under the KORUS 

FTA.

4: The U.S.-Singapore FTA Environment Chapter 

meeting takes place in Singapore. Discussions 

focus primarily on enforcement of 

environmental laws, particularly to combat 

wildlife and timber trafficking in the region.

11–17: The fourth round of NAFTA 

renegotiations takes place in Mexico City, 

Mexico.

19: In accordance with the U.S.-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement’s Annex on Forest Sector 

Governance, USTR Lighthizer directs U.S. 
The Year in Trade 2017

50 | www.usitc.gov

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to block 

future timber imports from a Peruvian exporter 

based on illegally harvested timber found in its 

supply chain.

24: USTR announces new enforcement 

priorities for the GSP trade preference program. 

Priorities include heightened focus on 

concluding outstanding GSP cases and a new 

interagency process to assess beneficiary 

country compliance with eligibility criteria.

26: The 11th ministerial-level meeting of the 

India and United States Trade Policy Forum 

takes place in Washington, DC.

26: The WTO DSB circulates the compliance 

panel report in the complaint by Mexico 

regarding U.S. measures concerning the 

importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and 

tuna products (DS381).

November

5–7: President Trump visits Japan to meet with 

Prime Minister Abe to discuss a variety of 

economic issues. In his initial speech in Tokyo, 

President Trump addresses the importance of 

strengthening bilateral trade and investment, 

job creation, and balanced trade.

13–14: The second meeting of the U.S.-U.K. 

Trade and Investment Working Group takes 

place in London, UK. Topics covered by the 

working group include industrial and 

agricultural goods; services, investment, 

financial services and digital trade; intellectual 

property rights and enforcement; regulatory 

issues related to trade; labor and 

environment/sustainable development; and 

small and medium-sized enterprises.

14: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel 

report in the complaint by South Korea 

concerning U.S. antidumping measures relating 

to certain oil country tubular goods from South 

Korea (DS488).

17–21: The fifth round of NAFTA renegotiations 

takes place in Mexico City, Mexico.

17: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hosts the 

Ministerial on Trade, Security, and Governance 

in Africa in Washington, DC. Discussions are 

based on the themes of trade and investment, 

security, and good governance.

17: USTR Lighthizer releases an updated 

summary of the objectives for the renegotiation 

of NAFTA.

22: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body 

report and the panel report in the complaint by 

the United States relating to certain measures 

Indonesia imposes on its imports of 

horticultural products, animals, and animal 

products (DS478).

28: Canada requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding 

U.S. countervailing measures on softwood 

lumber from Canada (DS533).

28: Canada requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding 

U.S. antidumping measures applying differential 

pricing methodology to softwood lumber from 

Canada (DS534).

29: The United States and the Philippines meet 

under their TIFA for the second time this year.

December

5: The United States and Egypt hold a Trade and 

Investment Council meeting in Cairo under their 

TIFA.

6: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel 

report in the complaint by Indonesia concerning 

U.S. antidumping and countervailing measures 

relating to certain coated paper from Indonesia 

(DS491).

8: The U.S.-Australia FTA Joint Committee 

meets to review implementation of the U.S.-

Australia FTA, including issues related to trade 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade

U.S International Trade Commission | 51

in goods and services, intellectual property, and 

investment. The Committee also received a 

report from the FTA’s Committee on Sanitary 

and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Measures and its 

efforts to address SPS issues affecting U.S.-

Australia agricultural trade.

10–13: The WTO’s 11th Ministerial Conference 

takes place in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 

Members agree to extend the practice of not 

imposing customs duties on electronic 

transmissions for another two years and discuss 

fisheries subsidies. Representatives from the 

United States, the EU, and Japan agree to 

strengthen their commitment to ensure a global 

level playing field and eliminate severe excess 

capacity in key sectors.

13: The 11th anniversary council meeting of the 

U.S.-Central Asia TIFA is held in Almaty,

Kazakhstan, with senior trade officials from the 

United States, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, 

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, with 

representatives from Afghanistan participating 

as observers.

19: The United States requests authorization to 

suspend concessions or obligations with respect 

to India in a WTO case concerning India’s 

purchase power agreements with solar firms 

and domestic content requirements (DS456).

20: Canada requests WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States regarding 

certain measures maintained by the United 

States with respect to antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings (DS535).

22: The Gambia and Swaziland are redesignated 

as eligible for AGOA trade preferences.

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

Transportation, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Trade Representative, White House, Federal Register, Regulations.gov, Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation, World Trade Organization, European Commission, Global Affairs Canada, and Inside U.S. Trade. 
52 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 53

Chapter 2 

Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and 

Regulations 

This chapter surveys activities related to the administration of U.S. trade laws during 2017, covering 

import relief laws, laws against unfair trade practices, national security investigations, trade adjustment 

assistance programs, and tariff preference programs. Tariff preference programs encompass the U.S. 

Generalized System of Preferences, the Nepal Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act, and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, including initiatives aiding Haiti.48

Import Relief Laws

Safeguard Actions 

This section covers safeguard actions under provisions administered by the Commission, including the 

global safeguard provisions in sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 1974,49 and the safeguard provisions 

in various bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving the United States.

The Commission conducted two new safeguard investigations during 2017, both under the global 

safeguard provisions in sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 1974. These were the first investigations 

conducted by the Commission under the global safeguard provisions since 2001. The first investigation 

concerned imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (CSPV cells),50 and the second concerned 

imports of large residential washers (washers).51 Each investigation was conducted following receipt of a 

petition from a domestic producer of the article.52 The Commission made affirmative injury 

determinations in each investigation and, to address the serious injury, recommended a remedy 

measure to the President. The Commission submitted its reports on CSPV cells and washers to the 

President in November 2017 and December 2017, respectively. As of the end of 2017, the Commission’s

48 The President’s authority to provide preferential treatment under the Andean Trade Preference Act, as amended 

by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, expired in 2013 and had not been renewed as of April 

2018.

49 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254. 50 USITC, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products), 

November 2017. For more information, including a detailed description of the imported article, see the 

Commission’s notice of investigation and hearing published in the Federal Register of June 1, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 

25331), and USITC, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other 

Products), November 2017. 51 USITC, Large Residential Washers, December 2017. For more information, including a detailed description of the 

imported article, see the Commission’s notice of investigation and hearing published in the Federal Register of 

June 13, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 27075), and USITC, Large Residential Washers, December 2017. 52 The petition in CSPV Cells was filed by Suniva Inc., and SolarWorld later joined Suniva as co-petitioner. The 

petition in Large Residential Washers was filed by Whirlpool Corporation.
The Year in Trade 2017

54 | www.usitc.gov

reports on both CSPV cells53 and washers54 were pending before the President. Under section 203 of the 

Trade Act of 1974,55 the President makes the final decision on remedy, including whether to apply a 

remedy measure and, if so, the type, amount, and duration of the measure.

Laws against Unfair Trade Practices

Section 301

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.56 Section 301 may be used to enforce U.S. rights under 

bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and to respond to unjustifiable, unreasonable, or 

discriminatory foreign government practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Interested persons 

may petition the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate foreign government 

policies or practices, or USTR may initiate an investigation itself.

If the investigation involves a trade agreement and consultations do not lead to a mutually acceptable 

resolution, section 303 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires USTR to use the dispute settlement procedures 

available under the agreement in question. If the matter is not resolved by the conclusion of the 

investigation, section 304 of the Trade Act of 1974 requires USTR to determine whether the practices in 

question fulfill any of three conditions: (1) they deny U.S. rights under a trade agreement; (2) they are 

unjustifiable, and burden or restrict U.S. commerce; or (3) they are unreasonable or discriminatory, and 

burden or restrict U.S. commerce. If the practices fulfill either of the first two conditions, USTR must 

take action.57 If the practices fulfill the third condition—that is, if they are unreasonable or 

discriminatory, and they burden or restrict U.S. commerce—USTR must determine whether action is 

appropriate and, if so, what type of action to take.58 The time period for making these determinations 

varies according to the type of practices alleged.

 53 On January 23, 2018, the President issued Proclamation 9693 “to facilitate positive adjustment to competition 

from imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other 

products) and for other purposes.” The proclamation imposed a tariff-rate quota on imports of solar cells not 

partially or fully assembled into other products and an increase of duties on imports of modules for a period of 

four years, with annual reductions in the second, third, and fourth years. The measure was made effective as of 

February 7, 2018, and applied to imports from all countries except certain developing countries. The proclamation 

was published in the Federal Register of January 25, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 3541). 54 Also on January 23, 2018, the President issued Proclamation 9694 “to facilitate positive adjustment to 

competition from imports of large residential washers.” The proclamation imposed a tariff-rate quota on imports 

of washers and a tariff-rate quota on imports of covered washer parts for a period of three years and one day, with 

annual reductions in the second and third years. The measure was made effective as of February 7, 2018, and 

applied to imports from all countries except for products of Canada and certain developing countries. The 

proclamation was published in the Federal Register of January 25, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 3553). 55 19 U.S.C. § 2253. 56 Section 301 refers to sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420). 57 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)). 58 Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(b)).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 55

Section 301 Investigations

During 2017, USTR self-initiated an investigation under section 301 regarding China’s acts, policies, and 

practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. In addition, in response 

to a written request from representatives of the U.S. beef industry, USTR initiated a process to consider 

whether to reinstate additional duties that had been imposed on certain imports from the European 

Union (EU) under section 301.

China Technology Transfer. On August 14, 2017, the President issued a memorandum to the United 

States Trade Representative, directing the USTR to determine, pursuant to section 302(b) of the Trade 

Act of 1974, whether to investigate any of China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions that may be 

unreasonable or discriminatory and that may be harming American intellectual property rights (IPRs), 

innovation, or technological development.59 In accordance with the President’s memorandum, USTR 

initiated an investigation under section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, to determine whether any acts, 

policies, or practices of the government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, or 

innovation are unreasonable or discriminatory and whether the acts, policies, or practices burden or 

restrict U.S. commerce.60 USTR is investigating a wide variety of acts, policies, and practices by the 

government of China that allegedly require or pressure the transfer of technology and intellectual 

property to Chinese companies on nonmarket terms. In addition, USTR is investigating allegations of 

systematic Chinese government support to Chinese companies that seek to acquire or obtain cuttingedge technologies from U.S. companies in industries deemed important by the Chinese government. 

USTR is further considering whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized 

intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks. As part of the investigation, USTR held a public 

hearing in October 2017 and solicited written public comments. Under the statute, USTR generally has 

up to 12 months from the date of initiation to determine whether the statutory requirements have been 

met and, if so, what action to take. The China technology transfer section 301 investigation was ongoing 

at the end of 2017.61

EU Meat Hormones. A second section 301 investigation that was active during 2017 related to a 

longstanding dispute with respect to EU measures concerning meat and meat products. The 

investigation concerned various meat hormone directives of the EU, which prohibit the use of certain 

hormones that promote growth in farm animals. The United States had successfully challenged the EU 

measures at the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in 1999, imposed additional ad valorem duties62

of 100 percent on about $117 million in imports from the EU in retaliation.63

59 82 Fed. Reg. 39007 (August 17, 2017). 60 82 Fed. Reg. 40213 (August 24, 2017). 61 On March 22, 2018, USTR released a comprehensive report containing detailed findings about China’s acts, 

policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. USTR, Findings of the 

Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and 

Innovations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, March 22, 2018. On April 1, 2018, USTR released a list of 

products from China, valued at approximately $50 billion, on which USTR is considering the imposition of an 

additional duty of 25 percent ad valorem. 83 Fed. Reg. 14906 (April 6, 2018). 62 Ad valorem duties or tariffs are taxes that are levied as a percentage of the value of the imported goods. 63 64 Fed. Reg. 40638 (July 27, 1999); WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS26; European Communities—Measures 

Concerning Meat and Meat Products” (accessed March 6, 2017).
The Year in Trade 2017

56 | www.usitc.gov

In January 2009, the USTR announced a determination to modify the list of products subject to 

additional duties, consistent with WTO authorization. In May 2009, the United States and the EU signed 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU).64 Under the MOU, the EU agreed to establish a tariff-rate 

quota (TRQ)65 with an in-quota tariff rate of zero for beef produced without growth-promoting 

hormones (i.e., “high-quality beef”)66 in the amount of 20,000 metric tons (mt),67 and the United States 

agreed to reduce the scope of the retaliation list.68 The MOU further provided that the parties could 

enter a second phase under which the EU would increase the TRQ to 45,000 mt beginning in August 

2012, and the United States would lift the remaining additional duties.69 The United States and the EU 

entered into the second phase of the MOU beginning August 1, 2012, and the EU increased the TRQ for 

high-quality beef to 45,000 mt.70 The MOU provided that the second phase would continue for one year. 

In August 2013, the United States and the EU agreed to extend the second phase of the MOU for two 

additional years, until August 2, 2015, thereby maintaining the TRQ for high-quality beef at 45,000 mt.71

Although the second phase of the MOU ended in August 2015, the EU has maintained the 45,000 mt 

TRQ for high-quality beef.72

In February 2016, Congress amended section 301 to authorize USTR to reinstate any additional duties 

that had been previously imposed under section 301 and then subsequently terminated.73 The 

amendment also allows the USTR to suspend concessions and to reinstate a section 301 action following 

receipt of a written request from a petitioner or any representative of the domestic industry. It requires 

that USTR, following the receipt of such a request, consult with the petitioner and representatives of the 

domestic industry and provide an opportunity for public comments. In addition, it requires that USTR 

review the effectiveness of any reimposed additional duties. 

On December 9, 2016, representatives of the U.S. beef industry filed a request with USTR asking that the 

additional duties be reinstated.74 According to the industry, the MOU has not in practice provided 

benefits sufficient to compensate for the economic harm resulting from the EU ban on all but speciallyproduced U.S. beef. On December 28, 2016, USTR issued a public notice of the request and announced 

 64 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. 65 A tariff-rate quota (TRQ) is a trade restriction that imposes a relatively low “in-quota” tariff on imports until the 

quota level (sometimes an annual allocation) is met. Any imports beyond the quota level are subject to a higher 

over-quota tariff. 66 Article VI of the U.S.-EU Beef MOU defines “high-quality beef.” 67 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(1). 68 U.S.-EU Beef MOU, Art. II(3); 74 Fed. Reg. 40864 (August 13, 2009). 69 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.

70 Regulation (EU) No. 464/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149, June 8, 2012, 1. 71 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Froman, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack Announce Continued EU Market 

Access for American Producers of High-Quality Beef,” August 1, 2013. 72 81 Fed. Reg. 95724 (December 28, 2016). 73 Section 602 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-125) (19 U.S.C. 2416(c), as 

amended).

74 Letter to the Honorable Michael Froman, Ambassador, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, from Kendal 

Frazier, CEO, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Barry Carpenter, CEO, North American Meat Institute; and 

Philip M. Seng, President and CEO, U.S. Meat Export Federation, dated Dec. 9, 2016 (accessed at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket Number USTR-2016-0025, on March 6, 2016).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 57

a public hearing and an opportunity for public comment.75 The public hearing was held on February 15–

16, 2017, in Washington, DC. During 2017, USTR engaged in discussions with the EU about possible 

modifications of the TRQ for high-quality beef to address U.S. industry concerns and was considering the 

possible reinstatement of duties.76

Special 301

The Special 301 law77 requires that the USTR annually identify and issue a list of foreign countries that 

deny adequate and effective protection of IPRs, or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons 

who rely on IPR protection.78 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 relating to patents, 

process patents, registered trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and mask works.”79

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 using laws and practices that violate international agreements or that constitute 

discriminatory nontariff trade barriers.80 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).81

In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify so-called “priority foreign countries.”82

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.83 Such 

countries must be designated as priority foreign countries unless they are entering into good-faith 

negotiations, or they are making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide 

adequate and effective IPR protection.84 The identification of a country as a priority foreign country 

triggers a section 301 investigation,85 unless the USTR determines that the investigation would be 

detrimental to U.S. economic interests.86

 75 81 Fed. Reg. 95724 (December 28, 2016). 76 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 43. 77 The Special 301 law is set forth in section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242). 78 “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)). 79 A “mask work” is a “series of related images, however fixed or encoded—(A) having or representing the 

predetermined, three-dimensional pattern of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed 

from the layers of a semiconductor chip product; and (B) in which series the relation of the images to one another 

is that each image has the pattern of the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.” 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.”

80 Section 182(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(3)). 81 Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(4)). 82 Section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(a)(2)). 83 Section 182(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)). 84 Ibid. 85 Section 302(b)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2)(A)). 86 Section 302(b)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2)(B)).
The Year in Trade 2017

58 | www.usitc.gov

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 

listing the countries as priority foreign countries.87 The priority watch list identifies countries with 

significant IPR concerns that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. If a country on the 

priority watch list makes progress, it may be moved to the watch list or removed from any listing. On the 

other hand, a country that fails to make progress may be raised from the watch list to the priority watch 

list or from the priority watch list to the list of priority foreign countries.

In February 2016, Congress enacted amendments to the Special 301 statute that provided that USTR 

should develop an action plan for each country that has been identified as a priority watch list country 

and that has remained on the priority watch list for at least one year.88 The action plan should contain 

benchmarks designed to assist the country to achieve, or make significant progress toward achieving, 

adequate and effective protection of IPRs and fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons that rely 

on IPR protection.

In the 2017 Special 301 review, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of IPR protection in 

more than 100 countries.89 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a wide range of issues and 

policy objectives, including inadequate IPR protection and enforcement worldwide, compulsory 

technology licensing and transfer, and the unauthorized use of unlicensed software by foreign 

governments.90

Although no country was identified as a priority foreign country in the 2017 Special 301 Report, the 

report identified 11 countries on the priority watch list: Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, 

Kuwait, Russia, Thailand,91 Ukraine, and Venezuela.92 In addition, the report identified 23 countries on 

the watch list.93

In keeping China on the priority watch list, the report highlighted serious challenges with respect to 

adequate and effective IPR protection, as well as fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons that 

rely on IRP protection.94 The report cites many longstanding concerns, such as coercive technology 

transfer requirements, structural impediments to effective IPR enforcement, and widespread infringing 

activity, including trade secret theft, rampant online piracy and counterfeiting, and high levels of pirated 

 87 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, Annex 1. 88 Section 610(b) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-125) (19 U.S.C. 2242(g)), as 

amended.

89 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 4; USTR, “USTR Releases Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property 

Rights,” April 28, 2017. 90 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017. 91 The 2017 Special 301 Report noted that Thailand was making substantial progress in addressing the concerns 

raised in that report. In September 2017, USTR initiated an out-of-cycle review of Thailand’s Special 301 status, and 

in December, Thailand was moved from the priority watch list to the watch list. 82 Fed. Reg. 44240 (September 21, 

2017); USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Announces Results of Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Thailand,” December 15, 

2017.

92 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 5. 93 The countries on the 2017 watch list are Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the 

Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, 

Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 5. 94 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 28–37.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 59

and counterfeit exports. India remained on the priority watch list in 2017 due to a lack of measurable 

improvement to its IPR regime, particularly with respect to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and 

enforcement.95

As part of the annual Special 301 process, USTR also issues a separate report on so-called notorious 

markets. USTR defines notorious markets as online or physical marketplaces that are reported to engage 

in or facilitate commercial-scale copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. The report, 2017 Out-ofCycle Review of Notorious Markets, was issued in January 2018.96 The report highlights those markets 

where the scale of this activity is such that it can cause significant harm to U.S. IPR holders. The 2017 

report listed 25 online markets and 18 physical markets in 12 countries, including markets in China and 

India that reportedly engage in or facilitate commercial-scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright 

piracy.

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Investigations and Reviews

Antidumping Duty Investigations

The U.S. antidumping law is found in Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.97 This law offers 

relief to U.S. industries that are materially injured by imports that are dumped, or sold at “less than fair 

value” (LTFV). The U.S. government provides a remedy by imposing an additional duty on LTFV imports.

Antidumping duties are imposed when (1) the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) has determined 

that imports are being, or are likely to be, sold at 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.”) Investigations are generally initiated on the basis 

of a petition filed with the USDOC and the Commission by or on behalf of a U.S. industry, but can be selfinitiated by the USDOC.98 The USDOC and the Commission each make preliminary determinations and, if 

the Commission’s preliminary determination is affirmative, then each agency will make final 

determinations during the investigation process.

In general, imports are considered to be sold at LTFV when a foreign firm sells merchandise in the U.S. 

market at a price that is lower than the “normal value” of the merchandise.99 Generally, normal value is 

the price the foreign firm charges for a comparable product sold in its home market.100 Under certain 

circumstances, the foreign firm’s U.S. sales price may also be compared with the price the foreign firm 

 95 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 42–44. For more information on IPR in China and India, see chapter 6. 96 USTR, 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, January 2018, 1. 97 19 U.S.C. § 1673 et seq. 98 On December 4, 2017, USDOC self initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on common alloy 

aluminum sheet from China. USDOC, “U.S. Department of Commerce Self-Initiates Historic Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Investigations,” November 28, 2017; USDOC, “Fact Sheet: Commerce Preliminarily Finds 

Dumping,” June 2018. 99 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) (defining export price), § 1677a(b) (defining constructed 

export price).

100 19 U.S.C. § 1677b.
The Year in Trade 2017

60 | www.usitc.gov

charges in other export markets or with the firm’s cost of producing the merchandise, taking into 

account the firm’s “selling, general, and administrative expenses” and its profit. Under the law, this 

latter basis for comparison is known as “constructed value.”101 Finally, where the producer is located in 

a nonmarket economy, a comparison is made between U.S. prices and a “surrogate” normal value (its 

factors of production, as valued by use of a “surrogate” country).102 A “nonmarket economy country” is 

any foreign country that the administering authority determines does not operate on market principles 

of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of 

the merchandise.103

In all three methods, the amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price is the “dumping 

margin.” The duty specified in an antidumping duty order reflects the weighted average dumping 

margins found by the USDOC, both for the specific exporters it examined and for all other exporters.104

This rate of duty (in addition to any ordinary customs duty owed) will be applied to subsequent imports 

from the specified producers/exporters in the country involved, but it may be adjusted if the USDOC 

receives a request for an annual review.105

The Commission instituted 58 new antidumping investigations, and made 54 preliminary determinations 

and 36 final determinations in 2017.106 As a result of affirmative final USDOC and Commission 

determinations, in 2017, the USDOC issued 33 antidumping duty orders on 15 products from 16 

countries (table 2.1). The status of all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 

2017—including, if applicable, the date of final action—is presented in appendix table A.10. A list of all 

antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements (agreements to suspend investigations)107 in effect 

as of the end of 2017 appears in appendix table A.11.

 101 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(4), § 1677b(e). 102 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c). 103 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). 104 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c). 105 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). 106 Data reported here and in the following two chapter 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. 107 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 resumed, assuming it was not continued after the 

suspension agreement was issued, if USDOC determines that the suspension agreement has been violated. See 19 

U.S.C. § 1673c.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 61

Table 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2017

Trade partner Product

Range of dumping margins

(percent)

Austria Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 53.72

Belgium Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 5.40–51.78

Brazil Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 74.52

Brazil Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber 19.61

China 1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) 148.79–167.02

China 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) 167.58–184.01

China Ammonium sulfate 493.46

China Amorphous silica fabric 162.47

China Biaxial integral geogrid products 372.81

China Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 68.27

China Large residential washers 32.12–52.51

China Stainless steel sheet and strip 63.86–76.64

France Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 6.15–148.02

Germany Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 5.38–21.03

India Finished carbon steel flanges 11.32–12.58

India New pneumatic off-the-road tires 4.90–5.36

Italy Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 6.08–22.19

Italy Finished carbon steel flanges 79.17–204.53

Japan Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 14.79–48.67

Japan Steel concrete reinforcing bar 206.43–209.46

Mexico Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber 19.52

Poland Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber 25.43

South Africa Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 87.72–94.14

South Korea Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 7.39

South Korea Dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) 2.71–4.08

South Korea Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber 9.66–44.30

South Korea Ferrovanadium 3.22–54.69

South Korea Phosphor copper 8.43

Spain Finished carbon steel flanges 18.81–24.43

Taiwan Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 2.80–8.01

Taiwan Steel concrete reinforcing bar 3.62–6.95

Turkey Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 3.62–6.95

Turkey Steel concrete reinforcing bar 5.39–8.17

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.

Note: Antidumping duty orders become effective following final affirmative determinations by USDOC and the Commission. 

The rates in the table apply in addition to any ordinary customs duty owed.
The Year in Trade 2017

62 | www.usitc.gov

Countervailing Duty Investigations

The U.S. countervailing duty law is also set forth in Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.108 It 

provides for the imposition of additional duties to offset (“countervail”) foreign subsidies on products 

imported into the United States.109 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. In addition, 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 26 new countervailing duty investigations, and made 17 preliminary 

determinations and 16 final determinations during 2017. USDOC issued 11 countervailing duty orders on 

9 products from 5 countries in 2017 as a result of affirmative USDOC and Commission determinations 

(table 2.2). The status of all countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2017, 

and, if applicable, the date of final action, is presented in appendix table A.12. A list of all countervailing 

duty orders and suspension agreements110 in effect at the end of 2017 appears in appendix table A.13.

 108 19 U.S.C. § 1671. 109 A subsidy is defined as a financial benefit given by an authority (a government of a country or any public entity 

within the territory of the country) to a person, in which the authority either (1) provides a financial contribution, 

(2) provides any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the General Agreement on 

Tariffs and Trade 1994, or (3) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or 

entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution would normally be 

vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by 

governments. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(B).

110 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 resumed, assuming it had not previously been 

continued after issuance of the suspension agreement, if USDOC determines that the suspension agreement has 

been violated. See 19 U.S.C. § 1671c.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 63

Table 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2017

Trade partner Product

Range of countervailable subsidy rates 

(percent)

China Biaxial integral geogrid products 15.61–152.50

China Ammonium sulfate 206.72

China Amorphous silica fabric 48.94–135.39

China Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 251.00

China Stainless steel sheet and strip 75.60–190.71

China 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) 0.75–54.11

India New pneumatic off-the-road tires 4.72–5.36

India Finished carbon steel flanges 5.66–9.11

South Korea Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 3.62–148.02

Sri Lanka New pneumatic off-the-road tires 2.18

Turkey Steel concrete reinforcing bar 16.21

Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.

Note: Countervailing duty orders become effective following final affirmative determinations by USDOC and the Commission. 

The rates in the table apply in addition to any ordinary customs duty owed.

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 compliance with suspension agreements. 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.111 Where a changed-circumstances review is directed to the Commission, the party that 

is asking to have an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order revoked or a suspended 

investigation terminated has the burden of persuading the Commission that circumstances have 

changed enough to warrant revocation.112 On the basis of either the USDOC’s or the 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.

Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires both the USDOC and the Commission to conduct 

“sunset” reviews of existing antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders and suspension 

agreements five years after their publication. These reviews are intended to determine whether 

revoking an order or terminating a suspension agreement would be likely to lead to the continuation or 

recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy and of material injury.113 If either the USDOC or the 

Commission reaches a negative determination, the order will be revoked or the suspension agreement 

terminated. During 2017, the USDOC and the Commission instituted 32 sunset reviews of existing 

antidumping and countervailing duty orders or suspended investigations,114 and the Commission 

completed 46 reviews. As a result of affirmative determinations by the USDOC and the Commission, 45 

111 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b). 112 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b)(3). 113 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c). 114 One of these instituted reviews (frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil) was subsequently terminated and the 

outstanding antidumping duty order revoked because no domestic industry requested that it be continued.
The Year in Trade 2017

64 | www.usitc.gov

antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders were continued. Appendix table A.14 lists, by date and 

action, the reviews of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders and suspended investigations 

completed in 2017.115

Section 129 Investigations

Section 129 of the U.S. Uruguay Round Agreements Act sets out a procedure by which the 

Administration may respond to an adverse WTO panel or Appellate Body report concerning U.S. 

obligations under the WTO agreements on safeguards, antidumping, or subsidies and countervailing 

measures. Specifically, section 129 establishes a mechanism permitting the USTR to request that the 

agencies concerned—the USDOC and the Commission—issue a consistency or compliance 

determination, where such action is appropriate, to respond to the recommendations in a WTO panel or 

Appellate Body report.116

Large Residential Washers from South Korea. On September 26, 2016, the WTO Dispute Settlement 

Body (DSB) adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports in United States—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea (DS464). On September 26, 2016, the 

United States stated that it intends to implement the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute in a 

manner that respects U.S. WTO obligations, and that it will need a reasonable period of time in which to 

do so. On April 13, 2017, an Article 21.3(c) arbitrator determined that the requested time period for 

implementation would expire on December 26, 2017.117

On December 15, 2017, USTR requested that USDOC make a determination under section 129 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act to address the DSB’s recommendations relating to USDOC’s CVD 

investigation of washers from South Korea. On December 18, 2017, USDOC initiated a section 129 

proceeding.118 The section 129 proceeding is expected to be completed in 2018.119

Section 337 Investigations

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,120 prohibits certain unfair practices in the import 

trade. The unfair practice most frequently investigated by the Commission is patent infringement. In this 

context, section 337 prohibits the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after importation of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable United 

States patent, provided that an industry in the United States, relating to articles protected by the patent 

concerned, exists or is in the process of being established.121 Similar requirements govern investigations 

involving infringement of other federally registered IPRs, including registered trademarks, registered 

 115 For detailed information on reviews instituted, as well as Commission action in all reviews, see the 

Commission’s website section “Sunset Review Database” at https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/. 116 19 U.S.C. § 3538; see also Statement of Administrative Action submitted to the Congress in connection with the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 353.

117 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, 175. 118 U.S. Mission to the WTO, “Statement by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement 

Body,” Geneva, January 22, 2018, 4. 119 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 175. 120 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 121 Section 337 also covers articles that are made, produced, processed, or mined under, or by means of, a process 

covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable United States patent. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(ii).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 65

copyrights, registered mask works, and registered vessel hull designs. In addition, the Commission has 

general 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 using stolen U.S. trade 

secrets), the threat or effect of which is to destroy or injure a U.S. industry, to prevent the establishment 

of a U.S. industry, or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States.122 The 

Commission may institute an investigation on the basis of a complaint or on its own initiative.123

If the Commission determines that a violation exists, it can issue an exclusion order directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to block the imports in question (“subject imports”) from entry into the 

United States. The Commission can also issue cease and desist orders that direct the violating parties to 

stop engaging in the unlawful practices. The orders enter into force unless disapproved for policy 

reasons by the USTR124 within 60 days of issuance.125

During calendar year 2017, there were 130 active section 337 investigations and ancillary (secondary) 

proceedings, 74 of which were instituted that year. Of these 74 new proceedings, 59 were new section 

337 investigations and 15 were new ancillary proceedings relating to previously concluded 

investigations. In 54 of the new section 337 investigations instituted in 2017, patent infringement was 

the only type of unfair act alleged. Of the remaining 5 investigations, 1 involved allegations of patent 

infringement and trademark infringement; 1 involved allegations of patent infringement, trademark 

infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and passing off; 1 involved allegations of 

trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition; 1 involved allegations of false 

advertising; and 1 involved allegations of trade secret misappropriation.

The Commission completed a total of 64 investigations and ancillary proceedings under section 337 in 

2017, including 1 remand proceeding, 1 modification proceeding, 2 advisory opinion proceedings, 1 

enforcement proceeding, 2 declassification proceedings, and 8 rescission proceedings. In addition, the 

Commission issued 5 general exclusion orders, 12 limited exclusion orders, and 30 cease and desist 

orders during 2017. The Commission terminated 30 investigations without determining whether there 

had been a violation. Of these investigations, 19 were terminated on the basis of settlement agreements 

and/or consent orders, 10 were terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint, and 1 was 

terminated for other good cause shown. Commission activities involving section 337 proceedings in 

2017 are presented in appendix table A.15.

 122 Other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts have included common-law trademark infringement, 

trademark dilution, false advertising, false designation of origin, passing off, and antitrust violations. (In general 

terms, passing off consists of falsely representing one’s own product as that of another in order to deceive 

potential buyers.) Unfair practices that involve the importation of dumped or subsidized merchandise must be 

pursued under antidumping or countervailing duty provisions, not under section 337.

123 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). 124 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j). Although the statute reserves the review for the President, since 2005 this function has 

been officially delegated to the USTR. 70 Fed. Reg. 43251 (July 26, 2005).

125 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 for review. If the Commission finds a 

violation, it must determine the appropriate remedy, the amount of any bond to be collected while its 

determination is under review by the USTR, and whether public-interest considerations preclude issuing a remedy.
The Year in Trade 2017

66 | www.usitc.gov

The section 337 investigations active in 2017 continued to involve a broad spectrum of products. As in 

prior years, technology products were the single largest category, with approximately 38 percent of the 

active proceedings involving computer and telecommunications equipment and another 6 percent 

involving consumer electronics. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices became the second-largest 

category and were at issue in about 13 percent of the active proceedings. Automotive, transportation, 

and manufacturing products were at issue in about 10 percent of the active proceedings. The remaining 

33 percent of active proceedings involved a wide variety of other types of articles, including arrowheads 

for recreational hunting, robotic vacuum cleaners, lighted mirrors, pool and spa enclosures, reusable 

diapers, shaving cartridges, LED lighting devices, gas spring nailers, insulated beverage containers, cases 

and mounts for smartphones, and food flavorings.

At the close of 2017, 65 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending at the 

Commission. As of December 31, 2017, there were 109 exclusion orders based on violations of section 

337 in effect. Appendix table A.16 lists the investigations in which these exclusion orders were issued. 

Copies of the exclusion orders are available on the Commission’s website at 

https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/exclusion_orders.htm. For additional detailed information 

about 337 investigations instituted since October 1, 2008, see the Commission’s 337Info database, 

found at https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external.

National Security Investigations

In April 2017, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated investigations on imports of steel 

and aluminum, respectively, under the national security provisions of section 232 of the Trade 

Expansion Act of 1962.126 Section 232 requires the Secretary to submit a report to the President within 

270 days of institution of an investigation. The report must include the Secretary’s findings “with respect 

to the effect of the importation of such article in such quantities or under such circumstances upon the 

national security” and his recommendations for action or inaction. The statute also provides that if the 

Secretary finds that the imported article “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or 

under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” he is to so advise the President 

in his report. 127

The Secretary initiated the steel investigation on April 19, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the President signed 

a memorandum directing the Secretary to proceed expeditiously in conducting the investigation. The 

President further directed that if the Secretary finds that steel is being imported into the United States 

in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the 

Secretary is to recommend the actions and steps that should be taken to adjust steel imports so that 

they will not threaten to impair the national security.128 In a press release the USDOC stated that the 

Secretary had initiated the steel investigation for the purpose of considering overcapacity, dumping, 

illegal subsidies, and other factors to determine whether steel imports threaten U.S. economic security 

and military preparedness. The press release noted that the United States currently imposed no tariffs 

on imports of steel, but that it had to impose antidumping and countervailing duties in over 150 cases, 

 126 19 U.S.C. § 1862. 127 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(3)(A). 128 82 Fed. Reg. 19205 (April 26,2017)
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 67

with another 13 currently pending.129 The press release also cited, among other things, military needs 

for specialty steel alloys that are used for armor, vehicles, ships, aircraft, and infrastructure, and the 

need for a healthy domestic steel industry that could guarantee military supply chains in the event of a 

conflict.130 USDOC invited the public to submit comments relating to the investigation and held a public 

hearing on May 24, 2017. The investigation was in progress at the end of 2017 (box 2.1).131

The Secretary initiated the investigation on aluminum imports on April 26, 2017. On April 27, 2017, the 

President signed a memorandum directing the Secretary to proceed expeditiously in conducting his 

investigation. The President further directed that the Secretary, if he finds that aluminum is being 

imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair 

the national security, recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust aluminum imports so 

that they will not threaten to impair the national security.132 In a press release published on its website, 

USDOC indicated that the Secretary initiated the investigation on aluminum imports “in light of the large 

volumes of excess global aluminum production and capacity—much of which results from foreign 

government subsidies and other unfair practices—which distort the U.S. and global aluminum markets.” 

In the release, USDOC also noted that aluminum is used in a variety of commercial, infrastructure, and 

defense applications.133 USDOC invited the public to submit comments relating to the investigation and 

held a public hearing on June 22, 2017. The investigation was in progress at the end of 2017 (box 2.1).134

129 USDOC, Office of Public Affairs, “Presidential Memorandum Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation,” April 20, 

2017.

130 Ibid. 131 USDOC, “The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security: An Investigation Conducted under Section 232 

of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, As Amended,” January 11, 2018, 5, 7 132 82 Fed. Reg. 21509 (May 9, 2017). 133 USDOC, “Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Aluminum“ (accessed April 17, 2018). 134 USDOC, “The Effect of Imports of Aluminum on the National Security: An Investigation Conducted under Section 

232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended,” January 17, 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

68 | www.usitc.gov

Box 2.1 National security investigations on steel and aluminum, developments January–March 2018

Steel investigation. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross transmitted to the President a report on his 

department’s national security investigation of U.S. steel imports on January 11, 2018. Based on findings in the 

report, the Secretary concluded that “the present quantities and circumstance of steel imports are ‘weakening 

our internal economy’ and threaten to impair the national security as defined in Section 232.” He found that 

several important factors—including the level of global excess capacity, the level of U.S. imports, the reduction in 

basic U.S. oxygen furnace facilities since 2001, and the potential impact of further U.S. plant closures on capacity 

needed in a national emergency—supported recommending action under Section 232. To address the threat and 

to enable U.S. steel producers to operate at about an 80 percent or better capacity utilization rate based on 

available capacity in 2017, the Secretary recommended two alternative courses of action: (1) apply a quota to 

imports of flat, long, semi-finished, pipe and tube, and stainless steel (“subject steel”) at a level of 63 percent of 

each country’s 2017 import levels, or (2) apply a tariff to imports of subject steel at a rate of 24 percent ad 

valorem.a On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamation 9705, which imposed a tariff at a rate of 25 

percent ad valorem on imports of subject steel, but exempted imports of subject steel from Canada and Mexico 

pending ongoing discussions.b The President subsequently issued Proclamation 9711 of March 22, 2018, 

temporarily exempting Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the European Union (EU) from the tariff 

after having found satisfactory alternative means to address the national security concern.c

Aluminum investigation. Secretary Ross transmitted to the President a report on his department’s national 

security investigation of U.S. aluminum imports on January 19, 2018. In the report, the Secretary concluded that 

“the present quantities and circumstances of aluminum imports are ‘weakening our internal economy’ and 

threaten to impair the national security as defined in Section 232.” He further concluded, among other things, 

that “the U.S. Department of Defense and critical domestic industries depend on large quantities of aluminum,” 

that “import trends have left the United States almost totally reliant on foreign producers of primary aluminum” 

(i.e., unwrought aluminum that is not from recycled sources), that “the United States is at risk of becoming 

completely reliant on foreign producers of high-purity aluminum essential for key military and commercial 

systems,” and that “the domestic aluminum industry is at risk of becoming unable to satisfy existing national 

security needs or respond to a national security emergency that requires a large increase in domestic 

production.” In response, the Secretary sought to raise domestic production of primary aluminum to about 1.45 

million metric tons, or about 80 percent of existing U.S. primary aluminum production capacity. To accomplish 

this, he recommended two alternative courses of action, one involving a global quota or tariff, the other involving 

a tariff on imports from certain economies. Specifically, the President: (1) would either impose a worldwide 

quota on imports of primary aluminum and five types of wrought aluminum (“subject aluminum”) at a level of 

86.7 percent of 2017 import levels, or apply a tariff on all imports of subject aluminum at a rate of 7.7 percent ad 

valorem, or (2) would impose a tariff on imports of subject aluminum from a subset of economies (China, Hong 

Kong, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam) at a rate of 23.6 percent ad valorem. The Secretary stated that these five 

economies “are the source of substantial imports due to significant overcapacity and potential unreliable 

suppliers or likely sources of transshipped aluminum from China.”d On March 8, 2018, the President issued 

Proclamation 9704, which imposed a tariff at a rate of 10 percent ad valorem, in addition to the current rate of 

duty, on imports of subject aluminum, but exempted imports of subject aluminum from Canada and Mexico 

pending ongoing discussions.e The President subsequently issued Proclamation 9710, temporarily exempting 

Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the EU from the tariff after having found satisfactory alternative 

means to address the national security concern.f

a USDOC, “The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security: An Investigation Conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 

1962, As Amended,” January 11, 2018, 5, 7. b Proclamation No. 9705, 83 Fed. Reg. 11625 (March 15, 2018).

c Proclamation No. 9711, 83 Fed. Reg. 13361 (March 28, 2018).

d USDOC, “The Effect of Imports of Aluminum on the National Security: An Investigation Conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion 

Act of 1962, as Amended,” January 17, 2018, 5–6, 108. e Proclamation No. 9704, 83 Fed. Reg. 11619 (March 15, 2018).

f Proclamation No. 9710, 83 Fed. Reg. 13355 (March 28, 2018).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 69

Trade Adjustment Assistance

The United States provides trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to aid U.S. workers and firms adversely 

affected by import competition.135 On June 29, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act (TPEA). Title IV of the TPEA—the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Reauthorization Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015)—amended and reauthorized TAA for six years, until June 30, 

2021.136 The main TAA programs in effect in fiscal year (FY) 2017 were TAA for Workers, administered by 

the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), and TAA for Firms, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (USDOC). A third program, TAA for Farmers, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), was reauthorized by Congress through the TPEA of 2015.137 However, the U.S. 

Congress did not appropriate funding for new participants in this program for FY 2017. As a result, USDA 

did not accept any new petitions or applications for benefits in FY 2017.138

Selected developments in the TAA programs for workers and firms during FY 2017 are summarized 

below.139

Assistance for Workers

The provisions relating to TAA for Workers are set out in chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974.140

The program provides federal assistance to eligible workers who have been adversely affected by import 

competition. The TAA program offers a variety of benefits and services to eligible workers, including 

training, help with healthcare premium costs, trade readjustment allowances, reemployment assistance, 

and employment and case management services.141 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, https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/.

 135 Trade adjustment assistance (TAA) was first established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-793) and 

subsequently expanded and reauthorized numerous times. For more background on its history, see USITC, “A Brief 

History of the U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Workers,” January 2017. For recent history, see 

previous annual Year in Trade reports, found at https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/year_in_trade.htm. 136 Pub. L. 114-27, sect. 403. TAARA of 2015 contains sunset provisions similar to those in the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011, which took effect in 2014. Beginning July 1, 2021, the TAA program is 

scheduled to revert to a more limited set of eligibility and benefit provisions that are similar to the Reversion 2014 

provisions (e.g., services firms will no longer be eligible for the program). These provisions are scheduled to remain 

in place for one year; the authorization is set to expire after June 30, 2022, on which date the program is scheduled 

to begin to be phased out. CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers and the TAA Reauthorization Act of 2015,

September 14, 2016, 12.

137 The Trade Preferences Extension Act (TPEA) of 2015 reauthorized the TAA for Farmers Program for FY 2015 

through FY 2021.

138 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 54. 139 FY 2017 ran from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. 140 19 U.S.C. § 2271 et seq. 141 Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRAs) provide income support to eligible workers who participate in training. 

Reemployment TAA provides a wage supplement to eligible workers age 50 or older when they accept new 

employment at a lower wage. USDOL, “TAA Program Benefits and Services under the 2015 Amendments,” n.d. 

(accessed March 30, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

70 | www.usitc.gov

For petitioning workers to be eligible to apply for TAA, the Secretary of Labor must determine that they 

meet certain criteria relating to the reasons they were separated from their firm, including declining 

sales or production at their firm and increased imports of like or directly competitive articles.142

(Workers often apply in groups based on their former firms.) Workers at firms that are or were suppliers 

to or downstream users of the output of TAA-certified firms may also be eligible for TAA benefits.143

When the Commission makes an affirmative determination in a global safeguard investigation under 

section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, USDOL is required to submit a report to the President under 

section 224(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 on the number of workers in the relevant industry and the 

extent to which adjustment of workers might be facilitated through existing programs.144 More 

specifically, USDOL’s report is required to address (1) the number of workers in the domestic industry 

producing the like or directly competitive article(s) who have been or are likely to be certified as eligible 

for TAA; and (2) the extent to which the adjustment of such workers to the import competition may be 

facilitated through the use of existing programs.145 In 2017, USDOL submitted two such reports to the 

President following Commission affirmative determinative determinations in safeguard investigations on 

(1) imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (CSPV cells), and (2) imports of large residential 

washers (washers).146 In its reports, USDOL estimated the number of workers involved in the production 

of either CSPV cells or washers who have been certified eligible to apply for TAA since 2012, as well as 

the number of additional workers likely to be covered by certified TAA petitions before the end of 2019. 

USDOL also found that enough funding is available to provide TAA benefits and services to these 

workers, and that training and benefits under various federal programs are sufficient to assist workers 

to adjust to the trade impact. USDOL submitted its reports on CSPV cells and washers to the President in 

November 2017 and December 2017, respectively.147

In FY 2017, $716.4 million was allocated to state governments to fund the TAA for Workers program. 

This funding included $391.4 million for “training and other activities,” which includes funds for training, 

job search allowances, relocation allowances, employment and case management services, and related 

state administration; $293.7 million for trade readjustment allowance benefits; and $31.2 million for 

reemployment trade adjustment assistance benefits.148

 142 See 19 U.S.C. § 2272. 143 19 U.S.C. § 2272. 144 19 U.S.C. § 2274(a). 145 19 U.S.C. § 2274(a). 146 For more information about these Commission investigations, see the section on Safeguard actions earlier in 

this chapter.

147 USDOL, ETA, Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, November 2017; USDOL, ETA, Large Residential Washers. December 

2017. For more information, see 82 Fed. Reg. 57617 (December 6, 2017) and 82 Fed. Reg. 61329 (December 27, 

2017).

148 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 53.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 71

Groups of workers submitted 1,037 petitions for TAA in FY 2017, down 30.8 percent from the 1,498 

petitions filed in FY 2016.149 The USDOL certified 844 petitions covering 94,017 workers as eligible for 

TAA, and denied 234 petitions covering 32,038 workers.150 The largest number of petitions certified in FY 

2017 was in the West census region, followed by the Northeast, South, and the Midwest (table 2.3).151

By state, California had the most workers certified (12,338 workers), followed by Washington (7,416 

workers), Michigan (7,135 workers), Texas (5,501 workers), and Pennsylvania (4,219 workers).152

Table 2.3 TAA certifications, by region, FY 2017

U.S. Census region No. of petitions certified No. of workers covered

West 223 31,786

Northeast 222 13,414

South 212 26,126

Midwest 184 22,392

Puerto Rico 3 299

Total 844 94,017

Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, March 16, 2018.

The majority (57.7 percent, 487 petitions) of the TAA petitions certified during FY 2017 were in the 

manufacturing sector, covering 60,346 workers, followed by the professional, scientific, and technical 

services sector (11.6 percent, 98 petitions) and the finance and insurance sector (7.9 percent, 67 

petitions) (figure 2.1).153

 149 In the Employment and Training Administration’s TAA for Workers Program FY 2016 report, the number of 

petitions submitted in FY 2016 was 1,453. USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program, Fiscal 

Year 2016, 2017, 10. The reason for the discrepancy here is that the number of petitions filed is calculated based 

on the number of worker groups covered, which changes during the investigation. After FY 2016 numbers were 

generated, some petitions were deemed to cover more than one worker group either at the time of determination 

or through a subsequent amendment. As a result, the number of petitions for FY 2016 increased to 1,498 petitions 

overall, which is the adjusted number.

150 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, Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Workers Program, Fiscal Year 2016, 2017, 11. 151 The regional classification is based on definitions from the U.S. Census Bureau. See U.S. Census website, 

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf (accessed March 28, 2018). 152 USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, March 16, 2018. 153 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

72 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 2.1 Share of TAA petitions certified by industry sector in FY 2017

Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, March 16, 2018.

Note: “Other” includes all industry sectors where less than 20 petitions were certified in FY 2017. Underlying data can be found 

in appendix table B.9.

Assistance for Firms

The TAA for Firms program154 provides technical assistance to help U.S. firms experiencing a decline in 

sales and employment to become more competitive in the global marketplace.155 The program provides 

cost-sharing technical assistance to help eligible businesses create and implement targeted business

recovery plans. The program pays up to 75 percent of the costs of developing the recovery plans, but 

firms also contribute a share of the cost of creating and implementing their recovery plans.156 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 the program, a firm must show that an increase in imports of like or directly 

competitive articles “contributed importantly” to the decline in sales or production and to the 

separation or threat of separation of a significant portion of the firm’s workers.157 The program supports 

a nationwide network of 11 nonprofit or university-affiliated Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers to 

help firms apply for certification of eligibility and prepare and implement a business recovery plan or 

 154 Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq. 155 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 54. 156 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,” n.d. (accessed March 29, 2018). 157 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 54.

Manufacturing 58%

Professional, 

scientific, and 

technical 

services 11%

Finance and 

insurance 8%

Wholesale trade 7%

Information 6%

Administrative and 

support and waste 

management and 

remediation 

services 3%

Other 7%
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 73

adjustment proposal.158 Firms generally have up to five years to implement an approved adjustment 

proposal.159

In FY 2017, the TAA for Firms program budget authorization from Congress was $16 million, while FY 

2017 actual funding appropriated for the program was $13 million.160 During FY 2016 (latest data 

available), EDA certified 68 petitions for eligibility and approved 75 adjustment proposals.161

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 about 3,500 products that are imported from designated developing 

countries and territories.162 Certain additional products (about 1,500 products) are allowed duty-free 

treatment only when imported from countries designated as least-developed beneficiary developing 

countries (LDBDCs).163 The President’s authority to provide duty-free treatment under the GSP program 

expired on December 31, 2017.164

The goal of the GSP program is to accelerate economic growth in developing countries by offering 

unilateral tariff preferences for imports into the U.S. market.165 An underlying principle of the GSP 

program is that the creation of trade opportunities for developing countries encourages broader-based

economic development and creates momentum for economic reform and liberalization.166

Countries are designated as “beneficiary developing countries” under the GSP program by the President, 

although they can lose this designation based on findings of country practices that violate the provisions 

of the GSP statute, including inadequate protection of IPRs or of internationally recognized worker 

rights.167 Complaints about such violations (country practice allegations) are usually brought to the 

attention of the interagency GSP subcommittee by a petition process. Some beneficiary developing 

158 USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, n.d. 

(accessed March 29, 2018), 6–7. 159 Ibid., 9. 160 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, August 30, 2017, 4. 161 USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, n.d. 

(accessed March 29, 2018) 4.

162 The program is authorized by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 2461 et seq. The list of 

current GSP beneficiaries can be found on the USTR’s website at https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/tradedevelopment/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/gsp-program-inf. 163 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 56. 164 GSP was reauthorized on March 23, 2018, with retroactive coverage from January 1, 2018, through December 

31, 2020. The renewal also made technical modifications to procedures for CNLs and waivers. See H.R. 1625 

(Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018) at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text. 165 USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, August 2017, 3. 166 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 55. 167 There are currently 8 ongoing country practice petitions under review by the GSP subcommittee. See USTR, 

“Annual Reviews,” (accessed March 30, 2018). On April 12, 2018, USTR announced new GSP eligibility reviews of 

India, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. USTR, “USTR Announces New GSP Eligibility Reviews of India, Indonesia, and 

Kazakhstan,” April 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

74 | www.usitc.gov

countries are also designated as LDBDCs, and, as such, are eligible for GSP benefits for an additional list 

of about 1,500 products.

The President also designates the articles that are eligible for duty-free treatment, but may not 

designate articles that he determines to be “import sensitive” in the context of the GSP. Certain goods 

(e.g., most 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 further provides that countries 

“graduate” from the program when they become “high income,” as defined by the World Bank’s per 

capita income tables.168 In addition, the statute allows for ending the eligibility of certain imports, or 

imports from specific countries, under certain conditions.

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.169 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. Two 

different measures for CNLs may apply to U.S. imports of a particular product from a beneficiary 

developing country during any calendar year. One CNL measure applies to imports from a beneficiary 

developing country that account for 50 percent or more of the value of total U.S. imports of that 

product. The other applies to imports that exceed a certain dollar value ($180 million in 2017).170 The 

legislation to reauthorize the GSP program in 2006 provided that a CNL waiver in effect on a product for 

five or more years should be revoked if total U.S. imports from a beneficiary developing country exceed 

certain “super-competitive” value thresholds—that is, 75 percent of all U.S imports or 150 percent of 

the current year’s CNL dollar limit.171

The following developments with respect to the U.S. GSP program occurred in 2017:172

• Presidential Proclamation 9687 of December 22, 2017, ended the suspension of Argentina’s GSP 

benefits, effective January 1, 2018.173 Argentina’s GSP benefits had been suspended in March 

2012, based on Argentina’s failure to enforce arbitral awards in good faith. Argentina’s GSP 

benefits had previously been partially removed as the result of a country practice review of 

Argentina’s protection of IPRs. That earlier partial suspension was not ended by Proclamation 

9687, in light of ongoing concerns with Argentina’s protection of IPR.

• Presidential Proclamation 9687 of December 22, 2017, also partially removed GSP eligibility 

from Ukraine, effective April 26, 2018, as the result of a country practice review of Ukraine’s 

protection of IPRs. This partial removal covered 147 HTS subheadings. Ukraine had previously 

lost its GSP eligibility in 2001, also because of its failure to adequately protect IPRs, but was 

 168 World Bank, “GDP Per Capita (Current US$),” (accessed April 9, 2018). 169 CNLs do not apply to least-developed beneficiary developing countries (LDBDCs) or to developing countries that 

are beneficiaries of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

170 USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, August 2017, 11. 171 19 U.S.C. § 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii). 172 A complete list of actions taken in the 2016/2017 annual review may be found at https://ustr.gov/issueareas/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-20162017. 173 82 Fed. Reg. 61413 (December 27, 2017).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 75

reinstated in 2006.

• GSP eligibility was extended to all GSP beneficiaries for 23 HTS numbers for travel goods

(including luggage, backpacks, handbags, and wallets) that had become eligible for LDBDCs and

AGOA countries on June 30, 2016, as a result of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review.

• Additional results of the 2016/2017 GSP Annual Review included denial of two petitions to add a

product (preserved or prepared pineapple and high-carbon ferromanganese) to GSP eligibility

for all countries; removal of one product (glycine) from GSP eligibility for all beneficiary

developing countries; granting five petitions to add products as eligible for all beneficiary

developing countries (rolled or flaked cereals other than oats or barley, saturated acyclic

monocarboxylic acids, certain finishing agents, cellulose nitrates in primary forms, and essential

oils of lemon); and granting one CNL waiver for a coniferous wood product from Brazil. Two

products were newly excluded for exceeding CNL thresholds (heterocyclic aromatic pesticides

from India, and setts (small paving block), curbstones, and flagstones from Turkey). De minimis

CNL waivers were granted for 100 eligible products.174 No products that had been excluded

during prior GSP reviews, but for which import levels had dropped below the threshold amounts

set for the current review, were redesignated as GSP eligible.

• In an action separate from the GSP annual review, in June 2017, USTR self-initiated a country

practice review of Bolivia’s eligibility for GSP benefits because of concerns about Bolivia’s

implementation of its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and to afford

internationally recognized worker rights, including a minimum age for the employment of

children.175 This was the first self-initiated GSP review in over 20 years.176

U.S. imports under GSP preferences rose 11.9 percent from $19.0 billion in 2016 to $21.2 billion in 2017. 

This increase accounted for 9.9 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries and 0.9 

percent of U.S. imports from all countries (tables 2.4 and A.2). The GSP utilization rate for 2017 (total 

imports claimed under GSP as a share of eligible imports from GSP countries) was 49.6 percent, a slight 

increase (1.3 percentage points) over 2016.

India was the leading source of imports entered under the GSP program in 2017, followed by Thailand 

and Brazil, continuing a pattern established in 2011 (appendix table A.17). These three countries 

together accounted for 57.8 percent of all U.S. imports under GSP in 2017, while the top five countries 

(including Indonesia and Turkey) accounted for 74.7 percent of GSP imports. U.S. imports from all five 

countries increased in 2017 over the previous year.

174 As defined by the GSP statute, a waiver may be given when total U.S. imports from all countries of a product are 

“de minimis” (a threshold value beneath which an import is entered with no duty). Like the dollar-value CNLs, the 

de minimis level is adjusted each year, in increments of $500,000. The de minimis level in 2017 was $23.5 million.

175 82 Fed. Reg. 31794 (July 10, 2017). This country practice review was undertaken on the recommendation of the 

Trade Policy Staff Committee under 15 CFR 2007.0(f).

176 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 56.
The Year in Trade 2017

76 | www.usitc.gov

Table 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2015–17

Item 2015 2016 2017

Total imports from GSP beneficiaries (million $) 206,534 201,586 215,201

Total imports under GSP (million $) 17,759 18,953 21,215

Imports under LDBDC provisions (million $)a 25 58 115

Imports under non-LDBDC provisions (million $)b 17,734 18,895 21,100

Imports under GSP (as a share of all imports from GSP countries) 8.6 9.4 9.9

Imports under GSP (as a share of all imports eligible for GSP)c 45.4 48.3 49.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. LDBDC = least-developed beneficiary developing country. The 

President’s authority to provide duty-free treatment under the GSP program expired on December 31, 2017. a LDBDC-eligible products are those for which the rate of duty of “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.

b Non-LDBDC-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty of “free” appears in the special rate column of the 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. 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 listed in the designated provision.

c Not all products are eligible for GSP.

In 2017, the chemicals sector was again the top sector for imports claiming eligibility under GSP (up 

$720 million, an increase of 18.8 percent) (appendix tables A.18 and A.19). The minerals and metals 

sector ranked second in 2017, as it did in 2016 (up $795 million, an increase of 23.6 percent). 

Agricultural products made up the third-largest sector and also saw imports claiming GSP eligibility 

increase $105 million (3.3 percent) over 2016. Among the top 15 U.S. imports under GSP, all imports 

except one increased in 2017 (appendix table A. 20). Gold jewelry imports were the leading GSP import 

product by value. Those imports increased 18.9 percent from 2016, with Turkey, Indonesia, and South 

Africa accounting for 68.3 percent of the GSP trade. Ferrochromium was the second GSP import by 

value, sourced primarily from South Africa and Turkey. GSP imports of ferrochromium increased 82.4 

percent over the 2016 amount. Nonalcoholic beverages (including milk-based drinks) sourced primarily 

from Thailand, were the third-highest GSP import in 2017 by value at $347 million.177

Nepal Trade Preference Program

The Nepal Trade Preference Act (NTPA) was established under Section 915 of the Trade Facilitation and 

Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which was signed into law on February 24, 2016.178 The NTPA entered 

into effect on December 30, 2016.179 This program was designed to improve Nepal’s export 

competitiveness and help Nepal’s economic recovery following a 2015 earthquake.180 The NTPA is 

scheduled to expire on December 31, 2025.181

The NTPA authorizes the President to provide preferential treatment to articles imported directly from 

Nepal into the United States if the President determines that Nepal meets certain requirements set 

 177 Thailand received a CNL waiver for this product during the 2015/2016 GSP annual review. See USTR, “Results of 

the 2015/2016 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review,” 2016. 178 Pub. Law 114-125; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 60. 179 Proclamation No. 9555, 81 Fed. Reg. 92499 (December 20, 2016). 180 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 35. 181 Proclamation No. 9555, 81 Fed. Reg. 92499 (December 20, 2016).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 77

forth in the NTPA, AGOA, and GSP statutes.182 The NTPA originally gave Nepal duty-free access to the 

U.S. market for goods in 66 HTS 8-digit tariff lines, including certain luggage and flat goods in chapter 42 

of the HTS, certain carpets and floor coverings in chapter 57, some apparel in chapters 61 and 62, two 

non-apparel made-up textile articles in chapter 63, and various headwear items in chapter 65.183

Because of changes made to the HTS in July 2016, Nepal was eligible for duty-free treatment on 77 tariff 

lines, 31 of which are also duty free under GSP, when the program entered into effect in December.

184

However, the NTPA’s rules of origin differ from the GSP’s; i.e., under the NTPA, U.S. content may be 

counted towards part of the 35 percent value added requirement.185

In 2017, the first full year that the NTPA was in effect, total U.S. imports from Nepal were $91.7 million; 

imports from Nepal under GSP were $8.5 million (9.3 percent of total imports from Nepal); and imports 

under the NTPA were $2.3 million (2.5 percent of total imports from Nepal) (table 2.5). U.S. imports

under NTPA and GSP as a share of all imports from Nepal that were eligible for NTPA and GSP 

preferences was 57.8 percent in 2017.

Table 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from Nepal, 2015–17

Item 2015 2016 2017

Total imports from Nepal (thousand $) 86,854 88,294 91,695

Imports under GSP (thousand $) 5,469 9,426 8,498

Imports under NTPA (thousand $) 0 0 2,256

Share of total imports from Nepal

Imports under GSP (percent) 6.3 10.7 9.3

Imports under NTPA (percent) 0.0 0.0 2.5

Imports under NTPA and GSP as a share of all imports eligible for NTPA 

and GSP (percent) (

a

) (

a

) 57.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

a U.S. imports under NTPA were first recorded in 2017.

African Growth and Opportunity Act 

Enacted in 2000, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) gives tariff preferences to eligible subSaharan African (SSA) countries pursuing political and economic reform.186 In particular, AGOA provides 

duty-free access to the U.S. market for all GSP-eligible products, and for more than 1,800 additional 

(AGOA-only) qualifying HTS 8-digit tariff-line items. While AGOA’s eligibility criteria187 and rules of 

182 In 2016, the USITC conducted an investigation on whether certain textile and apparel articles from Nepal are 

import sensitive. USITC, Nepal: Advice Concerning Whether Certain Textile and Apparel Articles Are Import 

Sensitive, October 2016. 183 19 U.S.C. § 4454 (c)(2)(A)(iii). 184 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 60; 81 Fed. Reg. 92499 (December 20, 

2016).

185 The cost or value of the materials produced in, plus the direct cost of processing performed in, Nepal or the 

United States, must total at least 35 percent of the appraised customs value of the product at the time of entry. 186 19 U.S.C. § 2463 and 19 U.S.C. § 3722. 187 AGOA eligibility criteria are set forth in Section 104 of AGOA (19 U.S.C. § 3703) and section 502 of the Trade Act 

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2463). Countries must be GSP eligible as well as AGOA eligible in order to receive AGOA’s trade 

benefits.
The Year in Trade 2017

78 | www.usitc.gov

origin188 are similar to those of the GSP program, AGOA beneficiary countries are exempt from the GSP 

CNLs.189 AGOA also provides duty-free treatment for certain apparel articles cut and sewn in designated 

beneficiary countries on the condition that additional eligibility criteria are satisfied.190 The current 

AGOA expiration date is September 30, 2025.191

Each year, the President must consider whether individual SSA countries are, or remain, eligible for 

AGOA benefits based on the eligibility criteria. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) 

initiates this annual eligibility review with the publication of a notice in the Federal Register requesting 

comments and announcing a public hearing. As a result of the annual review covering calendar year 

2017, during the year a total of 38 SSA countries192 were designated as eligible for AGOA benefits, 8 

countries193 were not designated as eligible because they did not meet the eligibility criteria, and 2 

countries (Equatorial Guinea and Seychelles) were not designated as eligible because they had 

graduated from GSP.194 No AGOA countries lost benefits in 2017, and The Gambia and Swaziland were 

re-designated as eligible for benefits, effective December 22, 2017.195

In addition to the annual review process, any interested party may submit a petition to USTR, at any 

time, with respect to whether a beneficiary SSA country is meeting the AGOA eligibility requirements for 

an out-of-cycle review.196 On March 21, 2017, the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association 

filed a petition requesting an out-of-cycle review of AGOA eligibility for Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and 

Uganda. The petition asserted that a March 2016 decision by the four countries to raise tariffs and 

phase in a ban on imports of used clothing and footwear imposed a significant economic hardship on 

the U.S. used clothing industry, and was a violation of the AGOA eligibility criteria to eliminate barriers 

 188 The (non-apparel) rules of origin under GSP (and AGOA) are set forth in section 503 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

U.S.C. § 2463 (a)(2)) and are reflected in HTS general notes 4 and 16.

189 Section 111 (b) of AGOA (19 U.S.C. § 2463 (c)(2)(D)). 190 Section 113 of AGOA (19 U.S.C. § 3722). See HTS chapter 98, subchapter XIX for applicable provisions. 191 The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 extended the expiration date of AGOA from September 30, 2015, 

to September 30, 2025.

192 In 2017, the following 38 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries were designated as beneficiary AGOA countries: 

Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte 

d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, 

Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, São Tomé and 

Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. 82 Fed. Reg. 32042 (July 11, 

2017). Additionally, effective December 22, 2017, the President determined The Gambia and Swaziland once again 

meet the eligibility requirements and re-designated both countries as AGOA beneficiary countries. Proclamation 

No. 9687, 82 Fed. Reg. 61413 (December 22, 2017).

193 In 2017, the following SSA countries were not designated as eligible for AGOA benefits: Democratic Republic of 

the Congo, Eritrea, The Gambia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. 82 Fed. Reg. 32042 (July 

11, 2017). However, as noted above, The Gambia and Swaziland were re-designated as AGOA beneficiary 

countries, effective December 22, 2017. Proclamation No. 9687, 82 Fed. Reg. 61413 (December 22, 2017). 

Burundi’s AGOA benefits were terminated effective January 1, 2016. Proclamation No. 9383, 80 Fed. Reg. 80617 

(December 24, 2015).

194 GSP (and AGOA) contain a mandatory graduation clause for any country that becomes a “high income” country, 

as defined by the official statistics of the World Bank. 19 U.S.C. § 2462 (e). 195 The Gambia had previously lost its eligibility for AGOA benefits on December 23, 2014; Swaziland had previously 

lost its eligibility for AGOA benefits on June 26, 2014. Proclamation No. 9687, 82 Fed. Reg. 61413 (December 22, 

2017).

196 Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 Section 105 (c) added the out-of-cycle procedures to the eligibility 

review process.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 79

to U.S. trade and investment. USTR proceeded with an out-of-cycle review of AGOA eligibility for 

Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, but not Kenya, stating that Kenya took steps to reverse the tariff 

increases, effective July 1, 2017, and pledged not to ban imports of used clothing.197 A public hearing 

was held on July 13, 2017.198

Those SSA countries that are designated as AGOA beneficiaries may also be eligible for duty-free 

treatment for certain textile and apparel articles if USTR determines the country has adopted an 

effective visa system and all related procedures required to protect against illegal transshipment of such 

articles. On August 22, 2017, USTR announced that Togo became eligible to use AGOA’s apparel 

provisions.199 Including Togo, a total of 27 AGOA countries were eligible to use AGOA’s apparel benefits 

in 2017.200 If an AGOA country loses its beneficiary status, but is later reinstated, then the AGOA country 

must update its visa system and related measures in order to, again, make use of the AGOA apparel 

benefits.201

Preferential treatment for apparel under AGOA requires apparel to be made from U.S. or SSA regional 

yarns and fabrics, cut and assembled in one or more AGOA countries that are eligible for the program’s 

apparel benefits. In addition, AGOA lesser-developed countries (LDCs) may use fabric of any origin and 

still qualify for duty-free treatment up to a specified annual quantitative limit, the so-called “thirdcountry fabric cap.”202 Of the SSA countries eligible for textile and apparel benefits, only South Africa is 

not considered an LDC for the purposes of this third-country fabric provision.203 There are additional 

 197 82 Fed. Reg. 28217 (June 20, 2017). 198 On March 29, 2018, the President notified Congress of his intention to suspend (but not terminate) AGOA 

benefits for Rwanda because of a lack of progress toward the elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment. 

According to USTR, AGOA benefits will not be suspended for Tanzania or Uganda, because each has taken steps to 

eliminate the increased tariff rates and committed not to phase in a ban on used clothing and footwear. USTR, 

“President Trump Determines Trade Preference Eligibility for Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda,” March 29, 2018. 199 82 Fed. Reg. 39940 (August 22, 2017) and 82 Fed. Reg. 42875 (September 12, 2017). 200 In 2017, the following 27 AGOA countries were eligible for textile and apparel benefits: Benin, Botswana, 

Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, 

Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, 

Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), 

https://otexa.trade.gov/AGOA_Trade_Preference.htm, “Preferences: Country Eligibility, Apparel Eligibility, and 

Textile Eligibility (Category 0 and Category 9)” (accessed April 11, 2018).

201 According to OTEXA, The Gambia, Mali, Niger, and Swaziland, which lost their beneficiary status but were 

subsequently reinstated, have not yet reapplied for their visa arrangements and are, therefore, not currently 

eligible to use the AGOA apparel provisions.

202 In prior provisions authorizing AGOA, the expiration date of the “third-country fabric cap” was earlier than the 

expiration date of AGOA. However, the most recent extension contained in the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 

2015 aligned the two expiration dates to September 30, 2025. Therefore, this preference category is currently 

available to AGOA LDCs for the length of the AGOA program. 203 AGOA defines “lesser developed countries” as a beneficiary SSA country that had a per capita gross national 

product of less than $1,500 in 1998, as measured by the World Bank. Although Botswana, Namibia, and Mauritius 

did not meet this criterion, they are accorded AGOA LDC status by statute. South Africa is the only country that is 

eligible for trade benefits under the textile and apparel provisions, but not for AGOA LDC trade benefits (19 U.S.C. 

§ 3721 (c)(3)).
The Year in Trade 2017

80 | www.usitc.gov

apparel provisions for the use of designated “short-supply” fabrics (fabrics not commercially available in 

the United States) and for folklore or handmade articles.204

In 2017, the value of U.S. imports that entered duty-free from beneficiary countries under AGOA was 

$12.5 billion, an increase of 32.4 percent from the $9.5 billion imported in 2016 (table 2.6). An 

additional $1.3 billion from AGOA beneficiary countries entered duty-free under GSP. In total, U.S. 

imports under AGOA, including GSP, were $13.8 billion in 2017, accounting for 55.4 percent of total U.S. 

imports from AGOA beneficiary countries and 90.0 percent of all U.S. imports from AGOA beneficiary 

countries that were eligible for AGOA and GSP trade preferences in 2017.

Table 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA beneficiaries, 2015–17

Item 2015 2016 2017

Total imports from AGOA countries (million $) 19,139 20,062 24,947

Imports under AGOA (million $) a 9,268 10,626 13,811

Imports under AGOA, excluding GSP (million $) 7,984 9,451 12,512

Imports under AGOA (as a share of all imports from AGOA countries) b 48.4 53.0 55.4

Imports under AGOA (as a share of all imports eligible for AGOA) c 84.2 88.7 90.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

a AGOA-eligible products are those for which a rate of duty of “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. Includes imports for which preferential tariff treatment was claimed for AGOA-eligible goods by U.S. 

importers under GSP, for HTS rate lines with special duty symbols “A,” “A*” (unless the AGOA beneficiary country is excluded), 

or “A+.”

b Imports under AGOA includes AGOA-eligible products that may be imported under both AGOA and GSP. It is up to the 

exporting country or importer to choose under which program it will claim preferential treatment.

c Not all products are eligible for AGOA.

Crude petroleum continued to be the leading import under AGOA, accounting for 73.2 percent of U.S. 

imports under AGOA in 2017. The increase in U.S. imports under AGOA in 2017 compared to 2016 can 

be attributed to an increase in the value and quantity of imports of crude petroleum (appendix table 

A.21).205 The value of U.S. crude petroleum imports under AGOA increased 47.5 percent ($3.0 billion) 

from 2016 to 2017, and the quantity increased 18.2 percent (26.2 million barrels) over the same 

period.206 In 2017, 87.7 percent ($8.0 billion) of imports of crude petroleum from AGOA beneficiaries 

came from the top two suppliers, Nigeria ($5.8 billion) and Angola ($2.2 billion).207 Each of the top two 

suppliers is heavily reliant on exports of crude petroleum. Crude petroleum accounted for 95.0 percent 

of U.S. imports under AGOA from Nigeria in 2017 and for 99.1 percent of U.S. imports under AGOA from 

Angola.

Following Nigeria and Angola, South Africa was the third-largest supplier of goods under AGOA in 2017 

(appendix table A.22). The most important U.S. import under AGOA from South Africa was passenger 

motor vehicles,208 which accounted for 65.0 percent of U.S. imports under AGOA from South Africa ($1.2 

 204 The full range of preference rules for apparel under AGOA are set forth in section 112 of AGOA (19 U.S.C. § 

3721).

205 Crude petroleum refers to products classified in HTS 2709.00. 206 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 12, 2018). 207 Ibid. 208 Passenger motor vehicles refers to products classified in HTS 8703.23 and 8703.90.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 81

billion) and 9.4 percent of all U.S. imports under AGOA in 2017, ranking it second among top imports 

under AGOA. South Africa was the only AGOA country to provide this product to the United States in 

2017 (appendix table A.21).

Apparel209 was the third-largest import under AGOA in 2017, valued at $1.0 billion, or just 8.2 percent of 

total U.S. imports under AGOA. Unlike crude petroleum or passenger motor vehicles, which are 

exported by one or two beneficiary countries, U.S. apparel imports under AGOA are exported by over a 

dozen beneficiary countries (table 2.7). The leading suppliers of apparel under AGOA are Kenya, 

Lesotho, Madagascar, and Mauritius. For a majority of the AGOA countries exporting apparel, AGOA’s 

textile and apparel provisions account for all or nearly all of their AGOA usage.

Table 2.7 U.S. general imports of apparel under AGOA, by country, 2015–17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Thousand $ % change

Kenya 367,035 338,370 339,375 0.3

Lesotho 299,314 294,309 288,958 -1.8

Madagascar 39,630 93,245 147,945 58.7

Mauritius 206,746 187,416 139,633 -25.5

Ethiopia 17,445 32,798 52,445 59.9

Tanzania 27,261 36,915 40,610 10.0

Ghana 9,101 6,093 8,210 34.7

South Africa 6,584 6,422 5,285 -17.7

Rwanda 174 452 1,494 230.5

Botswana 8,251 4,766 991 -79.2

Uganda 0 30 360 1,100.0

Malawi 6,268 1,556 321 -79.4

Other AGOA 9 4 14 250.0

AGOA total 987,818 1,002,376 1,025,641 2.3

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) https://otexa.trade.gov/agoa-cbtpa/catv0.htm

(accessed April 12, 2018).

Section 105 of AGOA required the President to establish the U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and 

Economic Cooperation Forum (also known as the AGOA Forum) to discuss trade, investment, and 

development at an annual ministerial-level meeting with AGOA-eligible countries.210 The 16th annual 

AGOA Forum was held in Lomé, Togo, on August 8–10, 2017. The theme of the forum was “The United 

States and Africa: Partnering for Prosperity through Trade.”211

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) was enacted in 1983 as part of the Caribbean Basin 

Initiative. Its goal was to encourage economic growth and development in the Caribbean Basin countries 

by using duty preferences to promote increased production and exports of nontraditional products.212

209 Apparel refers to all products classified in HTS chapters 61 and 62 that were imported under AGOA. 210 19 U.S.C. § 3704. 211 USDOS, “African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),” (accessed April 12, 2018); USDOS, U.S. Embassy in Togo, 

“Ambassador Gilmour’s Remarks on Closing Ceremony: AGOA Forum 2017,” (accessed April 12, 2018). 212 For a more detailed description of CBERA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, Caribbean Basin 

Economic Recovery Act, 23d Report, September 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

82 | www.usitc.gov

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.213 The CBTPA also extended “NAFTAequivalent treatment”—that is, rates of duty equivalent to those accorded to goods complying with the 

rules of origin applicable under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—to a number of 

other products previously excluded from CBERA. These products included certain tuna; crude petroleum 

and petroleum products; certain footwear; watches and watch parts assembled from parts originating in 

countries not eligible for normal trade relations (NTR) rates of duty; and certain handbags, luggage, flat 

goods, work gloves, and leather wearing apparel.214 Products that are still 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, while the 

original CBERA has no expiration date.215 In the section that follows, the term CBERA refers to CBERA as 

amended by the CBTPA.

At the end of 2017, 17 countries and dependent territories were designated eligible for CBERA 

preferences216 and 8 of those countries were designated eligible for CBTPA preferences.217 Several 

countries have asked to be designated as eligible for benefits under CBERA, CBTPA, or both, including 

Turks and Caicos Islands, which requested eligibility under CBERA; Aruba, The Bahamas, Dominica, 

Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, under CBTPA;218 and Sint 

Maarten and Suriname, under both CBERA and CBTPA.219

In 2017, the value of U.S. imports under CBERA increased by 10.3 percent to $961 million from $871 

million in 2016 (table 2.8). The top five imports under CBERA in 2017—methanol, T-shirts, polystyrene, 

sweaters, and crude petroleum—comprised 80.7 percent of imports under the program (appendix table 

A.23). The largest increase in the value of U.S. imports under CBERA was in methanol, which rose by 

49.4 percent to $378.3 million due primarily to a 51.9 percent increase in the price. Despite this 

increase, imports of methanol under CBERA still were $272.5 million less in 2017 than in 2015. U.S. 

imports of crude petroleum declined in 2017 mostly because of a decline in volume. U.S. imports of 

 213 Textiles and apparel that were not subject to textile agreements in 1983 are eligible for duty-free entry under 

the original CBERA provisions, which do not have an expiration date. This category includes only textiles and 

apparel of silk or non-cotton vegetable fibers, mainly linen and ramie. Textile and apparel goods of cotton, wool, or 

manmade fibers (“original MFA goods”) are not eligible under the original CBERA. “MFA” stands for the nowexpired Multifibre Arrangement.

214 Normal trade relations (NTR) rates of duty, also known as most-favored-nation rates, are accorded to countries 

having NTR status in the United States and do not allow discrimination between trading partners. 215 Certain preferential treatment provisions have been extended to September 30, 2020. These provisions relate 

to import-sensitive textile and apparel articles from CBERA countries and to textile and apparel articles imported 

under special rules for Haiti (see section on Haiti below). The extension occurred on May 24, 2010, when the 

President signed the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-171, § 3. 216 Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Curaçao, 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.

217 Barbados, Belize, Curaçao, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. 218 77 Fed. Reg. 61816 (October 11, 2012). 219 Ibid.; 75 Fed. Reg. 17198 (April 5, 2010). Until 2010, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were members of the nowdissolved Netherlands Antilles.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 83

apparel products under CBERA, entirely from Haiti in 2017, also decreased, which can be attributed to a 

shift from such imports entering under CBTPA provisions to entering under the HOPE Acts (discussed in 

the next section), as provided in certain tariff provisions of subchapter XX of HTS chapter 98.220

Table 2.8 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA/CBTPA beneficiaries, 2015–17

Item 2015 2016 2017

Total imports from CBERA/CBTPA countries (million $) 7,061 5,342 5,872

Total imports under CBERA (million $) 1,542 871 961

Imports under CBTPA (million $) a 564 392 344

Imports under CBERA, excluding CBTPA (million $) b 978 479 617

Imports under CBERA (as a share of all imports from CBERA countries) 21.8 16.3 16.4

Imports under CBERA (as a share of all imports eligible for CBERA) c 58.6 44.7 41.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

a CBTPA-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the special rate column of the HTS, followed by the 

symbol “R” in parentheses. The symbol “R” indicates that all CBTPA beneficiary countries are eligible for special duty rate 

treatment with respect to all articles 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 former CBTPA beneficiaries—El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican 

Republic, Costa Rica, and Panama).

b CBERA (excluding CBTPA)-eligible products are those for which a special duty rate appears in the special rate column of the 

HTS, followed by the symbols “E” or “E*” in parentheses. The symbol “E” indicates that all beneficiary countries are eligible for 

special duty rate treatment with respect to all articles listed in the designated provisions. The symbol “E*” indicates that 

certain articles, under general note 7(d) of the HTS, are not eligible for special duty treatment with respect to any article listed 

in the designated provision.

c Not all imports are eligible for CBERA; a particular tariff category may not be designated as such or a particular shipment may 

not meet program rules.

The top five products accounted for most CBERA imports in 2017. However, a large number of other 

products—particularly agricultural products—were also imported under CBERA, including yams, 

melamine, spices, guavas, orange juice, papayas, and various vegetable and fruit preparations, although 

these imports were small.

U.S. imports under CBERA accounted for 16.4 percent of all U.S. imports from CBERA countries in 2017 

and 41.8 percent of U.S. imports from CBERA countries that were eligible for CBERA trade preferences. 

Trinidad and Tobago continued to be the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2017,

accounting for 50.8 percent of the total value. Trinidad and Tobago was the sole supplier of top U.S. 

imports under CBERA, including methanol, petroleum products, and melamine. Haiti and The Bahamas 

were the second and third leading suppliers, accounting for 30.7 and 8.3 percent of the total, 

respectively (appendix table A.24).

Haiti Initiatives

Since 2006, CBERA has been amended several times to expand and enhance trade benefits for Haiti and 

to give Haitian apparel producers more flexibility in sourcing yarns and fabrics.221 The Haitian 

220 For more information, see the section on Haiti initiatives later in this chapter. 221 Apparel manufacturing remains a leading source of exports and employment for Haiti’s economy, accounting 

for 90 percent of Haiti’s total exports and reaching a total of 47,356 jobs in Haiti by the end of 2017. Sonapi Parc 

Industriel de Caracol, 2017 Q4, Year End Report (accessed March 24. 2018); Haiti apparel industry representative, 

email message to USITC staff, March 24, 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

84 | www.usitc.gov

Hemisphere Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE Act)222 and of 2008 

(HOPE II Act)223 (collectively referred to as HOPE or the HOPE Acts) 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.224 They also provided additional trade preferences to attract new jobs 

to Haiti while offering incentives to encourage the use of U.S. inputs.225 The Haitian Economic Lift 

Program of 2010 (HELP Act) expanded existing U.S. trade preferences (especially duty-free treatment for 

certain qualifying apparel, regardless of the origin of inputs226) for Haiti that were established under the 

CBTPA and HOPE Acts and extended them through September 30, 2020.227 On June 29, 2015, President 

Barack Obama signed the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 into law, extending the HOPE Acts 

trade preferences through September 30, 2025.228 To date, there have been no other changes to the 

HOPE Acts, and duty-free access to the U.S. market remains a major incentive for U.S. firms to import 

apparel from Haiti.229

The extension of trade preferences under the HOPE Acts has contributed to the overall growth in U.S. 

apparel imports from Haiti in recent years, together with Haiti’s low labor costs ($4.50–$6.00 per 

day),230 proximity to the United States (resulting in a closer supply chain and shorter lead times),231 and 

an open economy.232 However, in 2016 U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti dipped because of an unstable 

retail climate in the United States that reduced U.S. demand for apparel imports233 and the bankruptcy 

of a South Korean suit and overcoat manufacturer that had been producing apparel in Haiti.234 In 2017, 

U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti resumed their overall growth of recent years, rising by 2.1 percent to 

$866.0 million (table 2.9).

 222 Pub. L. 109-432, § 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act 

of 2006, 19 U.S.C. sec. 2703a.

223 Pub. L. 110-234, § 15401 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act 

of 2008.

224 There were no U.S. imports of wiring harness automotive components (HTS 8544.30 and 9820.85.44) from Haiti 

during 2007–17. 225 GAO, “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, June 2008, i. ES–1, 1-3 to 1-5. 226 The ability to use third-country fabrics (especially fabric made from specialty yarn of manmade fibers available 

from Asia) has prompted more U.S. companies to source apparel from Haiti. U.S. apparel industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, February 28, 2018. 227 Pub. L. 111-171, § 2, Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010. For more information on this program, see USITC, 

The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 2-22 to 2-23 and The Year in Trade 2010, July 2011, 2-21 to 2-22. 228 Pub. L. 114-27, § 301, Extension of Preferential Duty Treatment Program for Haiti. 229 U.S. apparel industry representatives, email message to USITC staff, February 19, 2018, and telephone 

interviews by USITC staff, February 27 and 28, 2018.

230 The government of Haiti approved a 16 percent minimum wage increase to about $4.80 per day in July 2017. 

Castano Freeman, “Haiti Garment Industry Says Union Wage Claims Unrealistic,” August 3, 2017; U.S. and Haitian 

apparel industry representatives, telephone interviews by USITC staff, February 27 and March 20, 2018. 231 U.S. apparel industry representatives, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 28, 2018, and email 

message to USITC staff, February 19, 2018; U.S. apparel industry representative, USITC Global Value Chain Working 

Group/U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition (USGVC) discussion, April 10, 2018, Washington, DC.

232 USDOC, “Haiti Country Commercial Guide-Haiti Market Overview,“ June 26, 2017. 233 USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 80. 234 Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol, 2017 Q4, Year End Report, 8 (accessed March 24. 2018).
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 85

Table 2.9 U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti, 2015–17

Item 2015 2016 2017

Total apparel imports from Haiti (million $) 895.5 848.5 866.0

Apparel imports under a trade preference program (million $) 892.5 842.9 854.1

CBERA/CBTPA (million $) 394.9 307.9 277.2

HOPE and HELP Acts (million $) 497.6 535.0 577.0

Share of total apparel imports from Haiti: (Percent)

Apparel imports under a trade preference program 99.7 99.3 98.6

CBERA/CBTPA (percent) 44.1 36.3 32.0

HOPE and HELP Acts (percent) 55.6 63.1 66.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: These data reflect detailed U.S. general import data under trade preference programs sorted by category and published 

by the Office of Textiles and Apparel at the U.S. Department of Commerce (accessed June 1, 2018).

For years, Haitian apparel production has been concentrated in high-volume, commodity cotton 

garments that have relatively predictable consumer demand and few styling changes. Major apparel 

firms such as Hanes, Fruit of the Loom, and Gildan have been leading importers of cotton T-shirts and 

cotton undergarments into the U.S. market from Haiti.235 As in prior years, cotton knit shirts and 

blouses, cotton trousers and pants, and cotton underwear dominated U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti, 

accounting for 35.4 percent ($305.6 million), 12.4 percent ($106.8 million), and 7.6 percent ($65.7 

million), respectively, of the total value of U.S. apparel imports from Haiti in 2017.236 However, these 

shares were lower than in 2016 and prior years.

In contrast, the share of total U.S. apparel imports from Haiti accounted for by manmade-fiber garments 

(largely knit shirts and blouses and trousers and slacks) continued to grow—rising from 34.4 percent 

($292.4 million) in 2016 to 42.9 percent ($370 million) in 2017. Industry sources attribute the steady 

shift in U.S. imports from Haiti from cotton apparel to manmade-fiber garments to several factors: (1) 

greater duty savings under the HOPE/Haiti Acts for apparel of manmade fibers because of their higher 

tariffs (up to 32 percent ad valorem) compared to cotton apparel (for which tariffs average around 16 

percent);237 (2) the ability provided under the HOPE Acts to use specialty, manmade-fiber yarns from 

Asia to make apparel in Haiti;238 (3) growing consumer demand for apparel made of synthetic blends;239

(4) firms’ interest in diversifying their product offerings to maintain viable business operations;240 and

(5) Haiti’s recently developed capacity to produce manmade-fiber apparel—an ability that it lacked in

the past.241

235 Before the Haiti HOPE/HELP Acts, trade preferences under the CBTPA prompted U.S. and Canadian firms to 

import apparel from Haiti into the U.S. market. Canadian, Haitian, and U.S. apparel industry representatives. Inperson and telephone interviews with USITC staff, February 27, 2018, March 20, 2018, and March 22, 2018; Haitian 

apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, March 24, 2018.

236 Calculations were made from import data published by USDOC, OTEXA, “U.S. General Imports by Country: 

Major Shippers Report,” Major Shippers Country: HAITI (accessed February 12, 2018). 237 Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol, 2017 Q4, Year End Report, 7 (accessed March 24. 2018); Haitian and U.S. 

apparel industry representatives, email message to USITC staff, February 26, 2018; telephone interview by USITC 

staff, February 28, 2018.

238 U.S. apparel industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 28, 2018. 239 Ibid., February 27, 2018. 240 Ibid. 241 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

86 | www.usitc.gov

A recent infusion of foreign investment has also been a significant factor in the expansion of Haiti’s 

apparel production and exports. Two of five foreign investors that had developed plans in 2016 to 

manufacture apparel in Haiti’s Caracol Industrial Park—MAS Holdings (Sri Lanka) and Hansae (South 

Korea)—began producing apparel by yearend 2017.242 Other foreign investors— Yak-jin (South Korea), 

Everest Textiles (Taiwan), and RSI (Taiwan)—are expected to start producing apparel (especially 

athleisure wear) for U.S. clients soon.243 In addition to the Caracol Industrial Park, the development of 

the privately owned Lafito Industrial Free Zone (located 25 miles north of Haiti’s capital of Port-auPrince) is underway and expected to generate thousands of new apparel jobs in the near future.244

Moreover, Haiti has recently attracted the interest of Chinese and Vietnamese investors who are 

exploring opportunities to produce apparel in Haiti, suggesting the potential for continued apparel 

production growth.245

Virtually all (98.6 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered free of duty under trade 

preference programs in 2017. These programs offer unlimited duty-free treatment for certain apparel 

products and limited duty-free treatment for other apparel products made from non-originating fabrics 

up to certain quotas, known as tariff preference levels (TPLs). These programs have helped to revitalize 

and expand Haiti’s apparel industry, as evidenced by continued job growth in the sector: Haiti’s apparel 

industry employed 47,356 people by yearend 2017 compared with 40,000 in 2016.246

In 2017, Haiti accounted for all (100 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel entering under the CBTPA. Just 

under one-third (32.0 percent) of total U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti ($277.2 million) entered under 

CBTPA provisions in 2017.247 This share fell for the second year in a row, reflecting a continued shift of 

U.S. apparel imports from Haiti from entering under CBTPA provisions to entering under the HOPE Acts 

because of the additional trade preferences that the HOPE Acts offer. The value of U.S. imports of 

apparel entering under the HOPE Acts rose 7.9 percent, from $535.0 million in 2016 to $577.0 million in 

2017, and represented two-thirds (66.6 percent) of total U.S. apparel imports that entered free of duty 

from Haiti, up from 63.1 percent in 2016. Of the apparel imported from Haiti under the HOPE Acts in 

2017, $537.5 million or 93.2 percent entered under TPLs.248 Almost 26.6 percent ($142.8 million) of 

 242 Haitian apparel industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 20, 2018. 243 As additional apparel production by foreign investors comes online, Haiti’s apparel exports are expected to 

continue to grow in 2018 and to add an estimated 15,000 new jobs by the end of 2018. Sonapi Parc Industriel de 

Caracol, 2017 Q4, Year End Report, 7 (accessed March 24. 2018); Haitian apparel industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, March 20, 2018.

244 Haitian apparel industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, April 11, 2018. 245 Haitian apparel industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 20, 2018. 246 Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol, 2017 Q4, Year End Report, 7 (accessed March 24. 2018); USDOS, WHA, “U.S. 

Relations with Haiti,” March 23, 2017. 247 Data reflect U.S. imports entering under HTS 9820.11.03; 9820.00.80.44; 9820.11.06, 9820.11.09, 9820.11.12, 

9820.11.18, and 9820.11.33. 248 The TPLs allow set quantities of certain knit and woven apparel (both of which must be wholly assembled in 

Haiti) as well as certain apparel for which at least 50–60 percent of the export value added must consist of inputs 

from Haiti, the United States, or a country with which the United States has an FTA, to enter the United States free 

of duty, regardless of the source of the fabric.
Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade laws and Regulations

U.S International Trade Commission | 87

these U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered under the woven apparel TPL in 2017, and 73.4 percent 

($394.6 million) entered under the knit apparel and value-added TPLs the same year.249

Most of the remaining U.S. imports ($36.3 million) under the HOPE Acts in 2017 entered under the 

Earned Import Allowance Program (EIAP), a special trade program created under HOPE II in 2008 that 

allowed the duty-free entry into the United States of certain apparel manufactured in Haiti.250 In 

contrast to a steady increase in U.S. imports entering under the EIAP in prior years, U.S. imports of 

apparel from Haiti under the EIAP fell 39 percent, from $59.1 million in 2016 to $36.3 million in 2017. 

Because the EIAP is based on using fabrics of U.S. origin and has been used predominantly by woven 

bottom producers in Haiti, the sharp drop in U.S. imports from Haiti under the EIAP may be attributed to 

several factors. Declining denim production in the United States has likely reduced the amount of U.S. 

fabric being sourced from Haiti, with a resulting drop in EIAP eligibility.251 In addition, the growing shift 

in U.S. imports of apparel under the CBTPA to importing apparel under the tariff preference levels of the 

Haiti HOPE/HELP Acts , which permit the use of third-country fabrics (sourced from Sri Lanka and other 

countries, for example), also may have contributed to the decline in U.S. imports under the EIAP.252

As in previous years, no U.S. imports of apparel entered under HTS 9820.61.45 in 2017. HTS 9820.61.45 

is one of the HELP provisions added in 2010 that allows for unlimited duty-free imports of certain 

knitted or crocheted apparel. However, U.S. imports entering under HTS 9820.63.05, a provision for 

home goods that was also added under HELP in 2010, rose to $2.7 million in 2017, up from $5,000 in 

2016. This increase may be attributed to the new production of certain home goods in Haiti for the U.S. 

market, which began in 2017.253

 249 The fill rates for the TPLs for woven apparel (HTS subheading 9820.62.05), knit apparel (HTS subheading 

9820.61.35), and value-added apparel (HTS subheadings 9820.61.25 and 9820.61.30) were 52.6 percent, 43.0 

percent, and 14.5 percent, respectively, for two preferential periods: October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017 (for 

woven and knit apparel) and December 20, 2016, to December 19, 2017 (for value-added apparel). USDOC, OTEXA, 

Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership for Encouragement Act (HAITI HOPE), Preferential Period 

October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017; U.S. government officials, email messages to USITC staff, April 10, April 16, 

and May 15, 2018.

250 The EIAP seeks to encourage the purchase of qualifying fabric (defined as fabric formed in the United States 

from U.S.-formed yarns) for use in Haitian apparel manufacturing. The EIAP originally provided that for every 3 

square meters equivalent of qualifying fabric bought or manufactured by a producer for apparel production in 

Haiti, a 1-unit credit would be received. The credit could be used toward the duty-free importation of Haitian 

apparel into the United States that was produced using non-qualifying fabric. However, no apparel from Haiti was 

exported to the United States under the original 3-for-1 program. In 2010, 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. 251 Haitian apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, April 5, 2018. 252 Ibid.; U.S. government representative, email message to and telephone interview by USITC staff, April 5 and 

April 9, 2018, respectively. 253 Haitian apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, April 5, 2018; U.S. government 

representative, email message to USITC staff, April 5, 2018; Haitian and U.S. apparel industry representatives, 

interviews by USITC staff, Washington, DC, April 10, 2018.
88 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 89

Chapter 3 

The World Trade Organization

This chapter covers developments in 2017 in the World Trade Organization (WTO). These include 

programs and related items under the WTO General Council, as well as plurilateral agreements hosted 

under WTO auspices.254 The chapter also summarizes developments in major WTO dispute settlement 

cases during the year.

WTO

Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference 

The WTO held its 11th Ministerial Conference (MC11) from December 10 to 13, 2017, in Buenos Aires, 

Argentina. The conference concluded with a number of outcomes, including a ministerial decision on 

fisheries subsidies and a continuation of the customs duty moratorium on electronic commerce, as well 

as additional commitments to continue negotiations in all areas.255

The Ministerial Decision on Fisheries Subsidies256 will help fulfill commitments made under United 

Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal 14.6257 by opening negotiations on fisheries subsidies with 

the objective of reaching agreement by the next WTO Ministerial Conference, to be held in 2019.258

These negotiations aim at developing comprehensive and effective disciplines to prohibit certain forms 

of fishery subsidies that have contributed to the current overcapacity and overfishing, as well as to 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.259

WTO members also agreed to several work programs—one on electronic commerce,260 and another on 

small economies.261 With respect to the former, members agreed to continue to refrain from levying 

customs duties on so-called e-commerce transactions. For the latter, members agreed to develop a 

254 The WTO is based on a “multilateral” agreement whose rules and commitments apply to all its members. WTO 

members may also negotiate smaller “plurilateral” agreements whose rules and commitments apply only to the 

members that have signed it. 255 WTO, “Ministerial Ends with Decisions,” December 13, 2017; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual 

Report, March 2018, 85. 256 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Eleventh Session, “Fisheries Subsidies––Ministerial Decision of 13 December 

2017,” December 18, 2017. 257 The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by UN members in September 

2015. SDG 14.6 set 2020 as the goal for ending illegal, unreported, and unregulated subsidies and prohibiting 

certain forms of subsidies to fisheries that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, with special and differential 

treatment provided to the developing and least-developed countries. WTO, “Ministerial Ends with Decisions,” 

December 13, 2017. See discussion later in this chapter.

258 WTO, “Ministerial Ends with Decisions,” December 13, 2017. 259 Ibid. 260 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Eleventh Session, “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Ministerial 

Decision of 13 December 2017,” December 18, 2017. 261 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Eleventh Session, “Work Programme on Small Economies––Ministerial Decision of 

13 December 2017,” December 18, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

90 | www.usitc.gov

proposal for a formal working group on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), to be 

presented at the 2019 WTO ministerial conference.262

In addition, members agreed to continue their moratorium on so-called non-violation and situation 

disputes in the area of intellectual property263 under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).264 Such cases can arise when a member brings a WTO 

dispute settlement challenge over an intellectual property action taken by another member, even where 

no agreement or market commitment has been broken, because the complainant considers the 

resulting situation to infringe on its own intellectual property rights.265

No agreement was reached at the Ministerial Conference on a number of issues under negotiation in 

the Doha Round, including on the public stockholding of foodstuffs for food security purposes. 

According to the WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo in his closing remarks at the Ministerial 

Conference, “There are some remaining topics, which our representatives should continue 

negotiating....Members agreed to advance negotiations on all remaining issues, including on the three 

pillars of agriculture, namely domestic support, market access and export competition, as well as nonagriculture market access, services, development, TRIPS, rules, and trade and environment.”266

Furthermore, despite the lack of progress on issues considered essential by developing country 

members in achieving sustainable and inclusive growth, the Director-General noted the commitment of 

WTO members to advance negotiations on remaining issues in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2018.267

General Council

At the yearend meeting of the WTO General Council on November 11, 2017, the WTO Director-General 

reported to members on informal consultations held during the year among both large and small 

groupings of delegates in efforts to resolve outstanding issues concerning the General Council’s 

agenda.268 In the WTO Council on Trade in Goods, three major issues were addressed in 2017: General 

Council waivers of obligations, enlargement of the European Union (EU), and enlargement of the 

Eurasian Economic Union.269 In the Council on Trade in Services, discussions remained unsuccessful in 

finding ways to move forward with services negotiations.270 In the TRIPS Council, member discussions 

revolved around whether negotiations on a geographical-indications register for wines and spirits (under 

TRIPS Article 23.4) should remain narrowly focused on wines and spirits, or whether it should extend to 

additional products. The TRIPS Council also considered the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement 

262 Washington Trade Daily, “Buenos Aires a Bust,” December 14, 2017, 1–3. 263 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Eleventh Session, “TRIPS Non-Violation and Situation Complaints––Ministerial 

Decision of 13 December 2017,” December 18, 2017. 264 Washington Trade Daily, “Buenos Aires a Bust,” December 14, 2017, 1–3. 265 WTO, “Draft Decision Agreed on “Non-violation” Cases,” November 23, 2015. 266 WTO, “Eleventh Ministerial Conference—Closing Statement by the Chairperson,” December 20, 2017, 2. 267 WTO, “Eleventh Ministerial Conference—Closing Statement by the Chairperson,” December 20, 2017, 3; WTO, 

“Message from Director-General Roberto Azevêdo.” Annual Report—2018, May 31, 2018, 9; WTO, “Ministerial 

Ends with Decisions,” December 13, 2017. 268 WTO, GC, “General Council––Draft Annual Report (2017)––30 November–1 December 2017,” November 16, 

2017.

269 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 96. The Eurasian Economic Union is a 

political and economic grouping of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. 270 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 87.
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 91

and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the protection of traditional knowledge 

and folklore. In particular, the council talked about proposals on disclosing sources of biological material 

and associated traditional knowledge.271

Work Programs, Decisions, Waivers, and Reviews

In addition to reviewing past decisions related to ongoing WTO work programs—in particular, those 

from the WTO ministerial conferences held in Indonesia in December 2013 and in Kenya in December 

2015—delegates at the November 2017 General Council meeting focused on the upcoming ministerial 

conference to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017. They also reviewed work programs 

undertaken as part of the Doha Development Agenda, including work programs on electronic 

commerce, small economies, and aid-for-trade measures. They also reviewed work directed at 

benefiting the least-developed country members, including the Director-General’s report on the 

developmental aspects of cotton.272

Work Program on Electronic Commerce

The Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce273 was adopted at the May 1998 WTO ministerial 

conference in Geneva, Switzerland.274 It called on the WTO General Council to establish a work program 

to examine trade-related issues arising from global electronic commerce (e-commerce). Discussions on 

e-commerce currently take place in four major WTO bodies.275

In July 2017, members began to develop and submit papers on various aspects of e-commerce, taking 

into consideration the upcoming December 2017 ministerial conference.276 Bilateral discussions started 

in September 2017 between the chair of the General Council and individual WTO members in four main 

areas: (1) the future Work Program on Electronic Commerce; (2) the moratorium on imposing customs 

duties on electronic transmissions that started under the 1998 Declaration; (3) the possibility of future 

negotiations on e-commerce; and (4) the possible establishment of an institutional structure—such as a 

working group—to provide a single WTO body to help focus discussions on e-commerce.277

At the ministerial conference in December 2017, members agreed to extend the practice of not 

imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions for another two years. They also committed to 

begin work toward future WTO negotiations on the trade-related aspects of e-commerce.278

 271 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 91; World Trade Organization, “TRIPS: 

Reviews, Article 27.3(b) and Related Issues—Background and the Current Situation,” (accessed June 19, 2018). 272 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 96. 273 WTO, “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Adopted by the General Council on 25 September 1998,” 

September 30, 1998.

274 WTO, “Ministerial Conferences,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 275 The four WTO bodies are the Council on Trade in Goods, the Council on Trade in Services, the TRIPS Council, and

the Committee on Trade and Development.

276 Submissions have ranged from issues such as a proposal for a single WTO body for discussions on all ecommerce matters to specific rules covering topics like copyright, e-signatures, and consumer protection. 277 WTO, “MC11 In Brief—Electronic Commerce,” Briefing note, n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 278 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 85; WTO, Ministerial Conference, 

Eleventh Session, “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce—Ministerial Decision of 13 December 2017,” 

December 18, 2017; WTO, “Ministerial Ends with Decisions,” December 13, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

92 | www.usitc.gov

Work Program on Small Economies

Members heard the report on the standing Work Program on Small Economies during 2017, which 

focused on how work on global value chains can be marshalled to benefit small, vulnerable economies. 

The WTO Committee on Trade and Development, which chairs the work program, reported that 

members agreed to continue discussions on how to reduce trade costs for small economies, particularly 

in the area of trade facilitation.279

Sixth Global Review on Aid for Trade

The WTO Director-General reported on the Sixth Global Review on Aid for Trade, held in 2017.280 He 

reported that issues covered included trade facilitation; connectivity infrastructure; e-commerce; 

gender issues; investment; the least-developed countries; MSMEs; trade and finance; and the UN 

Sustainable Development Goals, which affect capacity-building for countries benefiting from aid-fortrade measures.281

Review of the Exemption under Paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994 (“Jones 

Act” Exemption)

The General Council held the 2017 biennial review of the exemption under Paragraph 3(c) of GATT 1994 

concerning maritime cabotage282 in U.S. waters (commonly known as the “Jones Act” exemption) on the 

same basis as the 2015 review, where statistical information was provided by the United States.283 The 

General Council noted remarks by interested delegations, and indicated that under the two-year review 

cycle set out in paragraph 3(b)284 of GATT 1994 the next review would take place in 2019.285

Review of Waivers of Obligations under Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement

In 2017, the General Council held reviews of several multiyear waivers regarding adoption of 

nomenclature changes made to the Harmonized System in 2002, 2007, and 2017, into WTO members’ 

tariff schedules.286 The General Council also reviewed other previously agreed waivers, including U.S. 

279 WTO, GC, “Draft Annual Report (2017),” November 16, 2017, par. 6.1–6.5. 280 WTO, GC, “Minutes of the Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 26 July 2017,” September 22, 2017. 281 WTO, GC, “Draft Annual Report (2017),” November 16, 2017, par. 7.1. 282 Cabotage is a term used in the transport industry to indicate the carriage of products or people between two 

points within a country.

283 WTO, GC, “Notification Pursuant to Paragraph 3(c) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994––

Communication from the United States,” January 5, 2017. 284 Under Article IX––Decision-Making, of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. 285 WTO, GC, “Draft Annual Report (2017),” WT/GC/W/736, November 16, 2017, par. 9.2. 286 The Harmonized System, also known as the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, is an 

international product nomenclature used by over 200 countries as a basis for their customs tariffs and the 

collection of international trade statistics. World Customs Organization, “What is the Harmonized System (HS)?” 

(accessed June 19, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 93

waivers related to the African Growth and Opportunity Act287 and the Caribbean Basin Economic 

Recovery Act.288

WTO Membership

There were 164 members of the World Trade Organization in 2017.289 There were also 23 observers to 

the WTO by yearend, with South Sudan requesting observer status on November 16, 2017.290 According 

to USTR, six observers appeared actively engaged in the WTO accession process.291 No accessions to the 

WTO took place during the year, although the General Council named a new chairman to lead 

discussions on the bid by Bosnia and Herzegovina to join.292 In addition, there were eight observer 

organizations to the WTO.293

Appointment of Director-General

The General Council agreed to appoint Roberto Azevêdo as the Director-General of the WTO for a 

second term of four years, starting on September 1, 2017.294

Other Business

Informal dialogues and workshops also took place during the November 2017 General Council meeting. 

Various groups of delegates met to discuss MSMEs as well as Investment Facilitation for Development. 

Workshops focused on MSMEs and on trade and investment matters.295

Agreement on Trade Facilitation 

The WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation entered into force on February 22, 2017,296 after two-thirds 

of WTO members, including the United States, notified the WTO that they had ratified the agreement.

287 WTO, GC, “United States––African Growth and Opportunity Act––Report of the Government of the United 

States for the Year 2015 under the Decision of 30 November 2015,”January 20, 2017. 288 WTO, GC, “Draft Annual Report (2017),” November 16, 2017, par. 10.1–10.4; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda 

and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, V.96. 289 For a list of current WTO members and observers, see WTO, “Understanding the WTO: The Organization—

Members and Observers” (accessed February 28, 2018). 290 Ibid.; WTO, “Eleventh Session of the Ministerial Conference—Request for Observer Status by the Republic of 

South Sudan,” November 16, 2017. 291 Equatorial Guinea, Libya, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria. USTR, 2018 Trade Policy 

Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 190. 292 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 190. 293 The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); International Monetary Fund (IMF); International Trade Centre 

(WTO/UNCTAD ITC); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); UN; United Nations 

Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); World Bank (IBRD); and the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO). WTO, “Understanding the WTO: The Organization—Members and Observers” (accessed 

February 28, 2018).

294 WTO, GC, “Draft Annual Report (2017),” November 16, 2017, par. 23.3. 295 Ibid., par. 9.2. 296 Ibid., par. 23.3. The TFA was adopted under the Protocol Amending the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 

World Trade Organization—Agreement on Trade Facilitation. WTO, GC, “Minutes of the Meeting Held in the 

Centre William Rappard on 27–28 February, and Reconvened on 7 April 2017,” May 3, 2017, par. 3.1–3.46.
The Year in Trade 2017

94 | www.usitc.gov

The agreement establishes multilateral trade rules under the WTO to reduce delays in customs and 

border procedures for trade in goods across national borders.297 At yearend 2017, there were 127 WTO 

members that had deposited their acceptance of the agreement with the WTO.

298

The Committee on Trade Facilitation––established as part of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation––held 

its inaugural session on May 16, 2017, to confirm the committee’s first chair. In July, the committee 

received updates on the status of ratification and notification processes, as well as on activities of the 

Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility.299 At the third committee meeting in 2017—and the last one of 

the year—delegates reviewed a series of notifications under different articles as mandated by the Trade 

Facilitation Agreement.300 The majority of these submissions were under articles 15 and 16––so-called 

category A, B, and C notifications.301

Plurilateral Agreements Already in Force

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft

The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft eliminates import duties on all aircraft (other than military 

aircraft) and other products covered by the agreement, such as aircraft engines, their parts and 

components, all components and sub-assemblies of civil aircraft, and flight simulators and their parts 

and components. It also covers disciplines concerning government procurement and financial support in 

the civil aircraft sector.302 The agreement entered into force on January 1, 1980, and is one of two 

plurilateral agreements (along with the Agreement on Government Procurement) carried out under the 

auspices of the 1995 World Trade Organization303 that commits signatories to core disciplines applicable 

only to those parties signing the agreement. There were 32 signatories to the WTO Agreement on Trade 

in Civil Aircraft in 2017, including the United States, and 20 of which were EU member states.304 The 

WTO Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft held a regular meeting on November 1, 2017, to discuss 

 297 WTO, “Trade Facilitation,” n.d. (accessed March 20, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual 

Report, March 2018, 85. For a detailed overview of the agreement, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2013, 74–80. 298 This number continued to rise in 2018; on June 27, 2018, Uganda accepted the agreement, bringing the total 

number to 138 WTO members that had formally accepted the agreement. WTO, “Members Accepting the Protocol 

of Amendment to Insert the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement,” n.d. 

(accessed July 25, 2018). 299 The Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility provides technical assistance and capacity building to assist 

developing and least-developed WTO members in implementing the Trade Facilitation Agreement. For more 

information, see WTO, “About the Facility,” n.d. (accessed June 26, 2018). 300 WTO, Committee on Trade Facilitation, “Draft––Report (2017) of the Committee on Trade Facilitation to the 

Council for Trade in Goods––Revision,” November 2, 2017. 301 WTO members are allowed to benefit from special and differential treatment by implementing the agreement 

at their own pace. The A, B, and C notifications indicate when the member will carry out each trade facilitation 

measure––immediate implementation, implementation after a transitional period, or implementation with 

assistance and support for capacity building. “The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement,” n.d. (accessed July 25, 

2018).

302 WTO, “Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018); WTO, “Plurilaterals: Of Minority 

Interest,” n.d. (accessed June 1, 2018). 303 And before that, the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 304 For a list of the signatories to the agreement, see WTO, Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft, “Report (2016) of 

the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Adopted 3 November 2016),” November 7, 2016.
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 95

updating the agreement’s aviation product list to be compatible with the 2007 version of the 

Harmonized System.305

Agreement on Government Procurement

The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) covers core disciplines such as transparency, 

competition, and good governance in public authorities’ procurement of goods, services, and capital 

infrastructure.306 In 2017, there were 19 parties that had signed the original 1994 Agreement on 

Government Procurement, including the United States.

307 These parties were also signatories to the 

2012 Revised Agreement on Government Procurement, except for Switzerland, whose acceptance of the 

revised agreement was pending at yearend. The EU is a party in its own right to both the 1994 and the 

2012 GPA, as are each of the 28 EU member states. Macedonia (also known as FYROM) applied for GPA 

accession in March 2017.308

Expansion of the Information Technology Agreement

The Information Technology Agreement (ITA)309 is a plurilateral agreement that eliminates tariffs on 

certain information and communications technology products, such as computers, telecommunication 

equipment, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment, software, and 

scientific instruments, as well as most of the parts and accessories for these products.310 It was 

concluded by 29 participants at the December 1996 Singapore Ministerial Conference.311 In 2017, the 

ITA had 53 participants, accounting for 82 WTO members, including the United States.

312

Following preliminary discussions in May 2012, a subset of ITA participants opened talks on the 

possibility of broadening product coverage under the original ITA, given advances in technology since 

the original 1996 agreement.313 In July 2015, after 17 rounds of negotiations, participants in the ITA 

Expansion agreed to a list of 201 additional products on which they would eliminate customs duties.314

These new items included products such as new-generation multicomponent integrated circuits (MCOs), 

touch screens, GPS navigation equipment, portable interactive electronic education devices, video game 

consoles, and medical equipment, such as magnetic resonance imaging products and ultrasonic scanning 

 305 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 195. 306 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Tenth Session, “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Ministerial Decision 

of 19 December 2015,” December 21, 2015. 307 For a list of the signatories to the agreement, see WTO, “Government Procurement––Agreement on 

Government Procurement,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 308 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 198. 309 Formally, the WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (WT/MIN(96)/16). 310 WTO, “Information Technology Agreement—An Explanation,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018); USTR, 2018 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 198. 311 WTO, “Information Technology Agreement—An Explanation,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 312 For a list of the participants, see WTO, Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products, “Status of Implementation—Note by the Secretariat—Revision,” May 19, 2017. The 

difference between the number of participants and the number of WTO members is that the 28 member states of 

the EU as well as Liechtenstein are included in the list of WTO members. In the list of participants, only the 

European Union (on behalf of all of the EU member states) and Switzerland (on behalf of the customs union of 

Switzerland and Liechtenstein) are included.

313 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 199. 314 WTO, “Briefing Note: The Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products,” December 16, 2015.
The Year in Trade 2017

96 | www.usitc.gov

apparatus.315 Because the most-favored-nation principle applies to multilateral WTO agreements, all 

WTO members will benefit from duty-free access to the markets of the parties to the ITA Expansion.316

Following needed domestic ratification procedures in the member countries, the first set of tariff 

reductions under the ITA expansion took place on July 1, 2016. A majority of participants had 

implemented their initial tariff commitments by yearend 2016.317 On July 1, 2017, the second set of 

reductions took place.318

Selected Plurilateral Agreements under Discussion

Negotiations on an Agreement on Trade in Environmental Goods

On July 8, 2014, a group of WTO members launched plurilateral negotiations toward an Environmental 

Goods Agreement (EGA). The goal of these talks is to reduce customs duties on products used to treat 

and benefit the environment, including products that help generate clean and renewable energy, 

improve energy and resource efficiency, control air pollution, manage waste products, treat waste 

water, monitor the quality of the environment, and combat noise pollution.319 In 2017, there were 18 

participants, representing 46 WTO members, working toward an EGA: Australia; Canada; China; Costa 

Rica; the EU; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; South Korea; Liechtenstein; New Zealand; 

Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; Taiwan; Turkey; and the United States.320

Between 2014 and 2016, 18 rounds of negotiations were held.321 No rounds took place in 2017. At the 

June and November 2017 meetings of the WTO Trade and Environment Committee, delegates were 

briefed that EGA participants continued to look for a way to move forward in these negotiations. A 

number of members participating in the negotiations (Canada, the EU, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, 

New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Turkey) voiced their willingness to continue 

talks, and invited other members to join in.322

 315 WTO, “Information Technology Agreement—An Explanation,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018. 316 WTO, “WTO: 2015 News Items—Information Technology Agreement—WTO Members Conclude Landmark $1.3 

Trillion IT Trade Deal,” December 16, 2015. In the United States, the most-favored-nation principle is known as 

“normal trade relations.”

317 WTO, “Information Technology Agreement––Majority of Participants Have Now Implemented,” November 1, 

2016.

318 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 199. 319 WTO, “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 320 The 46 WTO members represented include the 18 participants listed above, plus the individual 28 EU member 

states. WTO, “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018); Government of Canada, 

“WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” December 14, 2016 [last modified] (accessed February 28, 2018). 321 Following an agreement by Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders in September 2012 to reduce 

applied tariffs on a list of 54 environmental goods by the end of 2015, interest grew among a number of APEC and 

non-APEC economies to engage in the environmental goods tariff negotiations at the WTO. There have been 18 

rounds from 2014 through 2016, starting with the launch of EGA negotiations on July 8, 2014, and continuing into 

the 18th round, held November 26 to December 2, 2016. Government of Canada, “WTO Environmental Goods 

Agreement,” December 14, 2016 (last modified). 322 WTO, Committee on Trade and Environment, “Report of the Meeting Held on 1 November 2017––Note by the 

Secretariat,” January 17, 2018, par. 2.1–2.2; WTO, Committee on Trade and Environment, “Report (2017) of the 
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 97

Negotiations on an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

The establishment of international disciplines on fisheries subsidies has been under discussion in the 

WTO’s Negotiating Group on Rules since the Doha Development Agenda was launched in 2001, with an 

elaboration of the negotiating mandate in 2005. The adoption by world leaders in September 2015 of 

the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) gave renewed impetus to these talks.323

SDG target 14.6 set a deadline of 2020 for eliminating subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported, 

and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and for prohibiting certain forms of fishery subsidies that contribute to 

overcapacity and overfishing. Negotiations to establish fisheries disciplines will also ensure special and 

differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries.

On October 12, 2017, members engaged in these negotiations circulated to the WTO Negotiating Group 

on Rules a draft compilation text based on proposals by seven groups participating in these talks: (1) 

New Zealand, Iceland, and Pakistan; (2) the EU; (3) Indonesia; (4) the African, Caribbean, and Pacific 

Group; (5) Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay; (6) the Least-developed 

Countries Group; and (7) Norway. Other members suggested additional amendments to this text, 

including China, Japan, India, the United States, and others, on issues such as transparency and 

institutional matters as well as subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing.324

Nonetheless, a consensus text could not be reached by the end of the WTO Ministerial Conference in 

December 2017. As a result, ministers issued a decision saying that they would continue to work toward 

a fisheries agreement, with a view toward its adoption by the 2019 WTO Ministerial Conference.325

Dispute Settlement Body

This section provides an overview of the WTO dispute settlement process as well as information about 

proceedings during calendar year 2017, particularly those in which the United States was a complaining 

or responding party. More specifically, this section provides (1) a tally of new requests for consultations 

filed by WTO members during calendar year 2017 under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding 

(DSU); (2) a table that lists the new dispute settlement panels established during calendar year 2017 in 

which the United States was either the complaining party or the named respondent; and (3) short 

summaries of the procedural and substantive issues in disputes involving the United States that moved 

to the panel stage during 2017, as well as summaries of panel and Appellate Body reports issued during 

2017 in disputes that involved the United States. At the end of this section, U.S. concerns with the WTO 

dispute settlement process are described. Figure 3.1 provides a timeline for the WTO dispute settlement 

process prepared by the WTO. The references in the timeline are to articles in the WTO Dispute 

Settlement Understanding.

Committee on Trade and Environment,” November 28, 2017, par. 28; Inside U.S. Trade, “U.S. Remains Silent As 

WTO Members Look for Ways,” June 21, 2017. 323 WTO, “MC11 in Brief—Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 324 Ibid. 325 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 66; ICTSD, Advancing Multilateral Trade 

Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies, March 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

98 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 3.1 Timeline for the WTO Dispute Settlement Process326

 326 WTO, “The Process—Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case” (accessed June 7, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 99

The summaries in this section of issues and findings and recommendations in panel and Appellate Body 

reports are based entirely on information in publicly available documents, including summaries 

published online by the WTO, summaries included in USTR’s 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual 

Report, and summaries included in USTR press releases. The summaries in this report should not be 

regarded as comprehensive or as reflecting a U.S. government or Commission interpretation of the 

issues raised or addressed in the disputes or in panel or Appellate Body reports. A table showing 

procedural developments during 2017 in disputes in which the United States was the complainant or 

respondent appears in appendix table A.25.

This section focuses on developments during 2017. Several disputes in which panels had been 

established and composed in 2016 were active during 2017, with decisions expected in 2018; the panel 

decisions in these cases will be summarized in the Commission’s report covering 2018.

327 A number of 

additional disputes in which dispute settlement consultations were requested in 2016 remained in the 

consultation phase throughout 2017 without further developments, at least as posted by the WTO on its 

dispute settlement website.328

This section also generally focuses only on developments through the panel and Appellate Body stage 

and does not include matters that arose after the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted panel or 

Appellate Body reports in the original dispute. As indicated in the flowchart in figure 3.1, dispute 

litigation often continues beyond the adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, particularly when 

the defending party is the “losing” party. Issues may arise about the reasonableness of the time sought 

by the losing party to implement findings and recommendations, the adequacy of actions taken by that 

party to comply with the findings and recommendations, and possible compensation and retaliation. 

Matters may be referred to the original panel or to a new panel for further findings and 

recommendations on compliance and other matters, and when appropriate, the parties may seek the 

help of an arbitrator to resolve matters.

Appendix table A.25 sets out the timeline for procedural actions in specific active WTO dispute 

settlement cases, including procedural actions at the implementation, compliance, and 

compensation/retaliation stages. A number of disputes were still active during 2017 well after the panel 

or Appellate Body report had been adopted, including a dispute with respect to U.S. measures relating 

327 For example, the panel in DS505 was established in July 2016 and composed in August 2016. On January 27, 

2017, the chair of the panel informed the DSB that the beginning of the panel’s work had been delayed because of 

a lack of available experienced lawyers in the Secretariat and that the panel expected to issue its final report to the 

parties before the end of 2017. The panel met with the parties in March 2017 and again in June 2017. The panel is 

expected to issue its report in 2018. WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS505; United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Supercalendered Paper from Canada” (accessed May 2, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 

Annual Report, March 2018, 179–80. 328 See, for example, DS503, United States—Measures Concerning Non-Immigrant Visas. India filed a request for 

consultations on March 3, 2016. Consultations between India and the United States took place in Geneva on May 

11–12, 2016. WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS503; United States—Measures Concerning Non-Immigrant Visas” 

(accessed May 2, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 179. See also 

DS514, United States—Countervailing Measures on Cold- and Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil. Brazil 

requested consultations in November 2016, and the parties consulted on the matter on December 19, 2016. WTO, 

“Dispute Settlement: DS514; United States—Countervailing Measures on Cold- and Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products 

from Brazil” (accessed May 8, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 180.
The Year in Trade 2017

100 | www.usitc.gov

to the importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna products;329 as well as a dispute relating to 

China’s antidumping and countervailing measures on broiler products from the United States.330

New Requests for Consultations

During 2017 WTO members filed 17 new requests for dispute settlement consultations, which was 

about the average for the five preceding years. Three members—the United States, Canada, and 

Qatar—each filed 3 requests and accounted for slightly over half the requests filed during 2017. The 

Russian Federation and Ukraine each filed 2 requests, and Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey each 

filed 1 request during 2017. Three members, the United States, Canada, and the Russian Federation, 

were the named respondents in slightly over half the requests, with the United States the named 

respondent in 4 of the requests, while Canada was the named respondent in 3 requests and the Russian 

Federation in 2 requests during 2017. Australia, Bahrain, China, the EU, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, 

Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates were each the named respondent in 1 request during 2017. Two 

of the 3 requests filed by the United States during 2017 were against Canada, and the third was against 

China, while 3 of the requests in which the United States was the named respondent were filed by 

Canada, while the fourth was filed by Turkey. The issues presented in these disputes are described 

 329 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS381; United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale 

of Tuna and Tuna Products” (accessed May 8, 2018). The dispute concerned U.S. dolphin-safe labeling provisions 

for tuna and tuna products and whether they were consistent with U.S. obligations under the GATT 1994 and the 

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). Mexico requested dispute settlement consultations in 

October 2008. Mexico then requested establishment of a panel, and a panel was established. The panel circulated 

its report in September 2011. The United States and Mexico appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretation 

in the panel report to the Appellate Body, and in May 2012 the Appellate Body found aspects of the U.S. provisions 

inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. In June 2012 the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and panel report 

(as modified). In July 2013, the United States informed the DSB of a change in its dolphin-safe labeling 

requirements and stated that it had brought its requirements into conformity with the DSB’s recommendations 

and rulings. A series of compliance proceedings began in 2013 and led to panel and Appellate Body reports that 

were adopted in December 2015. In March 2016, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued 

a new rule modifying the dolphin-safe labeling measure, and in April 2016 the United States requested the 

establishment of a compliance panel to determine if the new rule is consistent with U.S. WTO obligations. In June 

2016, Mexico requested the establishment of a second compliance panel because it considered that the United 

States’ new rule had not brought the dolphin-safe labeling provisions into WTO compliance. The panels issued 

their reports on October 26, 2017, and found that the new U.S. measure is consistent with the relevant U.S. WTO 

obligations. Mexico appealed aspects of the compliance panels’ reports on December 1, 2017, and the United 

States filed an appellee submission on December 19, 2017. The Appellate Body is expected to issue a report in 

2018. USTR, “U.S. Announces Compliance,” July 12, 2013; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual 

Report, March 2018, 165. 330 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products 

from the United States” (accessed May 28, 2017). In response to the panel report, China initiated a reinvestigation 

of U.S. producers and released re-determinations on July 8, 2014, which continued the imposition of antidumping 

and countervailing duties on U.S. broiler products. The United States considered that China failed to bring its 

measures into WTO compliance and on May 27, 2016, requested establishment of a compliance panel. The panel 

was composed on July 18, 2016. A hearing before the panel took place in April 2017, and the panel released the 

public version of its report on January 18, 2018. The panel upheld most of the U.S. claims in its report. See USTR, 

2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 142; WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China—

Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States” (accessed May 8, 

2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 101

below. Unlike the trend in recent years, in which China and the EU were a named party in multiple 

disputes each year, either as a complainant or respondent, neither filed a new request for dispute 

settlement consultations during 2017, and each was named respondent in only 1 new request filed 

during 2017.331

All three complaints that the United States filed during 2017 were still at the consultation stage as of the 

end of 2017. The first of the complaints related to subsides paid by China to producers of primary 

aluminum. In the complaint, the United States alleged that China’s measures appear to be inconsistent 

with its obligations under Articles 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b), 6.3(c), and 6.3(d) of the Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) and Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994. The United 

States filed its request for consultations on January 12, 2017.332 In the view of the United States, China 

appears to provide subsidies through artificially cheap loans from banks and through artificially lowpriced inputs for aluminum production, such as coal, electricity, and alumina.333 In the second and third 

complaints, both of which concerned measures maintained by the Canadian province of British 

Columbia governing the sale of wine in grocery stores, the United States claimed that the measures 

appear to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.334 The United States maintains that the 

measures provide advantages to British Columbia wine by granting exclusive access to a retail channel 

(selling wine on grocery store shelves) by allowing only British Columbia wine to be sold on regular 

grocery store shelves. Imported wine may be sold in grocery stores only through a so-called “store 

within a store.”335

As of the end of 2017, three of the four disputes filed against the United States during 2017 were still in 

the consultation phase; only one had advanced to the panel stage. The first of the four disputes was 

filed by Turkey on March 8, 2017, and it concerned countervailing duty measures imposed by the United 

States on imports of certain pipe and tube products from Turkey. Turkey requested establishment of a 

panel. A panel was established on June 19, 2017, and composed on September 14, 2017. The issues 

raised in this dispute are further summarized in the next section of this chapter, which covers new 

panels established during 2017 in which the United States was a named party.336

The remaining three requests for consultations were filed by Canada, and all three related to U.S. 

countervailing duty and antidumping measures. Two of the requests were filed on November 28, 2017, 

and concerned U.S. countervailing duty measures and U.S. antidumping measures, respectively, on 

softwood lumber from Canada. In the countervailing duty measures dispute (DS533), Canada claimed 

that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 2.1(a), 2.1(b), 10, 11.2, 11.3, 

14(d), 19.1 19.3, 19.4, 21.2, 21.2, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 

 331 WTO, “Chronological List of Disputes Cases” (accessed May 2, 2018). 332 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS519; China—Subsidies to Producers of Primary Aluminum” (accessed May 2, 

2018).

333 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 144. 334 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS520; Canada—Measures Governing the Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores” (accessed 

May 2, 2018); WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS531; Canada—Measures Governing the Sale of Wine in Grocery Stores 

(Second Complaint)” (accessed May 2, 2018). 335 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 155. 336 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS523; United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Pipe and Tube Products 

(Turkey)” (accessed May 2, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

102 | www.usitc.gov

1994.337 Specifically, Canada challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) determinations 

regarding benchmarks for stumpage, the log export permitting processes, and non-stumpage 

programs.338 In the antidumping measures dispute (DS534), Canada claimed that the measures appear 

to be inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, and 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement and Article VI:1 and 

VI.2 of the GATT 1994.339 Specifically, Canada challenged the USDOC’s application of a differential

pricing methodology, including the United States’ use of zeroing when applying the average-totransaction comparison methodology.340

Canada filed the third request for dispute settlement consultations on December 20, 2017. Canada 

framed the request more broadly to apply to certain U.S. laws, regulations, and other measures 

concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, and claimed that the measures appear to 

be inconsistent with multiple articles of the Antidumping Agreement and SCM Agreement and also with 

Article VI:2, VI:3, and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.341

New Panels Established in 2017 That Involve the 

United States

As indicated in table 3.1, four dispute settlement panels were established during 2017 in which the 

United States was either the requesting party (complainant) or the respondent party. The United States 

was the complaining party in two disputes involving China, and the responding party in two disputes 

filed by India and Turkey, respectively. As of the end of 2017, panels had been composed in two of the 

four disputes (DS511 and DS523), and all were still pending.

Table 3.1 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2017 in which the United States was a 

party

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name

Panel 

established

DS510 India United States United States—Certain Measures Relating 

to the Renewable Energy Sector

03/21/2017

DS511 United States China China—Domestic Support for Agricultural 

Producers

01/25/2017

DS517 United States China China—Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain 

Agricultural Products

09/22/2017

DS523 Turkey United States United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Certain Pipe and Tube Products

09/14/2017

Source: WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed May 19, 2017).

 337 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS533; United States—Countervailing Measures on Softwood Lumber from Canada” 

(accessed May 2, 2018).

338 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 182. 339 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS534; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing 

Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada” (accessed May 2, 2018). On March 16, 2018, Canada requested 

establishment of a panel in both lumber disputes, and panels were established on April 9, 2018. 340 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 182. 341 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS535; United States—Certain Systemic Trade Remedies Measures” (accessed May 

2, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 103

Panels Established during 2017 at the Request of the United 

States

China—Domestic Support for Agricultural Products (DS511)

On September 16, 2016, the United States requested consultations with China regarding certain 

measures through which China appears to provide domestic support in favor of agricultural producers, 

in particular those producing wheat, indica rice, japonica rice, and corn. The United States claimed that 

the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 3.2, 6.3, and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on 

Agriculture. The parties consulted on the matter on October 20, 2016, but the consultations did not 

resolve the matter. On December 5, 2016, the United States requested establishment of a panel, and 

the DSB established a panel at its meeting on January 25, 2017. Following agreement of the parties, the 

panel was composed on June 24, 2017.342

China—Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products (DS517)

On December 15, 2016, the United States requested consultations with China concerning China’s 

administration of its tariff-rate quotas for certain agricultural products, including those for wheat, short 

and medium grain rice, long grain rice, and corn. The United States claimed that the measures appear to 

be inconsistent with Articles X:3(a), XI:1, and XIII:3(b) of the GATT 1994; and Paragraph 1.2 of Part I of 

China’s Protocol of Accession. On February 9, 2017, the United States and China held consultations in 

Geneva. After the consultations failed to resolve U.S. concerns, the United States requested 

establishment of a panel on August 31, 2017, and a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 

September 22, 2017. As of the end of 2017, the panel had not been composed. 343

Panels Established during 2017 in Which the United States Was 

the Named Respondent

United States—Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector 

(DS510)

On September 9, 2016, India requested WTO consultations regarding certain U.S. measures relating to 

domestic-content requirements and subsidies instituted by the governments of the states of 

Washington, California, Montana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Delaware, and Minnesota in 

the energy sector. India claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles III:4, XVI, and 

XVI:4 of the GATT 1994; Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMS); 

and Articles 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(c), and 25 of the SCM Agreement. Consultations between 

India and the United States took place in Geneva on November 16–17, 2016. On January 17, 2017, India 

 342 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS511; China—Domestic Supports for Agricultural Producers” (accessed May 3, 

2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 153–54. The panel held meetings 

with the parties in late January 2018 and was scheduled to hold a second panel meeting in late April 2018.

343 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS517; China—Tariff Rate Quota for Certain Agricultural Products” (accessed May 3, 

2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 154. The panel was composed on 

February 12, 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

104 | www.usitc.gov

requested the establishment of a panel, and the DSB established a panel at its meeting on March 21, 

2017. As of the end of 2017, the panel had not been composed.344

United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Pipe and Tube Products 

(DS523)

On March 8, 2017, Turkey requested WTO consultations concerning countervailing duty measures 

imposed by the United States under four final countervailing duty determinations issued by USDOC on 

certain pipe and tube products from Turkey. Turkey claimed that the measures appear to be 

inconsistent with Articles 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(b), 2.1(c), 2.4, 10, 12.7, 14(d), 15.3, 19.4, and 32.1 of the SCM 

Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994. Turkey challenged the application of measures in four 

final countervailing duty determinations with respect to the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than 

adequate remuneration. In addition, with respect to injury determinations, Turkey challenged section 

771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding cross-cumulation of imports.345 On May 11, 2017, Turkey 

requested the establishment of a panel, and the DSB established a panel at its meeting on June 19, 

2017. At the request of Turkey, the Director-General composed the panel on September 14, 2017.346

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or 

Adopted during 2017 That Involve the United 

States

During 2017, a WTO dispute settlement panel or the Appellate Body issued a report in five disputes to 

which the United States was a party, either as a complainant or as the respondent (table 3.2). The 

United States was the complaining party in only one of those disputes, and was the responding party in 

the four other disputes. This section covers only panel and Appellate Body reports relating to the 

original disputes and does not include subsequent reports, such as those of a compliance panel or an 

arbitrator. Many of the latter reports are noted in table A.25, which contains a procedural summary of 

most of the dispute settlement cases which are still active in some respect.

 344 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS510; United States—Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector” 

(accessed May 3, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 180. 345 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 182. 346 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS523; United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Pipe and Tube Products 

(Turkey)” (accessed May 2, 2018). In a communication circulated on March 6, 2018, the chair of the panel stated 

that the panel’s work was delayed as a result of the lack of available experienced lawyers in the Secretariat and 

that the panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in the second half of 2018. Communication from the 

Panel, WT/DS523/4 (accessed May 2, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 105

Table 3.2 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated and/or adopted in 

2017 in which the United States was a party

Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name

Date of report 

circulation or 

adoption

DS471 China United States United States—Certain Methodologies and 

Their Application to Anti-Dumping 

Proceedings Involving China

Appellate Body 

report circulated 

05/11/2017; 

adopted 

05/22/2017

DS478 United States Indonesia Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural 

Products, Animals and Animal Products

Appellate Body 

report circulated 

11/09/2017; 

adopted 

11/22/2017

DS487 European Union United States United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for 

Large Civil Aircraft

Appellate Body 

report circulated 

09/04/2017; 

adopted 

09/22/2017

DS488 South Korea United States United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on 

Certain Oil Tubular Goods from Korea

Panel report 

circulated 

11/14/2017; 

adopted 

01/12/2018

DS491 Indonesia United States United States—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated 

Paper from Indonesia

Panel report 

circulated 

12/06/2017; 

adopted 

01/12/2018

Source: WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed May 19, 2017).

Reports in Which the United States Was the Complainant

Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 

Products (DS478)

On May 8, 2014, the United States requested consultations with Indonesia concerning certain measures 

it imposed on the importation of horticultural products, animals, and animal products. The United States 

claimed that the measures are inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of 

the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.2 of the Import Licensing 

Agreement; and Articles 2.1 and 2.15 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection.347 The United States 

was concerned that Indonesia, through its import licensing regimes, imposed numerous prohibitions and 

restrictions on the importation of covered products, including (1) prohibiting the importation of certain 

products altogether; (2) imposing strict application windows and validity periods for import permits; (3) 

restricting the type, quantity, and country of origin of products that may be imported; (4) requiring that 

importers actually import a certain percentage of the volume of products allowed under their permits; 

347 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS478; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 

Products” (accessed May 6, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

106 | www.usitc.gov

(5) restricting the uses for which products may be imported; (6) imposing local-content requirements; 

(7) restricting imports on a seasonal basis; and (8) setting a “reference price” below which products may 

not be imported.348 The measures at issue included import licensing regimes earlier amended by 

Indonesia in response to previous U.S. requests for dispute settlement consultations in January 2013 

(DS455) and August 2013 (DS465).349

On March 18, 2015, the United States requested establishment of a panel. On May 20, 2015, the DSB 

established a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU to examine this dispute and dispute DS477, 

brought by New Zealand. At the request of New Zealand and the United States, on October 8, 2015, the 

Director-General composed the panel.

The panel circulated its report on December 16, 2016. The panel found that all of Indonesia’s importrestricting measures for horticultural products and animal products are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of 

the GATT 1994. The panel also found that Indonesia failed to demonstrate that the challenged measures 

are justified under any general exception available under the GATT 1994.350

Indonesia appealed the panel’s report to the Appellate Body on February 17, 2017, and the Appellate 

Body issued its report on November 9, 2017. The Appellate Body affirmed the finding of the panel that 

all of Indonesia’s measures are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and, as Indonesia did not 

establish an affirmative defense with respect to any measure, affirmed that they are inconsistent with 

Indonesia’s WTO obligations.351

At its meeting on November 22, 2017, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, 

as modified by the Appellate Body report. On December 15, 2017, Indonesia informed the DSB that it 

required a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings and that 

the 45-day deadline established by Article 21.3(b) of the DSU to reach a mutually agreed reasonable 

period of time might need to be extended. On January 11, 2018, Indonesia, New Zealand, and the 

United States informed the DSB that in order to allow sufficient time for them to discuss a mutually 

agreed period, they had agreed on deadlines for arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. 352

Reports in Which the United States Was the Respondent

United States—Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-dumping 

Proceedings Involving China (DS471)

On December 3, 2013, China requested consultations with the United States regarding the use of certain 

methodologies in antidumping investigations involving Chinese products. China claimed that the 

measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.4.2, 6.1, 6.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 and Annex II of the 

Antidumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. Specifically, China challenged USDOC’s 

application in certain investigations and administrative reviews of a “targeted dumping methodology,” 

“zeroing” in connection with such methodology, a “single rate presumption for non-market economies,” 

 348 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 153. 349 Ibid., 152. 350 Ibid., 153. 351 Ibid. 352 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS478; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 

Products” (accessed May 6, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 107

and a “NME-wide methodology” including certain “features.” China also challenged a “single rate 

presumption” and the use of “adverse facts available” “as such.”353

On February 13, 2014, China requested establishment of a panel, and the DSB established a panel at its 

meeting on March 26, 2014. The Director-General composed the panel on August 28, 2014. On February 

23, 2015, the chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of proceedings was deferred due to the 

unavailability of Secretariat lawyers and that the panel, under its adopted timetable, expected to issue 

its final report to the parties in June 2016.354

The panel circulated its report on October 19, 2016. The panel found that a number of aspects of the 

“targeted dumping methodology” applied by USDOC in three challenged investigations were not 

inconsistent with the requirements of the Antidumping Agreement, including certain quantitative 

aspects of USDOC’s methodology. However, the panel found fault with other aspects of USDOC’s 

methodology and with USDOC’s explanation of why its resort to the alternative methodology was 

necessary. The panel also found that USDOC’s application of the alternative methodology to all sales, 

rather than only to so-called pattern sales, and USDOC’s use of “zeroing” in connection with the 

alternative methodology, were inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the 

Antidumping Agreement. 

In addition, the panel questioned USDOC’s use of a rebuttable presumption that all producers and 

exporters in China comprise a single entity under common government control—the China-government 

entity—to which a single antidumping margin is assigned, both as used in specific proceedings and 

generally. The panel found that USDOC’s use of the presumption is inconsistent with certain obligations 

in the WTO Antidumping Agreement concerning when exporters and producers are entitled to a unique 

antidumping margin or rate. However, the panel agreed with the United States that China had not 

established that USDOC has a general norm whereby it uses adverse inferences to pick information that 

is adverse to the interests of the China-government entity in calculating its antidumping market or rate. 

The panel decided to exercise judicial economy with respect to the information USDOC used in 

particular proceedings.355

On November 18, 2016, China appealed certain of the panel’s findings regarding USDOC’s “targeted 

dumping methodology,” use of “adverse facts available,” and the “single rate presumption.” The 

Appellate Body issued its report on May 11, 2017. The Appellate Body rejected virtually all of China’s 

claims on appeal and did not make any additional findings of inconsistency against the United States.356

On May 22, 2017, the DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body report. On June 19, 2017, the United 

States stated that it intended to implement the recommendations of the DSB in a manner that respects 

U.S. obligations, and that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so. On October 17, 

2017, China requested that an Article 21.3(c) arbitrator determine the reasonable period of time for 

353 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 175-76. 354 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS471; United States—Certain Methodologies and their Application to AntiDumping Proceedings Involving China” (accessed May 5, 2018). 355 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 176. 356 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

108 | www.usitc.gov

implementation.357 On January 19, 2018, the Award of the Arbitrator was circulated to members; the 

Arbitrator determined that the reasonable period is 15 months, expiring on August 22, 2018.358

United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft (DS487)

On December 19, 2014, the EU requested consultations with the United States with respect to 

conditional tax incentives established by the State of Washington relating to the development, 

manufacture, and sale of large civil aircraft. The EU alleged that the measures constitute specific 

subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement and alleged that such tax 

incentives are prohibited subsidies that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM 

Agreement.359 More specifically, the dispute concerned legislation enacted in the State of Washington in 

November 2013, which amended and extended various tax incentives for the aerospace industry. The 

EU identified seven separate tax incentives, including a reduced business and occupation tax rate, 

credits against business taxation, and exemptions from various other taxes in the State of 

Washington.360

On February 12, 2015, the EU requested establishment of a panel, and on February 23, 2015, the DSB 

established a panel. On April 22, 2015, at the request of the EU, the Director-General composed the 

panel. 361

On November 28, 2016, the panel report was circulated to members. The panel found that only the 

Washington State business and occupation tax incentive was a prohibited subsidy. While the panel 

found the six other tax incentives to be subsidies, they were not deemed to be illegal under WTO 

rules.362

On December 16, 2016, the United States appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the 

panel report, and on January 17, 2017, the EU notified the SSB of its decision to cross-appeal. The 

Appellate Body circulated its report on September 14, 2017. The Appellate Body found that none of the 

seven challenged programs were prohibited import-substitution subsidies, and accordingly reversed the 

panel’s finding that the business and occupation tax rate is a prohibited subsidy under Article 3.1(b) of 

the SCM Agreement. Having reversed the panel’s sole finding of inconsistency, the Appellate Body made 

no recommendation in the dispute. 363

 357 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 176. 358 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS471; United States—Certain Methodologies and their Application to AntiDumping Proceedings Involving China” (accessed May 5, 2018). 359 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft” (accessed 

May 6, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 176. 360 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft” (accessed 

May 6, 2018).

361 Ibid. 362 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 177. 363 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft” (accessed 

May 6, 2018).
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 109

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 

report, on September 22, 2017. 364

United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from Korea (DS488)

On December 22, 2014, South Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding certain 

antidumping duty measures on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from South Korea and the investigation 

methodology underlying such measures. South Korea claimed that the calculation by USDOC of the 

constructed value profit rate for South Korean respondents was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under 

Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.3, 2.4, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9, 6.10, including Articles 6.10.1 and 6.10.2, and 12.2.2 of 

the Antidumping Agreement and Articles I and X:3 of the GATT 1994.365

On February 23, 2015, South Korea requested the establishment of a panel, and a panel was established 

on March 25, 2015. On July 13, 2015, the parties agreed on the composition of the panel. On January 16, 

2016, the chair of the panel informed the DSB that the beginning of the panel’s work had been delayed 

due to a lack of available experienced lawyers in the Secretariat, and that the panel expected to issue its 

final report to the parties before the end of 2016. On September 15, 2016, the parties agreed on a new 

chair following the resignation of the chair of the panel. On December 19, 2016, the chair of the panel 

informed the DSB that following the additional delay due to the need to appoint a new chair and the 

complexity of the issues raised by the parties in the dispute, the panel expected to issue its final report 

to the parties by June 2017. 366

On November 14, 2017, the panel report was circulated to members. The panel found that the United 

States had acted inconsistently in four respects: (1) with the chapeau (introductory paragraph) of Article 

2.2.2 of the Antidumping Agreement, because USDOC did not determine profit for constructed value 

based on actual data pertaining to sales of the like product in the home market; (2) with Articles 2.2.2(i) 

and (iii), because USDOC relied on a narrow definition of the “same general category of products” in 

concluding it could not determine profit under Article 2.2.2(i) and in concluding it could not calculate a 

profit cap under Article 2.2.2(iii); (3) with Article 2.2.2, because USDOC did not determine profit for 

constructed value based on actual data pertaining to sales of the like product in third-country markets 

and with respect to Articles 1 and 9.3 as a consequence of substantive violations of Articles 2.2.2, 

2.2.2(i), and 2.2.2(iii).

Finally, the panel found two of South Korea’s claims with respect to profit for constructed value to be 

outside its terms of reference. In the first instance, this finding applied to South Korea’s claim that the 

United States had violated Article 2.2.2(iii) because USDOC had determined the profit rate based on a 

certain company’s financial statements. In the second instance, the finding applied to South Korea’s 

claim that the United States had violated Article X.3(a) of the GATT 1994, because USDOC had 

purportedly acted contrary to its agency practice of determining profit. The panel rejected the 

 364 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft” (accessed 

May 6, 2018).

365 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS488; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Korea” (accessed May 7, 2018). 366 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

110 | www.usitc.gov

remaining claims asserted by South Korea, including claims about the use of constructed export price 

and the selection of costs for calculation of constructed normal value.367

On January 12, 2018, the DSB adopted the panel report in this dispute.368

United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated 

Paper from Indonesia (DS491)

On March 13, 2015, Indonesia requested consultations with the United States concerning the imposition 

of antidumping and countervailing duty measures on certain coated paper products from Indonesia, as 

well as the investigation underlying those measures. Indonesia claimed that the measures are 

inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.1(c), 10, 12.7, 15.5, 15.7, and 15.8 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.5, 

3.7, and 3.8 of the Antidumping Agreement; and Article VI of the GATT 1994. Indonesia requested 

establishment of a panel on July 9, 2015, and the DSB established a panel on September 28, 2015. On 

February 4, 2016, at the request of Indonesia, the Director-General composed the panel.369

With regard to the countervailing duty measures, Indonesia challenged USDOC’s determinations that 

Indonesia’s provision of standing timber, log export ban, and debt forgiveness program are 

countervailable subsidies. Indonesia claimed that USDOC determined both that the standing timber was 

provided for less than adequate remuneration and that the log export ban distorted prices without 

factoring in prevailing market conditions. Indonesia also alleged, with regard to all three subsidies, that 

USDOC failed to examine whether there was a plan or scheme in place sufficient to constitute a “subsidy 

programme” within the meaning of the SCM Agreement. Indonesia further claimed that USDOC did not 

identify whether each subsidy was “specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting 

authority,” as required by the SCM Agreement. In addition, Indonesia challenged USDOC’s “facts 

available” determination, in which it concluded that the government of Indonesia forgave debt.

With regard to both the antidumping and countervailing duty measures, Indonesia alleged that the 

USITC threat of injury determination breached both the Antidumping Agreement and SCM Agreement 

because it relied on allegation, conjecture, and remote possibility; was not based on a change in 

circumstances that was clearly foreseen and imminent; and showed no causal relationship between the 

subject imports and the threat of injury to the domestic industry.370

Indonesia also raised an “as such” claim with respect to 19 U.S.C. § 11677(11)(B) (affirmative 

determination by divided U.S. International Trade Commission). Indonesia contended that, with respect 

 367 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 178. 368 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS488; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Korea” (accessed May 7, 2018). At the DSB meeting on February 9, 2018, the United States informed 

the DSB of its intention to implement the DSB’s recommendations and ruling and that it would need a reasonable 

period of time to do so. On February 26, 2018, South Korea and the United States informed the DSB that they had 

agreed that the reasonable period of time would be 12 months—that is, the period would expire on January 12, 

2019. Ibid.

369 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS491; United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain 

Coated Paper from Indonesia” (accessed May 8, 2018). 370 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 179.
Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization

U.S International Trade Commission | 111

to threat of injury cases, the law does not consider or exercise “special care” because of the 

requirement that a tie vote be treated as an affirmative Commission determination.371

On December 6, 2017, the panel report was circulated to members. The report rejected all of 

Indonesia’s claims. Indonesia chose not to appeal, and the DSB adopted the report on January 12, 

2018.372

U.S. Concerns with WTO Dispute Settlement

In recent years, the United States has expressed a number of concerns about how the WTO dispute 

settlement system functions, including the concern that a number of WTO dispute settlement reports 

have not followed WTO rules. The most recent expression of these concerns is reflected in the 

President’s 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report issued in March 2018 (2018 report).373 

The 2018 report states that the most significant area of concern has been panels and the Appellate Body 

adding to or diminishing rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement by not applying the WTO 

Agreement as written. The 2018 report noted that the earlier Bush and Obama Administrations had 

detailed numerous examples and concerns and had proposed formal guidance in 2005 for WTO 

members to adopt, but that these efforts have not yielded significant results.

Concerns cited included Appellate Body interpretations that would significantly restrict the ability of 

WTO members to counteract trade-distorting subsidies provided through state-owned enterprises; 

concerns with the Appellate Body’s interpretation of the non-discrimination obligation under the 

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which calls for reviewing factors unrelated to any difference 

in treatment due to national origin; disagreement with panel and Appellate Body reports which resulted 

in an interpretation under which WTO rules do not treat different (worldwide vs. territorial) tax systems 

fairly; concerns that the Appellate Body’s non-text-based interpretation of Article XIX of the GATT 1994 

and the Safeguards Agreement has seriously undermined the ability of members to use safeguards 

measures; and concerns that the Appellate Body in effect created a new category of prohibited subsidies 

that was neither negotiated nor agreed to by WTO members.

The 2018 report also cited a number of additional concerns: 

(1) Concern about the Appellate Body’s decision, at least since 2011, to ignore the mandatory

90-day deadline for deciding appeals set out in WTO rules and instead assume the authority

to take whatever time it considers appropriate for individual appeals. The 2018 report cited

among other things the Appellate Body’s approach in appeals in compliance proceedings in

2017 involving the United States and European Union concerning large civil aircraft.

(2) Concern about service on the Appellate Body by persons who are no longer Appellate Body

members. The 2018 report cited concerns expressed by the United States in August 2017

about decisions of the Appellate Body to “authorize” a person who is no longer a member of

the Appellate Body to continue hearing appeals, and stated that the Appellate Body does

not have the authority to deem someone a member who is not a member. Since the

371 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 179. 372 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS491; United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain 

Coated Paper from Indonesia” (accessed May 8, 2018). 373 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 22–28.
The Year in Trade 2017

112 | www.usitc.gov

summer of 2017, U.S. officials have had the view at WTO Dispute Settlement Body meetings 

that this issue must be resolved before the United States will consider supporting new 

appointments to the Appellate Body.

374

(3) Concern about the tendency of WTO reports to make findings unnecessary to resolve a

dispute or on issues not presented in the dispute. Citing Articles 3.4, 3.7, 7.1, and 11 of the

DSU, the 2018 report said that WTO panels and the Appellate Body are not to make findings

that cannot “assist the DSB in making [its] recommendations.” It noted that the purpose of

the dispute settlement system is not to produce reports or to “make law,” but rather to help

members resolve trade disputes among them.

(4) Concern about the Appellate Body’s approach to reviewing facts, and concern about de

novo review of a member’s domestic law. The 2018 report noted that Article 17.6 of the

DSU limits an appeal to “issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations

developed by the panel.” The 2018 report expressed concern that the Appellate Body has

consistently reviewed panel fact-finding under different legal standards, and has reached

conclusions that are not based on panel factual findings or undisputed facts. The report also

expressed concern about the Appellate Body’s review of the meaning of a member’s

domestic law that is being challenged. The report said that the key fact to be proven is what

a member’s challenged measure does or means, and the law to be interpreted and applied

are the provisions of the WTO agreements. The report expressed concern that the

Appellate Body asserts it can review the meaning of a member’s domestic measure as a

matter of law rather than acknowledging that it is a matter of fact and thus not a subject for

Appellate Body review. The report also expressed concern that when the Appellate Body

reviews the meaning of a member’s domestic measure, it does not provide any deference to

a panel’s findings of fact.

(5) Concern that the Appellate Body claims its reports are entitled to be treated as precedent.

The 2018 report states that this is not consistent with WTO rules, and that WTO members

established one and only one means for adopting binding interpretations of the obligations

agreed to: Article IX:2 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.375

374 See, for example, “Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body,” 

August 31, 2017; “Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body,” 

November 22, 2017; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 26. 375 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 22–28.
U.S International Trade Commission | 113

Chapter 4 

Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade 

Activities

This chapter summarizes trade-related activities during 2017 in two major multilateral organizations—

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

Cooperation (APEC) forum. It also covers the status of negotiations for a Trade in Services Agreement 

(TiSA) and activities conducted under trade and investment framework agreements (TIFAs).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development

The 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. In 2017, there were 35 OECD members.376

Ministerial Council Meeting

The OECD held its Ministerial Council Meeting on June 7–8, 2017, in Paris, France. The meeting focused 

on how the benefits arising from globalization might be shared more broadly.377 Regarding trade and 

investment in particular, the chair of the meeting found that OECD members appeared to agree on a 

number of points, including (1) the need to dismantle trade barriers without reducing international 

standards, as done by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement; (2) the need 

to address overcapacity in various industrial sectors—including steel, aluminum, and shipbuilding—

through such measures as the recent establishment of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity; and 

(3) the need for continued OECD work on an array of trade topics, such as export credit rules.378

At the 2016 G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China, ministers established a Global Forum on Steel Excess 

Capacity comprising 33 countries. The forum set the following aims at the summit: (1) exchange 

information and data on excess capacity in the steel industry between governments of steel-producing 

countries; (2) develop ways to strengthen the functioning of the world steel market; and, (3) with the 

OECD acting as facilitator in this three-year process, present a report on its work to G20 ministers in 

2017. The forum held its first ministerial meeting under the German G20 Presidency on November 30, 

2017, in Berlin, Germany. Its principal goals were to review the exchange of information underway, 

376 For a list of OECD members, see OECD, “List of OECD Member Countries—Ratification of the Convention on the 

OECD,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 377 OECD, “2017 Ministerial Council Statement—Making Globalisation Work: Better Lives for All,” June 8, 2017; 

USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 82. 378 Among the topics cited were official export credit rules; global value chains; trade in value added; trade 

facilitation indicators; trade in agriculture, manufactured goods, and services; and the prospects for digital trade.

OECD, “Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, Chair’s Statement,” June 8, 2017, 2. 
The Year in Trade 2017

114 | www.usitc.gov

receive the initial report published in November 2017, and hear a progress report on the Forum’s 

upcoming work in 2018. 379 

Trade Committee 

The OECD Trade Committee met twice during 2017: April 26, for its 170th session, and November 29–

30, for its 171st. The Trade Committee continued work on two broad themes: (1) trade and the digital 

economy and (2) trade and investment.380

Working Party of the Trade Committee

The Working Party of the Trade Committee met four times in 2017: March 16–17, June 15–16, October 

10, and December 14–15.381 During 2017, the Working Party focused on the following topics: global 

value chains and trade in value added; trade in services, especially the OECD’s Services Trade 

Restrictiveness Index; digital trade; data localization and local-content policies; state-owned enterprises 

and small and medium-sized enterprises; best practices in government procurement; and international 

regulatory cooperation.382 Other topics considered during the year included measuring nontariff 

measures; technology transfer issues; trade and investment; and trade facilitation matters reflecting the 

updated OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators.383

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Background 

Established in 1989 and composed of 21 member economies,384 the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) is a regional economic forum. Since its inception, APEC has aimed to increase prosperity in the 

region by supporting regional economic integration; promoting balanced, innovative, inclusive, and 

sustainable growth; and facilitating easy movement of goods, services, investment, and people across 

borders. Throughout the year, APEC organizes events, including an economic leaders’ summit, senior 

official meetings, policy dialogues, and workshops, to discuss various trade- and investment-related 

issues. APEC decisions are made by consensus, and commitments are undertaken voluntarily. Every 

379 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy), “Factsheet—

‘Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity,’” November 30, 2017. 380 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 82; OECD, “Summary Record of the 

170th Session of the Trade Committee Plenary Session,” September 6, 2017; OECD, “Summary Record of the 171st 

Session of the Trade Committee,” January 9, 2018.

381 OECD, “Draft Summary Record: Working Party of the Trade Committee,” May 29, 2017; OECD, “Draft Summary 

Record: Working Party of the Trade Committee,” September 12, 2017; OECD, “Draft Summary Record: Working 

Party of the Trade Committee,” November 10, 2017; OECD, “Summary Record—December 2017 WPTC,” January 

15, 2018.

382 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 82. 383 OECD, “Draft Summary Record: Working Party of the Trade Committee,” May 29, 2017. 384 In 2017, the 21 APEC member economies were Australia; Brunei; Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; 

Indonesia; Japan; South Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; 

Singapore; Taiwan (Chinese Taipei); Thailand; the United States; and Vietnam. For further details, see APEC, 

“Member Economies” (accessed March 19, 2018).
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 115

year, one of the 21 APEC member economies plays the host to APEC’s meetings and serves as the APEC 

chair.385

APEC’s operational structure is based on both “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches. Four core 

committees, including the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI), provide strategic policy 

recommendations to APEC economic leaders and ministers who meet annually to set the vision of 

overarching goals and initiatives. The working groups under each committee are then tasked with 

carrying out these initiatives through a variety of APEC-funded projects. Member economies also take 

individual and collective actions to carry out APEC initiatives. Capacity building is a key element of 

APEC’s operation, playing an important role in helping reach APEC’s goals by providing skill training and 

technological know-how to member economies.386

2017 APEC Developments 

In 2017, Vietnam served as the APEC chair and hosted major APEC meetings. Under its leadership, APEC 

highlighted the theme of “Creating New Dynamism, Fostering a Shared Future,” and sought to pursue 

the following four priorities:

promoting sustainable, innovative and inclusive growth; deepening regional economic 

integration; strengthening micro, small, and medium enterprises’ (MSMEs) competitiveness and 

innovation in the digital age; and enhancing food security and sustainable agriculture in 

response to climate change.387

In 2017, APEC organized various events, carrying out discussions and/or training on a wide range of 

topics, including labor mobility; women’s economic, financial, and social inclusion; anticorruption and 

transparency issues; competition policy and laws; sustainable tourism; food safety and security; energy 

efficiency and storage; and agricultural technology, among others.388

In its 2017 annual report to ministers, CTI noted the accomplishments made throughout the year. 

Among the highlights are:389

(1) Progress made in advancing global value chain (GVC) development and cooperation. These

advancements included a proposal to establish a APEC Global Value Chain Partnership Platform; the

release of APEC’s Global Value Chains Investment Climate Improvement Report; the implementation of

targeted capacity-building projects to improve supply chain performance on prearrival processing,

expedited shipments, electronic payment, and more; and progress made towards developing statistical

measurement of trade in value added (TiVA) in the APEC region by 2018.390

385 APEC, “About APEC” and “How APEC Operates” (accessed March 19, 2018). 386 APEC, “About APEC” (accessed March 19, 2018). 387 APEC, “APEC 2017: Priorities” (accessed March 19, 2018). 388 APEC, “Events: 2017” (accessed March 19, 2018). 389 APEC, APEC Committee on Trade and Investment 2017 Annual Report, November 2017, 1–5. 390 The United States co-leads GVC Work Stream 2, “APEC GVCs and TiVA Measurement,” with China. The objective 

of this work stream is to develop an APEC TiVA database by 2018. Upon USTR’s request, in the capacity of technical 

support, USITC staff members have been co-leading this project with participants from the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis on the U.S. side since 2014. For more information on APEC global value chain development and 

cooperation, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 111–12.
The Year in Trade 2017

116 | www.usitc.gov

(2) Progress made in promoting MSMEs’ participation in the global economy. This included projects for 

facilitating MSMEs’ integration into GVCs in services industries, such as fashion design and logistics; a 

workshop organized to discuss best practices for integrating small and medium-sized suppliers into the 

automotive GVCs; an initiative on promoting MSMEs’ global reach through electronic commerce (ecommerce); and projects facilitating MSMEs’ use of intellectual property rights.

(3) Progress made in reducing applied tariffs to 5 percent or less on the APEC list of environmental 

goods, as well as in implementing the Environmental Services Action Plan. The latter effort included a 

workshop on environmental services and a set of case studies on environmental damage remediation 

services, renewable energy services, and energy efficiency services.391

(4) Efforts made in advancing work related to the realization of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific 

(FTAAP) through “capacity building initiatives and information sharing mechanism.”392 These efforts 

included a workshop on free trade agreement (FTA) negotiation skills; a policy dialogue on regional 

trade agreements (RTAs) and FTAs; and a report, Trends and Developments in Provisions and Outcomes 

of RTAs/FTAs Implemented in 2016 by APEC Economies.

393

Digital Trade, Internet Economy, and E-Commerce

Recognizing the growing amount of trade conducted electronically and the transformative effect of ecommerce on industries, APEC listed digital trade, the internet economy, and e-commerce as important 

trade and investment topics to address. In recent years, a number of working groups and initiatives have 

been established to promote the development and use of digital technology for economic growth in the 

APEC region. Examples include Initiative of Cooperation to Promote Internet Economy (2014),394 the Ad 

Hoc Steering Group on the Internet Economy (2015),395 and the Work Plan for Advancing “Facilitating 

Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth” (2015).396

In 2017, there were various developments in this area. In April 2017, the Policy Support Unit (PSU) of 

APEC completed a study and released a report, Facilitating Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth: Key Issues 

in Promoting Digital trade in APEC. The report discussed opportunities as well as challenges that digital 

trade presents, and highlighted emerging technical and policy issues that need to be better understood 

for balanced regulation of the industry. The report identified the factors enabling the growth of the 

digital economy, including those affecting infrastructure (e.g., internet speed and cost), the supply of 

internet services (e.g., the availability of skilled labor such as engineers and scientists, and intellectual 

property rights protection), and the demand for internet services (e.g., internet access and online 

payment).397

In November 2017, PSU released another report, Promoting E-Commerce to Globalize MSMEs. Through 

case studies of Taiwan, China, Brunei Darussalam, and Malaysia, the report identified constraints faced 

 391 For more information on APEC’s environmental goods and services initiatives, see USITC, The Year in Trade 

2015, 67th Report, July 2016, 121–22. 392 APEC, 2017 Leaders’ Declaration, November 11, 2017. 393 For more information on FTAAP, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 110–11. 394 APEC, “APEC Initiative of Cooperation to Promote Internet Economy,” 2014. 395 APEC, “Updates by the Ad Hoc Steering Group on the Internet Economy,” August 27–28, 2016. 396 APEC, Work Plan for Advancing “Facilitating Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth, September 5–6, 2015. 397 APEC, Facilitating Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth, April 2017.
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 117

by MSMEs in attempting to participate in e-commerce and digital trade. Constraints addressed included 

information communication technology infrastructure, logistics cost, payment services, and postal 

services, among others.398

A trade policy dialogue on facilitating digital trade was held on May 12, 2017. At the dialogue, the 

participants discussed barriers to digital trade, and identified issues and areas where further work 

should be conducted. Based on the discussion, CTI agreed on The Work Plan to Identify Building Blocks 

to Facilitate Digital Trade for 2018. In addition, in 2017, senior officials also approved a number of new 

initiatives, including The APEC Internet and Digital Economy Roadmap and the APEC Framework on 

Cross-border E-commerce Facilitation.

399

Negotiations on a Trade in Services 

Agreement

In 2013, a group of 20 WTO members launched negotiations on a plurilateral Trade in Services 

Agreement (TiSA) that might form the basis for a broader multilateral agreement.400 Four rounds of 

negotiations were held in 2013, five rounds in 2014, five rounds in 2015, and seven rounds in 2016.401

Negotiations intensified in 2016, focusing on market access and proposals for additional disciplines 

under the annexes.402 However, no negotiating rounds were held in 2017.403 As of the last negotiating 

round in December 2016, there were 23 participants, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa 

Rica, the European Union, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, 

Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United 

States.404

 398 APEC, Promoting E-Commerce to Globalize MSMEs, November 2017. 399 APEC, APEC Committee on Trade and Investment 2017 Annual Report to Ministers, November 2017, 1–7, and 

2017 Leaders’ Declaration, November 11, 2017. On May 18, 2018, USITC staff made a presentation about its report 

Global Digital Trade 1: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions at the Trade Policy Dialogue on 

Digital Trade during the APEC Senior Officials Meeting (SOM2) in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

400 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Notifies Congress,” January 15, 2013. For more information about 

TiSA negotiations, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 112. The WTO is based on a “multilateral” 

agreement whose rules and commitments apply to all its members. WTO members may also negotiate smaller 

“plurilateral” agreements whose rules and commitments apply only to the members that have signed it.

401 Government of Australia, “Trade in Services Agreement—News,” n.d. (accessed April 30, 2018). 402 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 166. 403 “The Trump Administration has not stated an official position on the continuation of TiSA negotiations, but 

USTR Robert Lighthizer indicated that the Trump Administration may support its continuation.” CRS, U.S. Trade in 

Services: Trends and Policy Issues, January 26, 2018. 404 Uruguay and Paraguay were participants earlier, but later withdrew from negotiations in 2015. They were 

replaced in turn by Liechtenstein and Mauritius. USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 

2017, 166; CRS, “U.S. Trade in Services: Trends and Policy Issues,” January 26, 2018, 22.
The Year in Trade 2017

118 | www.usitc.gov

Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreements

Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) provide principles for dialogue on trade and 

investment issues. By yearend 2017, the United States had entered into 57 TIFAs, including one new 

TIFA with Paraguay (table 4.1). These agreements cover diverse matters, including market access, labor, 

environment, and intellectual property rights.405 TIFA meetings serve as a setting for the United States 

and other parties to the TIFA to discuss issues of mutual interest with the objective of strengthening 

trade and investment ties, and promoting free, fair, and reciprocal trade.406 As part of the Trump 

administration’s stated goal of expanding trade with countries in the Indo-Pacific region, several of the 

meetings were held between the United States and Asia-Pacific trading partners.407

 405 USTR, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements,” n.d. (accessed March 29, 2018). 406 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the President’s New Paradigm,” November 10, 2017; USTR, “Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreements” (accessed March 29, 2018). 407 White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump’s Visit,” November 15, 2017; USTR, “United States and 

Vietnam Renew Trade Dialogue,” March 28, 2017.
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 119

Table 4.1 U.S. trade and investment framework agreements in 2017

Type and name Date signed

Bilateral

U.S.-Afghanistan TIFA September 21, 2004

U.S.-Algeria TIFA July 13, 2001

U.S.-Angola TIFA May 19, 2009

U.S.-Argentina TIFA March 23, 2016

U.S.-Armenia TIFA November 13, 2015

U.S.-Bahrain TIFA June 18, 2002

U.S.-Bangladesh TICFA November 25, 2013

U.S.-Brunei-Darussalam TIFA December 16, 2002

U.S.-Burma TIFA May 21, 2013

U.S.-Cambodia TIFA July 14, 2006

U.S.-Egypt TIFA July 1, 1999

U.S.-Georgia TIFA June 20, 2007

U.S.-Ghana TIFA February 26, 1999

U.S.-Iceland TICF January 15, 2009

U.S.-Indonesia TIFA July 16, 1996

U.S.-Iraq TIFA July 11, 2005

U.S.-Kuwait TIFA February 6, 2004

U.S.-Laos TIFA February 17, 2016

U.S.-Lebanon TIFA November 30, 2006

U.S.-Liberia TIFA February 15, 2007

U.S.-Libya TIFA December 18, 2013

U.S.-Malaysia TIFA May 10, 2004

U.S.-Maldives TIFA October 17, 2009

U.S.-Mauritius TIFA September 18, 2006

U.S.-Mongolia TIFA July 15, 2004

U.S.-Mozambique TIFA June 21, 2005

U.S.-Nepal TIFA April 15, 2011

U.S.-New Zealand TIFA October 2, 1992

U.S.-Nigeria TIFA February 16, 2000

U.S.-Oman TIFA July 7, 2004

U.S.-Pakistan TIFA June 25, 2003

U.S.-Paraguay TIFA January 13, 2017

U.S.-Philippines TIFA November 9, 1989

U.S.-Qatar TIFA March 19, 2004

U.S.-Rwanda TIFA June 7, 2006

U.S.-Saudi Arabia TIFA July 31, 2003

U.S.-South Africa TIFAa June 18, 2012a

U.S.-Sri Lanka TIFA July 25, 2002

U.S.-Switzerland TICF May 25, 2006

U.S.-Taiwan TIFA September 19, 1994

U.S.-Thailand TIFA October 23, 2002

U.S.-Tunisia TIFA October 2, 2002

U.S.-Turkey TIFA September 29, 1999

U.S.-Ukraine TICA March 28, 2008

U.S.-United Arab Emirates TIFA March 15, 2004

U.S.-Uruguay TIFAb January 25, 2007

U.S.-Vietnam TIFA June 21, 2007

U.S.-Yemen TIFA February 6, 2004
The Year in Trade 2017

120 | www.usitc.gov

Type and name Date signed

Regional

U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) TIFAc August 5, 2006

U.S.-Caribbean Community (CARICOM) TIFAd May 28, 2013

U.S.-Central Asian TIFAe June 1, 2004

U.S.-Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) TIFAf October 29, 2001

U.S.-East African Community TIFAg July 16, 2008

U.S.-Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) TIFAh August 5, 2014

U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Framework Agreement for Trade, 

Economic, Investment, and Technical Cooperationi

September 25, 2012

U.S.-Southern Africa Customs Union (SACU) Trade, Investment, and 

Development Cooperative Agreementj

July 16, 2008

U.S.-West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) TIFAk April 24, 2002

Source: USTR, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements,” n.d. (accessed March 22, 2018); USTR, “United States, 

Bangladesh Sign Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement,” November 25, 2013; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda 

and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 357; USTR, “SACU,” (accessed March 22, 2018).

Note: TICF stands for Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum, TICA stands for Trade and Investment Cooperation 

Agreement, and TICFA stands for Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement. All are considered TIFAs by USTR. 

For more information, see USTR, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements” (accessed March 22, 2018). a The United States-South Africa TIFA was amended on June 18, 2012, and replaces the original TIFA, signed on February 18, 

1999.

b On October 2, 2008, the United States and Uruguay signed a TIFA protocol on trade and environment and a TIFA protocol on 

trade facilitation.

c The 10 countries of ASEAN are Brunei Darussalam (Brunei), Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, 

Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

d The 15 members of CARICOM are Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, 

Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. It also 

has 5 associate members: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. e The 6 parties to the U.S.-Central Asian TIFA are the United States, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 

Uzbekistan.

f The 19 members of COMESA are Burundi, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 

Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

g The 6 parties to the U.S.-East African Community TIFA are the United States, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. h The 15 members of ECOWAS are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, 

Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

i The 6 parties to the U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Framework Agreement for Trade, Economic, Investment, and 

Technical Cooperation are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. j The 5 members of SACU are Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland.

k The 8 members of WAEMU are Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.

Developments in TIFA Negotiations during 2017

On January 13, 2017, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Paraguayan Ambassador to 

the United States met in Washington, DC, to sign a TIFA. The TIFA creates a forum for the countries to 

engage on a diverse set of bilateral economic issues, including market access and intellectual property 

rights protection.408

 408 USTR, “United States and Paraguay Sign Trade and Investment Framework Agreement,” January 13, 2017.
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 121

Developments in Existing TIFAs during 2017 

During 2017, the following TIFA councils met:

Afghanistan

The United States and Afghanistan met under their TIFA on March 27–28, 2017, in Kabul, Afghanistan. 

Several issues were discussed, including the importance of women in increasing trade and economic 

growth, workers’ rights, ease of doing business, and the importance of nurturing a governing regime 

that will foster private sector growth. In addition, the countries discussed potential vehicles for 

increasing Afghanistan’s external trade and investment, including Afghanistan’s accession to the WTO, 

full implementation of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement, and full implementation of 

the Transports Internationaux Routiers Convention (International Road Transport Convention) of the 

International Road Union.409

Algeria

On April 24, 2017, the United States and Algeria met in Algiers under their TIFA. Topics discussed 

included ease of doing business, market access, and investments in agriculture and pharmaceuticals.410

Bangladesh

Under their TICFA, the United States and Bangladesh met in Dhaka on May 17, 2017. The countries used 

the meeting as a forum to discuss Bangladeshi efforts to improve labor conditions.411 Additional topics 

addressed included market access, intellectual property, the digital economy, and ease of doing 

business.412

Burma (Myanmar)

On July 13, 2017, government officials from the United States and Burma met to discuss the plan for 

moving forward under their TIFA, signed in 2013. The meeting, which was held in Rangoon (Yangon), 

included discussions related to intellectual property rights and enforcement, labor standards, and 

agriculture.413

Cambodia

On August 8, 2017, U.S. and Cambodian senior government officials met under their TIFA. The countries 

agreed to work cooperatively to address outstanding bilateral trade issues, especially those related to 

labor, intellectual property protection, and financial services. During the meeting, U.S. officials shared 

409 USTR, “United States and Afghanistan Hold Annual Meeting,” March 28, 2017. 410 Maghreb Times, “New Algeria-US Discussions on TIFA April 24,” April 20, 2017. 411 Several U.S. agencies have coordinated efforts targeted towards dealing with the concerns over Bangladeshi 

workers’ safety and workers’ rights that led to the withdrawal of Generalized System of Preferences benefits. 

USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 82. 412 USTR, “United States and Bangladesh Hold 3rd Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum, ” May 17, 2017. 413 Government of Burma (Myanmar), Directorate of Investment and Company Administration, “US-Myanmar TIFA 

Planning Meeting,” July 14, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

122 | www.usitc.gov

the Trump Administration’s trade priorities, including improving enforcement of trade laws, lowering 

the trade deficit, and opening new markets.414

Central Asia

On December 13, 2017, senior government officials met in Almaty, Kazakhstan, for the U.S.-Central Asia 

TIFA Council meeting. Topics covered included the trade, transit, and investment environment; 

facilitating regional private sector activity by expanding fair and reciprocal trade and creating a 

welcoming business environment; and Central Asian exports under the U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences.415 In 2017, U.S. and foreign officials agreed to form a new working group on intellectual 

property rights.416 The Afghan government participated in the council meeting as observers, and 

proposed becoming a full member of the TIFA.417

Egypt

On December 5, 2017, the United States and Egypt held a Trade and Investment Council meeting in 

Cairo under their TIFA. During the meeting, both countries renewed their commitment to work 

cooperatively towards improving bilateral trade, especially in the areas of market access, labor 

regulations, and intellectual property protection and enforcement.418

Indonesia

The United States and Indonesia met under their TIFA on June 12–13, 2017. During the TIFA meetings in 

Washington, DC, and in subsequent informal meetings in both Jakarta and Washington, the countries 

proposed to resolve outstanding bilateral issues, including U.S. intellectual property rights concerns and 

agricultural import barriers.419 As Indonesia is listed on USTR’s Special 301 Priority Watch List, the 

countries discussed a work plan for addressing U.S. concerns regarding intellectual property protection 

and enforcement.420 The two sides also focused on making progress on agriculture, high-technology 

products, digital services, and financial services, and addressed several market access restrictions, 

including agricultural import barriers, import licensing restrictions, and localization requirements.421

Laos

On March 23, 2017, the United States and Laos held the inaugural meeting under their TIFA. In addition 

to affirming their interest in expanding bilateral trade, the countries discussed the importance of 

 414 USTR, “United States and Cambodia Discuss Intensified Work Program,” August 9, 2017. 415 USTR, “Joint Statement on the Council Meeting of the U.S.-Central Asian Trade,” December 13, 2017. 416 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, 34. 417 USTR, “Joint Statement on the Council Meeting of the U.S.-Central Asian Trade,” December 13, 2017. 418 USTR, “United States and Egypt Agree to Further Trade Cooperation,” December 5, 2017. 419 On November 9, 2017, the WTO Appellate Body circulated its report that upheld a panel ruling that Indonesia’s 

import restrictions on horticultural products, animals, and animal products from both the United States and New 

Zealand are a violation of the WTO’s rules. WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS478; Indonesia—Importation of 

Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products” (accessed April 25, 2018). 420 The Special 301 Priority Watch List is a list compiled annually by the USTR that identifies trading partners that 

have harmful records on protection, enforcement, or market access for U.S. creators and innovators. USTR, “USTR 

Releases 2017 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights,” April 28, 2017; USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, 

2; USTR, “United States and Indonesia Agree to Step Up Work to Expand Trade,” June 14, 2017. 421 Ibid.
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 123

addressing vital issues in a timely manner. These key topics included digital trade; agricultural, sanitary, 

and phytosanitary standards; intellectual property; and illegal logging and wildlife tracking.422 The

United States also encouraged labor-related reforms.423

Malaysia

Under their TIFA, the United States and Malaysia met on July 17, 2017, with the goals of further 

strengthening trade relations and promoting fair and balanced trade. During the course of their

meetings, the countries established working groups related to the environment, financial services, 

goods trade, labor, and intellectual property.424

Nepal

On April 20, 2017, the United States and Nepal held their third TIFA Council meeting in Kathmandu. 

Technical discussions addressed customs and trade facilitation, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, 

food safety, labeling requirements, standards and conformity assessment, and labor. The two sides also 

discussed the Nepal Trade Preference Act (NTPA), which entered into force on December 30, 2016, 

following the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal.425 Under the NTPA, the United States grants duty-free 

treatment to imports from Nepal for products covered by 77 HTS tariff lines. During the TIFA Council 

meeting, the government of Nepal requested that additional products be added to the duty-free trade 

preference program. Both countries affirmed the importance of full implementation of the NTPA.

426

Pakistan

Under their TIFA, the United States and Pakistan held an intersessional meeting in June. The United 

States used the forum to promote market access for several U.S. agricultural products, including beef, 

distiller’s dried grains, soybeans, pulses, and chickpeas. In addition, the U.S. side discussed the 

importance of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and tax predictability for U.S. 

businesses.427

Philippines

The United States and the Philippines met under their TIFA twice in 2017: on July 11 in Manila, and on 

November 29 in Washington, DC.428 The countries discussed bilateral trade issues including intellectual 

property protection, customs, agriculture, labor, and investment. In addition, the countries agreed to 

work cooperatively to advance the U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) trade and 

investment agenda.429

422 USTR, “United States and Laos Hold Inaugural Meeting,” March 23, 2017. 423 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 31. 424 USTR, “United States and Malaysia Meet,” July 17, 2017. 425 For more information on NTPA, see chapter 2. 426 USTR, “U.S.-Nepal Joint Statement,” April 20, 2017. 427 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 83. 428 U.S. Department of State, “Joint Press Statement: U.S.-Philippines Bilateral,” December 1, 2017. 429 USTR, “United States and Philippines Strengthen Engagement,” July 11, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

124 | www.usitc.gov

Thailand

Under their TIFA, the United States and Thailand met twice in 2017: on April 3 and June 12–13. The 

countries met with the goals of expanding market access and working together to address trade 

barriers. During the meetings, U.S. officials discussed both the importance of labor laws’ compliance 

with internationally recognized workers’ rights standards and the importance of enhancing trade with 

countries in the Asia-Pacific region via bilateral trade initiatives focused on promoting economic growth 

and competitiveness.430 In December 2017, in response to the country’s improved intellectual property 

protections and enforcement, Thailand was moved from the Special 301 Priority Watch List to the 

Watch List.431

Tunisia

On April 21, 2017, government officials from the United States and Tunisia met in Tunis under their TIFA. 

Their meeting was the seventh since the TIFA was signed in 2002. The countries discussed recent 

bilateral strides made in support of U.S. and Tunisian agricultural industries. In addition, the United 

States discussed the Tunisian government’s marked progress on its economic reform program, stressing 

that the country’s new laws on investment, the banking sector, and bankruptcy will increase Tunisia’s 

attractiveness as a trading partner for U.S. firms.432

Turkey

The United States and Turkey met in Ankara on September 12–13 for their 10th TIFA meeting.433 Topics 

discussed included agricultural and industrial goods trade, intellectual property rights and enforcement, 

the digital economy, government procurement, and export credit cooperation. In addition, the countries 

agreed to work towards improving the private sector business climate between them. To accomplish 

this, the governments plan to increase dialogue on subjects such as trade facilitation, export financing, 

innovation, advanced manufacturing, and startups.434

Ukraine

The United States and Ukraine met on October 3, 2017, under their Trade and Investment Cooperation 

Agreement (TICA). The meeting, held in Kyiv under the auspices of the U.S.-Ukraine Trade and 

Investment Council, was the seventh meeting since the TICA entered into force in 2008. During the 

meeting, the Ukraine government described its efforts to diversify its exports and improve intellectual 

property rights protection and enforcement. The United States acknowledged Ukraine’s efforts to 

 430 USTR, “United States and Thailand Discuss Trade Agenda,” April 3, 2017; USTR, “United States and Indonesia 

Agree to Step Up Work,” June 14, 2017; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 

125.

431 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 79. 432 USTR. “Joint Statement of the United States-Tunisia Trade and Investment Council,” April 21, 2017. 433 U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Turkey, “U.S.-Turkey Trade and Investment Framework Agreement,” October 2, 

2017.

434 USTR, “Joint Statement of the United States-Turkey Trade and Investment Council,” September 29, 2017.
Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities

U.S International Trade Commission | 125

reform its tax and customs authorities, and urged Ukraine to continue reforms aimed at increasing the 

ease of doing business in the country.435

Vietnam

On March 27–28, 2017, government officials from the United States and Vietnam met under their TIFA, 

the first such meetings since 2011. During the talks, the countries discussed bilateral issues related to 

several topics, and agreed to create working groups on agriculture and food safety, industrial goods, 

intellectual property, and digital trade. They also discussed issues related to motor vehicles, electronic 

payments, and labor reforms.436 In addition, officials discussed how they could work cooperatively to 

build U.S.-ASEAN ties.437 On May 30, 2017, senior officials met under the TIFA again, this time in 

Washington, DC. Topics included agricultural imports, including U.S. import restrictions on catfish from 

Vietnam, and digital trade, including electronic payment services and Vietnamese advertising on U.S. 

social websites.438 

 435 U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, “Joint Statement on the United States-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council,” 

October 5, 2017. 436 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2017, 31. 437 USTR, “United States and Vietnam Renew Trade Dialogue,” March 28, 2017. 438 Vietnam.net Bridge, “Vietnam, US Hold Trade Meeting in Washington,” May 31, 2017.
126 | www.usitc.gov
U.S International Trade Commission | 127

Chapter 5 

U.S. Free Trade Agreements

This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) during 2017.439 It 

describes trends in U.S. merchandise trade with FTA partners, features highlights of the status of U.S. 

FTA negotiations during the year, and summarizes major activities and dispute settlement developments 

involving the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other U.S. FTAs in force during 2017.

U.S. Trade with FTA Partners in 2017

The United States was party to 14 FTAs involving a total of 20 countries as of December 31, 2017. 

Starting with the most recent, the FTAs in force during 2017 were the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion 

Agreement (TPA) (entered into force in 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 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).

U.S. Total Merchandise Trade with FTA Partners 

Total two-way merchandise trade between the United States and its 20 FTA partners was $1.5 trillion in 

2017, which accounted for 39.0 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. The value of 

U.S. exports to FTA partners totaled $720.5 billion, a 6.6 percent increase from $675.8 billion in 2016; 

this growth mirrored the 6.6 percent increase in total U.S. exports to the world in 2017. The value of 

U.S. exports to most FTA partners increased in 2017; the exception was exports to Israel. U.S. imports 

from FTA partners were valued at $797.0 billion, a 6.5 percent increase from $748.3 billion in 2016. The 

U.S. merchandise trade deficit with all FTA partners increased 5.6 percent to $76.6 billion in 2017 (tables 

5.1–5.3).

U.S. trade with the two NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico) continued to contribute the most to 

overall U.S. trade with FTA partners. In 2017, these countries accounted for $1.1 trillion, or 75.1 percent, 

of total U.S. trade with its FTA partners. From 2016 to 2017, the value of U.S. exports to NAFTA 

countries rose 5.8 percent ($29.0 billion) to $525.5 billion. U.S. imports from NAFTA countries rose 7.4 

percent ($42.2 billion), to $614.0 billion in 2017. As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its 

NAFTA partners increased by 17.6 percent to $88.6 billion in 2017.

U.S. trade with its non-NAFTA FTA partners was valued at $378.0 billion in 2017, which was a 3.7 

percent increase from 2016. U.S. exports to these FTA partners increased 8.8 percent ($15.7 billion), 

from $179.3 billion in 2016 to $195.0 billion in 2017. At the same time, U.S. imports from these partners 

439 The term free trade agreements includes free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade promotion agreements 

(TPAs).
The Year in Trade 2017

128 | www.usitc.gov

increased 3.7 percent ($6.5 billion) from $176.5 billion in 2016 to $183.0 billion.440 U.S. exports 

increased more than imports, causing the U.S. merchandise trade surplus with its non-NAFTA FTA 

partners to increase 333.9 percent to $12.0 billion (tables 5.1–5.3).

Table 5.1 Total U.S. exports to FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

NAFTA 517,059 496,499 525,460 5.8

Canada 280,855 266,797 282,472 5.9

Mexico 236,204 229,702 242,989 5.8

Non-NAFTA 194,005 179,266 194,990 8.8

Israel 13,539 13,197 12,544 -4.9

Jordan 1,360 1,459 1,963 34.5

Chile 15,449 12,922 13,608 5.3

Singapore 28,474 26,725 29,753 11.3

Australia 25,034 22,160 24,601 11.0

Morocco 1,625 1,933 2,116 9.5

Bahrain 1,271 899 907 0.9

CAFTA-DRa 28,713 28,709 30,719 7.0

Oman 2,355 1,804 2,096 16.2

Peru 8,724 7,955 8,686 9.2

South Korea 43,484 42,309 48,277 14.1

Colombia 16,303 13,067 13,272 1.6

Panama 7,674 6,128 6,447 5.2

FTA partner total 711,064 675,766 720,450 6.6

World total 1,503,101 1,451,011 1,546,733 6.6

FTA partner share of world (percent) 47.3 46.6 46.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a CAFTA-DR is a multiparty FTA that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa 

Rica.

 440 Among all the United States’ FTA partners, Panama, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, and Jordan (in ascending order of 

U.S. imports) supplied the United States with the smallest value of general imports in 2017, which covered a small 

number of tariff lines under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) chapters 1–97. U.S. general 

imports from all countries entered the United States under 10,582 tariff lines, but U.S. general imports from 

Bahrain covered just 183 tariff lines in 2017; Oman, 199 tariff lines; Jordan, 536 tariff lines; Panama, 636 tariff 

lines, and Morocco, 1,110 tariff lines.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 129

Table 5.2 Total U.S. imports from FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

NAFTA 592,632 571,812 614,020 7.4

Canada 296,230 277,756 299,975 8.0

Mexico 296,401 294,056 314,045 6.8

Non-NAFTA 181,763 176,507 183,016 3.7

Israel 24,478 22,203 21,947 -1.2

Jordan 1,492 1,555 1,688 8.5

Chile 8,772 8,797 10,552 19.9

Singapore 18,267 17,833 19,397 8.8

Australia 10,884 9,510 10,051 5.7

Morocco 1,012 1,021 1,230 20.4

Bahrain 902 768 996 29.7

CAFTA-DRa 23,755 23,356 23,641 1.2

Oman 907 1,125 1,069 -5.0

Peru 5,053 6,252 7,283 16.5

South Korea 71,758 69,881 71,164 1.8

Colombia 14,075 13,794 13,556 -1.7

Panama 408 410 442 7.8

FTA partner total 774,395 748,318 797,036 6.5

World total 2,248,183 2,187,805 2,342,905 7.1

FTA partner share of world (percent) 34.4 34.2 34.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a CAFTA-DR is a multiparty FTA that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa 

Rica.
The Year in Trade 2017

130 | www.usitc.gov

Table 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade balance with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2015–17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % changea

NAFTA -75,572 -75,312 -88,560 -17.6

Canada -15,375 -10,958 -17,504 -59.7

Mexico -60,197 -64,354 -71,057 -10.4

Non-NAFTA 12,242 2,760 11,974 333.9

Israel -10,939 -9,007 -9,403 -4.4

Jordan -132 -96 275 (

b

)

Chile 6,677 4,125 3,057 -25.9

Singapore 10,207 8,891 10,356 16.5

Australia 14,151 12,650 14,550 15.0

Morocco 613 911 887 -2.7

Bahrain 368 131 -89 (

b

)

CAFTA-DRc 4,958 5,353 7,078 32.2

Oman 1,448 679 1,027 51.3

Peru 3,671 1,703 1,403 -17.6

South Korea -28,273 -27,572 -22,887 17.0

Colombia 2,228 -726 -284 60.9

Panama 7,266 5,718 6,005 5.0

FTA partner total -63,330 -72,553 -76,586 -5.6

World total -745,082 -736,794 -796,172 -8.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a Negative percentage changes indicate an increase in the U.S. trade deficit or a decrease in the U.S. trade surplus. Positive 

percentage changes indicate a decrease in the trade deficit or an increase in the trade surplus.

b Not meaningful.

c CAFTA-DR is a multiparty FTA that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa 

Rica.

U.S. Imports Entered under FTAs

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs totaled $385.1 billion in 2017, which accounted for nearly 

half (48.3 percent) of total U.S. imports from FTA partners and 16.5 percent of U.S. imports from the 

world (tables 5.4–5.5).441

The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs in 2017 increased $10.6 billion (2.8 percent), up from 

$374.4 billion in 2016. FTA imports from Chile grew 26.6 percent ($1.3 billion), which represented the 

largest percent increase. The growth was primarily driven by large increases in imports of copper 

products.442 Imports under FTAs from Peru and Bahrain increased 24.5 percent ($651 million) and 16.5 

percent ($82 million), respectively; however, they changed from smaller baselines. Imports from Mexico 

accounted for the greatest increase in value, rising by $11.9 billion (7.0 percent) to $182.8 billion. 

Combined imports from the NAFTA partners rose 3.5 percent ($10.6 billion), which was mostly due to an 

 441 Not all products imported from FTA partners are eligible for FTA treatment or take advantage of their eligibility. 442 The value of imports of refined copper and copper alloys, HTS 7403, increased by $1.2 billion (71.6 percent). 

USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed May 1, 2018).
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 131

increase in motor vehicle imports from Mexico.443 U.S. imports under an FTA declined the most from 

Oman, largely due to a 64.3 percent drop in U.S. imports of crude petroleum.444

Table 5.4 U.S. imports for consumption that entered under FTA provisions, by FTA partner, 2015–17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

NAFTA 316,260 302,019 312,637 3.5

Canada 140,755 131,203 129,875 -1.0

Mexico 175,504 170,816 182,763 7.0

Non-NAFTA 56,851 72,428 72,416 0.0

Israel 2,908 2,750 2,693 -2.1

Jordan 1,349 1,355 1,485 9.6

Chile 4,860 4,691 5,940 26.6

Singapore 1,658 1,842 1,806 -1.9

Australia 5,122 3,703 3,914 5.7

Morocco 256 190 201 5.9

Bahrain 527 499 581 16.5

CAFTA-DRa 13,524 13,662 13,697 0.3

Oman 598 815 708 -13.1

Peru 2,731 2,659 3,310 24.5

South Korea 17,872 34,885 33,015 -5.4

Colombia 5,405 5,324 5,010 -5.9

Panama 41 53 56 5.8

FTA partner total 373,110 374,447 385,055 2.8

World total 2,226,615 2,173,617 2,330,447 7.2

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. a CAFTA-DR is a multiparty FTA that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa 

Rica.

Jordan remained the partner with the highest ratio of imports entered under an FTA to total imports, 

with a ratio of 88.0 percent (table 5.5). Other countries with notably high ratios include Oman (66.3 

percent), Bahrain (58.3 percent), and Mexico (58.2 percent). CAFTA-DR countries as a whole also had a 

high FTA imports-to-total-imports ratio, at 57.9 percent. Each CAFTA-DR partner had large shares, 

except for Costa Rica, for which the ratio was 32.7 percent. The partners with the smallest shares of 

imports entered under an FTA to total imports continued to be Singapore (9.3 percent), Israel (12.3 

percent), and Panama (12.7 percent). The imports from these countries often entered the United States 

free of duty under normal trade relations rates.

443 The value of imports of motor cars and other motor vehicles designed to transport people, HTS 8703, increased 

by $6.9 billion (29.1 percent). USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed May 2, 2018). 444 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed May 10, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

132 | www.usitc.gov

Table 5.5 Ratio of U.S. imports for consumption under FTAs to U.S. general imports, by partner, 2015–

17

FTA partner 2015 2016 2017

Percent

NAFTA 53.4 52.8 50.9

Canada 47.5 47.2 43.3

Mexico 59.2 58.1 58.2

Non-NAFTA 31.3 41.0 39.6

Israel 11.9 12.4 12.3

Jordan 90.4 87.2 88.0

Chile 55.4 53.3 56.3

Singapore 9.1 10.3 9.3

Australia 47.1 38.9 38.9

Morocco 25.3 18.6 16.4

Bahrain 58.4 64.9 58.3

CAFTA-DRa 56.9 58.5 57.9

Oman 65.9 72.4 66.3

Peru 54.1 42.5 45.4

South Korea 24.9 49.9 46.4

Colombia 38.4 38.6 37.0

Panama 10.0 13.0 12.7

FTA partner total 48.2 50.0 48.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a CAFTA-DR is a multiparty FTA that includes the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa 

Rica.

Developments in FTA Negotiations during 

2017

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

In February 2016, the United States and 11 other countries signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

Although the U.S. administration worked during 2016 to prepare the signed agreement for 

Congressional consideration, implementing legislation was not submitted to Congress by yearend. In 

January 2017, newly elected President Donald Trump instructed the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to 

formally withdraw the United States from further TPP discussions.445

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

(TTIP) Agreement

U.S. and European Union (EU) officials began negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership Agreement in 2013. By the end of 2016, 15 negotiating rounds had been held.446 In January 

 445 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 143; CRS, “U.S. Trade with Free Trade 

Agreement (FTA) Partners,” April 24, 2018, 1; USTR, “The United States Officially Withdraws,” January 30, 2017. 446 For more background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 125–27.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 133

2017, the United States and EU issued a joint report on the status of negotiations as of the end of 2016, 

and highlighted areas that still needed “significant work.” These areas included (1) the most sensitive 

tariff lines (the final 3 percent of tariff lines); (2) market access in service sectors; (3) sanitary and 

phytosanitary measures; (4) mutual recognition of professional qualifications; (5) government 

procurement; (6) standards and conformity assessment procedures; (7) investor protection; (8) labor 

and environmental protection; (9) electronic commerce; (10) energy; and (11) trademarks, generic 

names, and geographical indications.447 No TTIP negotiations were held in 2017 and, as of June 2018, 

none were scheduled for 2018.

Developments in the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA)448

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, as 

scheduled, by the three parties by January 1, 2008, with the exception of the NAFTA cross-border 

trucking provisions.449

Renegotiation of the NAFTA

On May 18, 2017, more than 23 years after NAFTA entered into force, USTR notified Congress that the 

President intended to initiate negotiations with Canada and Mexico to modernize the agreement.450 The 

negotiations began on August 16, 2017, in Washington, DC,451 with two primary goals.452 The first is to 

update NAFTA with modern provisions on digital trade, intellectual property, cybersecurity, good 

regulatory practices, and treatment of state-owned enterprises. The second is to “rebalance NAFTA” in a 

way that makes it easier to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico.453

Within this framework, USTR has “set as its primary objective for these negotiations to improve the U.S. 

trade balance and reduce the trade deficit with the NAFTA countries.”454 To accomplish this objective, 

USTR is focusing on tightening rules of origin for products imported into the United States from Canada 

and Mexico to ensure they contain considerable regional, and U.S.-specific, content. The focus is on 

products for which the United States has significant trade imbalances, such as in automobiles and 

447 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress,” January 17, 2017. 448 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chapter 6 of this report. 449 The section on Mexico in chapter 6 updates recent developments in NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions; 

more information appears in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, July 2009, 5–16. All product categories offer duty-free 

entry to originating goods from Mexico, and all shipments of goods from Canada are likewise eligible except those 

exceeding a tariff-rate quota (TRQ). 450 USTR, Letter to Congressional Leadership, May 18, 2017, and “USTR: Trump Administration Announces Intent to 

Renegotiate,” May 18, 2017. This 90-day notice is required under Trade Promotion Authority. 451 USTR, “Opening Statement of USTR Robert Lighthizer at the First Round,” August 16, 2017. 452 USTR, Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation, July 17, 2017; and updated Summary of Objectives 

for the NAFTA Renegotiation, November 17, 2017. 453 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 2, 9. 454 Ibid., 9.
The Year in Trade 2017

134 | www.usitc.gov

automotive parts.455 In addition, USTR has proposed that all provisions in the labor and environment 

chapters be subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to other obligations under 

the agreement.456

In developing these objectives, USTR held numerous meetings with congressional leaders and private 

sector advisory committees, and held public hearings on June 27–29, 2017.457 USTR received more than 

12,000 public comments for the hearings that were reviewed and integrated into the Administration’s 

priorities for the renegotiation. On November 17, 2017, after four rounds of negotiations USTR updated 

the NAFTA negotiation objectives.458

By the end of 2017, five negotiating rounds had been completed (table 5.6). At the end of the third 

round of negotiations, USTR announced that the chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises had 

been completed.459 The chapter on competition was completed in round four. The same round also saw 

progress in several other negotiating areas, including customs and trade facilitation, digital trade, good 

regulatory practices, and certain sectoral annexes.460 Throughout the negotiations, officials from all 

three countries continued to engage representatives of the private sector, industry associations, and 

civil society, including labor groups.461

Table 5.6 Timetable of major NAFTA negotiations, 2017–18

Negotiation Round Date City

First round August 16–20, 2017 Washington, DC

Second round September 1–5, 2017 Mexico City

Third round September 23–27, 2017 Ottawa

Fourth round October 11–17, 2017 Arlington, Virginia

Fifth round November 17–21, 2017 Mexico City

Sixth round January 23–28, 2018 Montreal

Seventh round February 25–March 5, 2018 Mexico City

Source: USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March, 2018; USTR. “Trilateral Statement on the Conclusion 

of the Fifth Round of NAFTA Negotiations,” November 21, 2017 (accessed April 5, 2018).

NAFTA’s central oversight body is the Free Trade Commission, which is responsible for overseeing 

NAFTA’s implementation and elaboration, as well as activities under its dispute settlement provisions. 

 455 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 9. 456 Ibid. 457 82 Fed. Reg. 23699 (May 23, 2017); USTR, “Public Hearings on the Renegotiation of NAFTA,” June 27, 2017; 

USTR, “USTR Extends Public Comment Period for NAFTA,” June 13, 2017. 458 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 2; USTR, “USTR Releases Updated 

NAFTA Negotiating Objectives,” November 17, 2017. 459 USTR, “Closing Statement of USTR,” September 27, 2017. 460 USTR, “Trilateral Statement on the Conclusion of the 4th Round,” October 17, 2017. In the first quarter of 2018, 

two more rounds were held. At the end of round six the chapter on corruption was completed; USTR, “Closing 

Statement of USTR,” January 29, 2018. USTR announced at the end of round seven that the negotiators had closed 

out three additional chapters: good regulatory practices, administration and publication, and sanitary and 

phytosanitary measures. They also completed work on sectoral annexes related to chemicals and proprietary food 

formulas, made substantial progress on telecommunications and technical barriers to trade, and agreed to include 

a chapter on energy. USTR, “Statement of USTR,” March 5, 2018. 461 USTR, “Trilateral Statement on the Conclusion of NAFTA Round One,” August 20, 2017.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 135

The commission itself has not officially met since 2012.462 However, lower-ranked officials of the three 

member countries have met regularly to consider approaches to expand and deepen trade and 

investment opportunities in North America, and in 2017, met to renegotiate the agreement.463

The following sections describe the major activities of NAFTA’s Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC) 

and Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) during 2017, as well as dispute settlement 

activities under NAFTA Chapters 11 and 19 in that year.

NAFTA’s 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 a national administrative office (NAO) within its labor ministry to act as the 

contact point with the other parties, the secretariat, other government agencies, and the public.464

Another NAO function is to receive and respond to public communications on labor law matters arising 

in another NAALC country. The United States’ NAO is the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs in the U.S. 

Department of Labor (USDOL).465 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.466 As part of the renegotiations, the 

United States is proposing to make the labor obligations subject to the same dispute settlement 

mechanism as other enforceable obligations of NAFTA.467

As of the end of 2017, there were three submissions under review at the NAALC. One with the United 

States’ NAO (involving Mexico),468 and two with the Canadian NAO (one involving Mexico and one 

involving the United States).469

In December 2017, Mexico’s executive branch submitted legislation to its Congress to amend Mexico’s 

Federal Labor Law by implementing constitutional reforms to the labor justice system enacted in 

February 2017. One of the reforms consists of transferring the authority to adjudicate labor disputes 

462 The Free Trade Commission is composed of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Canadian Minister of 

Foreign Affairs, and the Mexican Secretary of Economy. The most recent official meeting of the commission was 

held in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2012. USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 3. 463 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 3. See also the section on NAFTA 

renegotiations above in this chapter. 464 USDOL, ILAB, U.S. National Administrative Office, “North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation” (accessed 

April 5, 2018).

465 Ibid. 466 Ibid. 467 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March, 2018, 3. 468 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Submissions under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), US” 

(accessed April 5, 2018).

469 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Submissions under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), 

Canada” (accessed April 5, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

136 | www.usitc.gov

from the current tripartite Conciliation and Administrative Boards to new labor courts, while 

transferring the registration of unions and collective bargaining agreements to a new federal institution. 

The U.S. Administration is consulting with the Mexican government about the reforms through the 

ongoing renegotiation of NAFTA.470

NAFTA’s Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation

The CEC was established under Article 8 of the North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation. This supplemental agreement, which came into force at the same time as NAFTA, is 

designed to support NAFTA's environmental goals, which are to protect and improve the environment, 

support sustainable development, and increase cooperation in reaching these goals.471 The CEC was 

established to support cooperation among the parties to reach these goals.472

Articles 14 and 15 of the supplemental agreement offer citizens and nongovernmental organizations a 

mechanism to help enforce environmental laws in the NAFTA countries. Article 14 governs alleged 

violations submitted for review by the CEC. It sets out guidelines about criteria for submissions and for 

parties that can file complaints. Article 15 outlines the CEC Secretariat’s obligations in considering the 

submissions and publishing findings in the factual record.473 At the end of 2017, two complaint files

remained active under Articles 14 and 15. One, involving Mexico, was submitted in 2016, and the other, 

involving Canada, was submitted in 2017 (table 5.7).

Table 5.7 Active files as of yearend 2017 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation

Name Case First filed Countrya Status

Agricultural Waste 

Burning in Sonora

SEM-16-001 January 22, 

2016

Mexico The Secretariat submitted a draft factual 

record to Council for a 45-day comment 

period on the accuracy of the draft.

Alberta Tailings 

Ponds II

SEM-17-001 June 26, 2017 Canada The Secretariat received a response from the 

concerned government party and began 

considering whether to recommend a factual 

record.

Source: CEC, “Submission on Enforcement Matters: Active Submissions” (accessed April 9, 2018). a Refers to the country against which an allegation was filed.

At the 24th regular session of the CEC Council on June 28, 2017, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 

Canada, a new trilateral cooperative work program for the CEC was announced. Its focus was primarily 

on improving the outcomes of interactions between trade and the environment. Panelists discussed 

sustainable and innovative water-related businesses, increasing resilience through cooperation, 

sustainable economic growth on the water’s edge, and solution-focused innovation.474 The session also 

 470 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March, 2018, 3. 471 Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), “North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation” 

(accessed April 5, 2018).

472 CEC, “About the CEC” (accessed March 17, 2017). 473 CEC, “About Submissions on Enforcement Matters” (accessed March 15, 2017). 474 CEC, “24th Regular Session of the CEC Council” (accessed June 7, 2018).
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 137

featured a dialogue with youth and the public on how innovation can accelerate clean growth and 

advance North American competitiveness.475

Under the Operational Plan of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2017–2018,

476 the CEC 

will undertake 10 cooperative projects that bring together experts on environmental issues of regional 

concern. Examples include “greening” transport by reducing maritime shipping emissions; achieving 

legal and sustainable trade in select North American species; measuring and mitigating food loss and 

waste; protecting pollinators vital to food crops; advancing growth and conservation of migratory 

species through ecotourism; and improving cost-effectiveness and environmental protection through 

higher industrial energy efficiency.477

The United States accepted chairmanship of the CEC Council for 2018, and announced it will host the 

2018 CEC Council Session in Oklahoma City.478

The Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank were 

created in 1994 to address environmental issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region.479 As of December 

31, 2017, the bank had contracted a total of about $3.0 billion in loans and grants to help finance 244 

projects estimated to cost a total of $9.3 billion. Of the financing contracted, 94 percent has been 

disbursed.480

NAFTA Dispute Settlement

The dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA Chapters 11 (Investment) and 19 (Review and Dispute 

Settlement in Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Matters) cover a variety of areas.481 The sections below 

describe developments during 2017 in NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state disputes and Chapter 19 

binational reviews of final determinations of antidumping and countervailing cases. Appendix table A.26 

presents an overview of developments in NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute settlement cases to which the 

United States was a party in 2017.

 475 CEC, “Operational Plan 2017–2018,” June 28, 2017. 476 Ibid. 477 Ibid. 478 CEC, “New Trilateral Environmental Initiatives Announced,” June 28, 2017. 479 North American Development Bank, “Origins” (accessed March 17, 2017). 480 North American Development Bank, “Summary of Project Implementation Activities: Active Projects,” 

December 31, 2017 (accessed April 10, 2018).

481 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed April 10, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

138 | www.usitc.gov

NAFTA Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments

Chapter 11 of NAFTA includes provisions designed to protect cross-border investors and to make it 

easier to settle investment disputes. Under subpart B of Chapter 11, an individual 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.482 A key feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability in domestic courts of 

final awards made by arbitration tribunals.483 In 2017, there were 5 active Chapter 11 cases filed against 

the United States, 4 of them filed by Canadian investors and 1 filed by Mexican investors;484 11 filed by 

U.S. investors against Canada;485 and 4 filed against Mexico, 3 by U.S. investors and 1 by Canadian 

investors.486

NAFTA Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews

Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides for a binational panel to review final determinations made by national 

investigating authorities in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.487 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.488 At the end of 2017, the NAFTA Secretariat listed six binational panels active under 

Chapter 19 (table 5.8). The United States filed two cases contesting Mexico’s determinations; Canada 

filed three cases contesting U.S. determinations; and Mexico filed one case contesting U.S. 

determinations.489

 482 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. NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” 

(accessed April 10, 2018).

483 Ibid. 484 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of America” (accessed March 

15, 2017).

485 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada” (accessed April 10, 

2018).

486 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States” (accessed April 10, 

2018).

487 The binational panel is made up of representatives of the two nationalities that are involved in the dispute. 

NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed April 10, 2018). 488 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed April 10, 2018). Such reviews 

involve the parties and designated agencies, rather than individuals or firms.

489 NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases” (accessed April 10, 201 8).
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 139

Table 5.8 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews through 2017

Countrya Case number

National agencies’ final 

determinationb Case title

Mexico

MEX-USA-2015-1904-01 SE Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Ammonium sulphate

MEX-USA-2016-1904-01 SE Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether

United States

USA-CDA-2015-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Supercalendered paper

USA-CDA-2017-1904-02 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Certain softwood lumber 

products

USA-CDA-2017-1904-03 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Certain softwood lumber 

products

USA-MEX-2017-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping 

Administrative Review

Certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases“ (accessed April 9, 2018). a The United States filed the first two cases contesting Mexico’s determinations, while Canada filed three cases and Mexico 

one case contesting U.S. determinations.

b In Canada, final dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and injury 

determinations are made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). In Mexico, all determinations are made by the 

Secretariat of the Economy (SE). 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 15, 2017.

Developments in Other U.S. FTAs Already in 

Force during 2017

In 2017, U.S. officials met with FTA partners for discussions on a variety of matters, including labor and 

environmental issues, enhancing trade and investment, and dispute settlement. Highlights of these 

consultations are presented in this section.

Thirteen of the 14 U.S. FTAs have labor provisions to protect worker rights and facilitate cooperation on 

labor issues.490 The U.S. Department of Labor, which monitors reports and submissions made under the 

labor chapters of U.S. trade agreements, reported two developments in 2017: (1) a January 2017 

submission under the U.S.-Colombia TPA, and (2) a June 2017 report issued regarding the arbitral panel 

decision reached under CAFTA-DR concerning Guatemala.491 Further details are set out below.

Twelve of the 14 U.S. FTAs have investment provisions designed to protect foreign investors and their 

investments, as well as to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes.492 The U.S. Department of 

 490 Only the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the United States’ first FTA, contained no labor provisions. 491 USDOL, ILAB, “Submissions under the Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements,” n.d. (accessed April 25, 

2018).

492 CRS, “U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress,” April 29, 2013. The U.S.-Israel FTA has 

limited treatment of investment in the context of trade-related performance requirements. The U.S.-Australia FTA 

has investment provisions but does not include investor-state arbitration provisions.
The Year in Trade 2017

140 | www.usitc.gov

State reported two submissions in 2017 under the U.S.-Panama TPA,493 both on behalf of Bridgestone 

Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. The submissions alleged that a decision by the 

Supreme Court of Panama related to trademark proceedings violated certain provisions of the U.S.-

Panama TPA.494

U.S.-Australia FTA

The U.S.-Australia Joint Committee, the central body under the 2005 U.S.-Australia Free Trade 

Agreement, held its sixth meeting in December 2017 to review the operation of the agreement. The 

Joint Committee received a report from the FTA’s Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

about its efforts to address sanitary and phytosanitary issues affecting agricultural trade between the 

two countries. The two sides agreed to meet again in 2018 to review the FTA’s implementation.495

U.S.-Bahrain FTA

The Joint Committee, the primary body overseeing the 2006 U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, met in 

2017 to review the FTA’s chapters covering customs, services, and investment; to consider possible 

cooperation with the broader Middle East and North Africa region; and to address matters concerning 

labor rights and the environment.496

Labor

In 2017, U.S. officials met with government officials from Bahrain, as well as with representatives from 

labor unions and businesses, to continue discussions on labor rights that began in 2013. Subjects 

addressed in these talks included Bahrain’s response to employment discrimination, enforcement of 

laws on freedom of association and collective bargaining, how to amend Bahrain’s labor laws to make 

them more consistent with international standards, as well as encouraging regular dialogue between 

government, labor, and business representatives. In December 2017, representatives from the two sides 

met in Washington, DC, to discuss possible Bahraini initiatives in remaining areas of interest, and agreed 

to continue discussions in 2018.497

Environment

During 2017, U.S. officials and experts met with Bahrain’s Supreme Council for Environment to continue 

efforts set out under the U.S.-Bahrain Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental 

 493 U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, Chapter 10; USDOS, “Submission of the United States of America re: 

Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc., and Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Claimants, and The Republic Of Panama, 

Respondent,” August 28, 2017. A supplemental submission was submitted on September 25, 2017. 494 USDOS, Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc., and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. The Republic of Panama, n.d. 

(accessed April 30, 2018). For more information on investment disputes under FTAs, see USDOS, “International 

Claims and Investment Disputes,” n.d. (accessed April 30, 2018). 495 Government of Australia, DFAT, “Australia-United States FTA––AUSFTA Joint Committee Meeting,” December 7, 

2017.

496 83 Fed. Reg. 7829 (February 22, 2018). 497 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 7.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 141

Cooperation.498 The MOU was negotiated in parallel with the U.S.-Bahrain FTA to support the dual goals 

of strengthening environmental protection under the FTA’s Environment Chapter and promoting 

sustainable development as trade expands under the FTA. Both sides look to revise the Plan of Action 

developed under the MOU, as approved by the Bahraini cabinet in August 2017, and expect to 

reconvene in 2018.499

CAFTA-DR

The CAFTA-DR central oversight body, the Free Trade Commission, met in 2017, and agreed to modify 

certain product-specific rules of origin to reflect changes in the nomenclature of the 2017 global 

Harmonized System of tariff classifications.500 In addition, the United States worked bilaterally with a 

number of CAFTA-DR partners in 2017 on matters related to implementation of the agreement. For 

example, the United States worked with several partners on agricultural trade, in particular poultry 

tariffs and tariff-rate quotas.501

Labor 

In January 2017, Honduras passed a new labor inspection law in an effort to bring the country into 

compliance with CAFTA-DR’s Labor Chapter provisions, following a Monitoring and Action Plan signed in 

2015 between Honduras and the United States.502

On June 26, 2017, the arbitral panel decision was released in a case concerning violations of the CAFTADR Labor Chapter, brought by the United States against Guatemala in April 2008. The panel found that 

Guatemala had failed to effectively enforce its labor laws, but that violation of CAFTA-DR labor 

provisions could not be proven without other required evidence.503

Environment

CAFTA-DR officials met twice in 2017 to discuss environmental priorities under the agreement, in 

particular to prepare for meetings of the agreement’s Environmental Affairs Council.504 The Council held 

its 11th meeting June 21–22, 2017, to discuss progress and challenges under the CAFTA-DR Environment 

498 USDOS, OIE, “Joint Communiqué of the United States-Bahrain Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation,” 

March 7, 2018.

499 The inaugural meeting of the Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation, as well as the Subcommittee on 

Environmental Affairs, was held on March 7, 2018. The Joint Forum is expected to identify priority projects in areas 

such as air quality, coastal environmental zones, and endangered species. USDOS, OIE, “Joint Communiqué of the 

United States-Bahrain Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation,” March 7, 2018. 500 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 7. 501 Ibid., 11. 502 USDOL, ILAB, “Submissions under the Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements,” n.d. (accessed April 19, 

2018).

503 Ibid. 504 USDOS, “Eleventh Meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council––Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)––San José, Costa Rica––June 21–22, 2017––Joint Communiqué,” June 

2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

142 | www.usitc.gov

Chapter, and focused in particular on environmental impact assessments and best practices concerning 

air quality and waste management laws.505

U.S.-Chile FTA

The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Commission, the supervisory body for the 2004 U.S.-Chile Free Trade

Agreement, convened its most recent meeting in December 2016, and expects to hold its 12th meeting 

in 2018.

Labor

In April 2017, Chile’s most recent labor reform went into effect. It covers areas related to collective 

bargaining, such as an employer’s ability to replace striking with non-striking workers, as well as 

expanding collective bargaining rights to certain temporary workers and apprentices and removing 

obstacles that previously limited collective bargaining to the individual enterprise level.506

Environment

The Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) announced in 2017 that Chile’s new wildlife law fully satisfied commitments made in 

implementing CITES international standards. The new law was supported by efforts to promote 

environmental protection in Chile taken with the help of the FTA’s Joint Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation.507

U.S.-Colombia TPA

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Commission, the oversight body under the 2012 U.S.-Colombia Trade 

Promotion Agreement (CTPA), worked on initiatives launched at the first Free Trade Commission 

meeting in November 2012. These included changes to the CTPA’s dispute settlement mechanism and 

updates to the CTPA’s rules of origin, including updates to reflect changes in trade nomenclature in the 

2012 and 2017 Harmonized System. The Free Trade Commission expects to conclude this work in 

2018.508

The CTPA’s Committee on Agriculture and its Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures also 

met, leading to an exchange of letters in August 2017 that removed the temporary restrictions on U.S. 

paddy rice imported into Colombia originally agreed in 2012.509 The CTPA’s Free Trade Commission also 

arrived at decisions on two other agricultural matters in November and December 2017, respectively: it 

 505 USDOS, “Eleventh Meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council––Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)––San José, Costa Rica––June 21–22, 2017––Joint Communiqué,” June 

2017.

506 Mcfarlane, “Chile: Chilean Labour Reform Now In Force,” April 13, 2017; RSM International Association, 

“Approved Labor Reform Bill in the House of Representatives,” April 28, 2017. 507 CITES, SC, “Summary Record,” SC69 SR Rev. 1, November 27–December 1, 2017, 18; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy 

Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 68. 508 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13. 509 USDA, FAS, “USDA, USTR Announce Expanded Access for U.S. Rice Exports to Colombia,” August 17, 2017; USTR, 

“USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue and USTR Robert Lighthizer Announce Expanded Access,” August 17, 2017.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 143

(1) clarified tariff treatment for U.S. yellow corn imported into Colombia under a tariff-rate quota, and

(2) clarified product coverage for U.S. variety meats imported into Colombia under a second tariff-rate

quota.510

Labor 

On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a report in response to a submission filed May 

16, 2016, under the CTPA’s Labor Chapter, by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 

Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and five Colombian workers’ organizations.511 The report 

recommended that the U.S. Secretary of Labor open consultations under the TPA, and set out 19 

recommendations aimed at addressing a range of labor concerns. Areas of particular focus included 

violence against unionists, protection of labor rights, labor law inspection, and enforcement of rights to 

protect freedom of association and collective bargaining in Colombia. Four meetings were held later in 

2017 between the two sides regarding CTPA labor commitments––three in Washington, DC, and one in 

Bogotá, as well as a videoconference in April 2017.512

U.S.-Israel FTA

The U.S.-Israel Joint Committee was established as the central body overseeing the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free 

Trade Agreement.513 On May 10, 2017, the Joint Committee signed a decision revising the rules of origin 

provisions in the FTA.514 On December 5, 2017, the two countries also agreed to extend the 2004 

Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products (ATAP) through December 31, 2018, to allow time to 

negotiate a successor agreement.515 This agreement provides preferential market access to U.S. 

agricultural products, but does not conform to the FTA’s objective of free trade in agricultural products. 

The ATAP was first reached in 1996, and renegotiated in 2004 to remain in effect through December 

2008. Since then, both sides have extended the 2004 ATAP on an annual basis, pending a new 

agreement.516

510 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13–14. A TRQ is a trade restriction that 

imposes a relatively low “in-quota” tariff on imports until the quota level (sometimes an annual allocation) is met. 

Any imports beyond the quota level are subject to a higher over-quota tariff. 511 USDOL, “US Labor Department Report Identifies Labor Concerns in Colombia,” January 11, 2017. 512 USDOL, ILAB, “Submissions under the Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements,” n.d. (accessed April 19, 

2018).

513 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 123. 514 USTR, “Decision of the Joint Committee,” n.d. (accessed April 19, 2018). 515 82 Fed. Reg. 61414 (December 27, 2017). 516 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 124.
The Year in Trade 2017

144 | www.usitc.gov

U.S.-Jordan FTA

In 2017, the United States and Jordan continued to consult on the implementation of the 2001 U.S.-

Jordan Free Trade Agreement and to work on the environmental matters set out under the 2014–2017 

Work Program of the FTA’s Environment Chapter.517

Labor

During 2017, Jordan and the United States continued work toward completion of the Implementation 

Plan signed in 2016, which aims to ensure a broader scope for labor inspections to include garment 

dormitories. In addition, Jordan agreed to make factory-level audits publicly available in 2017.518

U.S.-Korea FTA (KORUS)

The fourth meeting of the KORUS FTA Joint Committee was held in Seoul on January 12, 2017.519 Also in 

2017, the following committees met under the KORUS FTA: the Automobiles Working Group, the 

Committee on Services and Investment, the Committee on Trade in Goods, the Committee on Technical 

Barriers to Trade, the Professional Services Working Group, and the Committee on Trade Remedies.520 In 

November 2017, the KORUS FTA Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee met and discussed a number of 

the United States’ market access requests with South Korea’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural 

Affairs. According to USTR, these issues included market access for blueberries from states beyond 

Oregon; improvement of the cherry export program; and market access for U.S. apples and pears, which 

South Korea currently bans.521

On July 12, 2017, USTR Robert Lighthizer formally notified South Korea that the United States was calling 

for a special session of the Joint Committee, established under Article 22.2 of the KORUS FTA, to discuss 

possible amendments and modifications to KORUS and to “review progress on the implementation of 

the Agreement, resolve several problems regarding market access in South Korea for U.S. exports, and, 

most importantly, address our significant trade imbalance.”522 This special session, which was held on 

August 22, 2017, in South Korea, was the first special session held under the KORUS FTA.523 The daylong 

meeting was attended by USTR Lighthizer via teleconference.524

 517 On February 12, 2018, at a meeting of the Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation, the two 

countries announced a new 2018–2021 Work Program that updates the previous one. The Work Program aims to 

protect the environment through sustainable development as the U.S.-Jordan FTA expands bilateral trade between 

the two countries. USDOS, OES, “Joint Communiqué of the United States-Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental 

Technical Cooperation,” February 12, 2018; USDOS, “United States-Jordan 2018–2021 Work Program for 

Environmental Technical Cooperation,” n.d. (accessed April 27, 2018). 518 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 16–17. 519 Government of South Korea, MOTIE, “Korea, U.S. Host 4th KORUS FTA Joint Committee Meeting in Seoul,” 

January 13, 2017.

520 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 6. 521 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 295. 522 USTR, “USTR Calls a Special Session,” July 12, 2017; USTR, Letter from Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer to 

Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Dr. Joo Hyunghwan, July 12, 2017. 523 Inside U.S. Trade, “USTR to Request First-ever KORUS Joint Committee Special Session,” July 3, 2017. 524 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Special Session,” August 22, 2017.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 145

On September 21, 2017, South Korean Trade Minister Hyun-chong Kim formally requested the second 

special session of the Joint Committee.525 The meeting was held on October 4, 2017, in Washington, DC, 

and was co-chaired by Ambassador Lighthizer and Minister Kim.526 Following that meeting, South Korea 

began the domestic procedures required for it to begin discussions to amend the agreement. Those 

procedures included an assessment of the economic feasibility of the agreement, a public hearing, and 

reports to the National Assembly.527 These procedures were completed in December 2017, when it was 

announced that negotiations on amendments and modifications to KORUS would begin on January 5, 

2018.528

U.S.-Morocco FTA

The U.S.-Morocco Joint Committee held its fifth meeting on October 18, 2017, under the 2006 U.S.-

Morocco Free Trade Agreement. The Joint Committee noted progress in the areas of agriculture, labor, 

and environmental matters, as well as Morocco’s commitment to allow access for U.S. automobile 

exports made to U.S. safety standards.529 The two countries also agreed to further discussions on 

Moroccan market access for U.S. pharmaceutical products.530

Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

The two countries held meetings of the FTA’s Subcommittee on Agriculture as well as the Subcommittee 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.531 At the Agriculture Subcommittee meetings, and later at the 

Joint Committee meeting, Morocco agreed to fully tender FTA imports under its wheat tariff-rate quota 

in each calendar year, and to re-tender in particular situations. Morocco also agreed at the Joint 

Committee meeting to accelerate the phaseout of tariffs on a number of wheat, beef, and poultry 

products from the United States for which Morocco applied a lower duty on EU products. At the 

meeting of the Subcommittee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Morocco removed its ban on 

U.S. beef product imports previously subject to restrictions because of bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy. Morocco also agreed to set import alerts for certain wheat fungal toxins (mycotoxins) 

at standard international levels.532

525 MOTIE, Letter to Ambassador Lighthizer, September 21, 2017; MOTIE, “Korean, US Trade Ministers Meet in 

Washington DC,” September 20, 2017. 526 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Second Special Session,” October 4, 2017. 527 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 6; MOTIE, “2nd Special Session of 

KORUS FTA Joint Committee Held in Washington DC,” October 5, 2017. 528 USTR, “United States, Korea to Hold Amendment Negotiations on KORUS FTA,” December 28, 2017. 

Negotiations occurred on January 5, 2018, and January 31–February 1, 2018, and an agreement was reached in 

principle on March 27, 2018. USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 6; USTR, 2018 

National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 293. 529 Government of Morocco, “Morocco-USA Joint Committee in Charge of Following Up FTA,” October 19, 2017. 530 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 16. 531 USDA, FAS, “Morocco: US Common Wheat TRQ Fully Allocated in 2017,” November 16, 2017. 532 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 17.
The Year in Trade 2017

146 | www.usitc.gov

Labor

In August 2017, Morocco began to implement a law addressing certain domestic worker rights, an issue 

originally raised in 2014 by the United States under the FTA’s Subcommittee on Labor. When fully 

implemented, the law will provide a number of protections and benefits for domestic workers.533

Environment

At the FTA’s Joint Cooperation Committee meeting in 2017, the two countries continued to work on 

environmental matters under the 2014–2017 Plan of Action, as set out by the U.S.-Morocco Joint 

Statement on Environmental Cooperation. In particular, the two sides highlighted in 2017 the 

establishment of protocols implementing Morocco’s new legislation in support of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).534

U.S.-Oman FTA

In 2017, the two sides began to prepare a new Plan of Action for 2018–2021 regarding environmental 

matters under the 2009 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. This follows completion of the 2014–2017 

Plan originally established under the U.S.-Oman Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental 

Cooperation.535

U.S.-Panama TPA

The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Commission provides the key oversight for the 2012 U.S.-Panama Trade 

Promotion Agreement.536 The Free Trade Commission held its second meeting in November 2016 and 

expects to hold its third meeting in 2018.

Labor

Under the TPA’s Labor Chapter, representatives from the U.S. Department of Labor and Panama’s 

Ministry of Labor and Maritime Authority met in August 2017 to discuss labor law enforcement issues 

concerning child labor, wage-and-hour protections, union registration, short-term contracts, and 

subcontracting, as well as occupational safety and health issues.537

Environment

In 2017, the two sides continued efforts to establish an independent secretariat for environment 

matters under the agreement. The secretariat is presently situated in the Water Center for the Humid 

 533 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 17. 534 Ibid., 70. 535 Ibid., 70–77. In 2018, the U.S. Department of State gave notice of a meeting of the U.S.-Oman Joint Forum on 

Environmental Cooperation (Joint Forum), to be held March 4–5, 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 5505 (February 7, 2018). 536 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 18. 537 Ibid., 19.
Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

U.S International Trade Commission | 147

Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean, located in Panama City, Panama. In 2017, the center’s 

Council hired an executive director, as well as agreed to an initial outreach plan for the Secretariat.538

U.S.-Peru TPA

During 2017, the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Commission continued its work as the central body overseeing 

the implementation of the 2009 U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA), and is expected to meet 

next in 2018.539

Labor 

In June 2017, U.S. officials visited Peru to follow up on the issues identified in a U.S. Department of 

Labor report released in March 2016 in response to a public submission filed under the Labor Chapter of 

the PTPA in July 2015. The USDOL report raised concerns about Peru’s protection of fundamental labor 

rights and enforcement of labor laws. U.S. officials also held videoconferences with their Peruvian 

counterparts to discuss these issues in August and December 2017.540

Environment

The two governments made progress under the 2015–2018 Work Program of PTPA’s Environmental 

Cooperation Agreement, signing a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Peruvian Organization of Evaluation and Environmental Inspection to support 

Peru’s efforts to strengthen enforcement of and compliance with Peruvian environmental laws.541

Nonetheless, the U.S. Interagency Committee on Trade in Timber Products from Peru determined during 

2017 that Peru had made insufficient progress to stem illegal logging. As a consequence, USTR 

instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency to deny future timber shipments from a 

Peruvian exporter, subject to verification.542 The United States and Peru expect to hold a review in 2018 

of implementation of the PTPA’s Environment Chapter in Lima, Peru, at the senior-level Environmental 

Affairs Council.543

U.S.-Singapore FTA

The United States and Singapore met in July 2017 for a comprehensive review of the FTA, as well as in 

March and December 2017 for a review of the FTA’s labor provisions, and in October 2017 to review the 

FTA’s environmental provisions.544

538 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 71. 539 Ibid., 20. 540 USDOL, “Second Periodic Review of Progress to Address Issues Identified in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Public Report of Review of Submission 2015-01 (Peru),” April 20, 2018; USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 

Annual Report, March 2018, 20. 541 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 71–72. 542 USTR, “USTR Announces Unprecedented Action to Block Illegal Timber Imports,” October 19, 2017; USTR, 2018 

Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 71. 543 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 72. 544 Ibid., 21.
The Year in Trade 2017

148 | www.usitc.gov

Environment

On October 4, 2017, the two sides met to review the implementation of the Environment Chapter of the 

2004 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement,545 in accordance with their Memorandum of Intent on 

Cooperation in Environmental Matters and as set out under the 2016–2017 Plan of Action for 

Environmental Cooperation.546 Discussions centered largely on enforcement of environmental laws, 

particularly to combat wildlife and timber trafficking in the region. In 2017, cooperation between the 

two governments on environmental matters helped cut off the sale of illegal wildlife products. This work 

led to a July 2017 commendation from the Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, recognizing Singapore’s 2014 actions in interdicting an 

illegal shipment of rosewood logs.

547

545 USTR, “Joint Statement on the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Environment Chapter Meeting,” 

October 5, 2017.

546 On January 19, 2018, the two sides adopted a Plan of Action for 2018–2019 at their fifth biennial meeting under 

the U.S.-Singapore Memorandum of Intent on Environmental Cooperation. USDOS, EOS, “2018–2019 Plan of 

Action for Environmental Cooperation under the U.S.-Singapore Memorandum of Intent,” January 19, 2018; 

USDOS, EOS, “Joint Communique for United States-Singapore 5th Biennial Review Meeting,” January 19, 2018. 547 CITES, “Persistence Pays Off––Singapore Authorities’ Successful Prosecutions,” July 22, 2017.
U.S. International Trade Commission | 149

Chapter 6 

U.S. Trade Relations with Major 

Trading Partners

This chapter reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with the United States’ top trading partners in 2017: 

the European Union (EU), China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, India, and Taiwan (ordered 

according to the value of their two-way merchandise trade). For each trading partner, the chapter 

summarizes U.S. bilateral trade, including two-way merchandise and private services trade, the U.S. 

trade balance, U.S. merchandise exports, and U.S. merchandise imports. That description is followed by 

summaries of the major developments in bilateral trade during 2017.

European Union 

U.S.-EU Trade

The EU as a single entity is the United States’ largest two-way (exports plus imports) trading partner in 

terms of both goods and services. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with the 28 member states of the 

EU increased 4.7 percent, from $686.0 billion in 2016 to $718.5 billion in 2017. However, the EU share of 

U.S. trade declined slightly, from 18.9 percent in 2016 to 18.5 percent in 2017, as total U.S. trade with 

the world increased by more than U.S. trade with the EU. The U.S. trade deficit with the EU rose by $4.7 

billion, from $146.8 billion in 2016 to $151.4 billion in 2017, but was still lower than the U.S. trade deficit 

with the EU in 2015 (figure 6.1).

The EU was the largest market for U.S. merchandise exports in 2017 for the second year in a row, 

accounting for 18.3 percent of total U.S. exports. U.S. exports to the EU increased 5.2 percent, from 

$269.6 billion in 2016 to $283.5 billion in 2017. Leading U.S. exports to the EU included civilian aircraft, 

engines, and parts; medicaments (medicines); refined petroleum products; crude petroleum; and 

certain immunological products.
The Year in Trade 2017

150 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 6.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5. 

Figure 6.2 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with the EU, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. U.S. imports from the EU in 2017 are overstated because the data include government 

goods and services n.i.e. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7. 

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 151

The EU remained the second-largest source of U.S. merchandise imports, following China, in 2017. The 

EU accounted for 18.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2017. U.S. imports from the EU increased 4.5 

percent, from $416.4 billion in 2016 to $434.9 billion in 2017. Leading U.S. imports were passenger 

motor vehicles, medicaments, parts of turbojets and turbopropellers, light oils, and airplanes and other 

aircraft. U.S.-EU merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.27 through A.30.

Two-way cross-border trade in services with the EU increased 7.2 percent to $426.9 billion in 2017 and 

accounted for 33.4 percent of total U.S. trade in services that year. The United States continued to 

register a trade surplus in services with the EU, but it declined $11.8 billion in 2017 to $49.9 billion as 

U.S. imports increased more than U.S. exports (figure 6.2). U.S. exports of private services to the EU 

increased 3.7 percent ($8.4 billion) to $238.4 billion in 2017, while U.S. imports increased 12.0 percent 

($20.2 billion) to $188.5 billion. The United Kingdom (UK) was the EU’s largest services trader with the 

United States, with 28.5 percent of the EU total, followed by Germany and France.

Trade Developments 

Among the important U.S.-EU trade developments in 2017 were a bilateral agreement on insurance and 

reinsurance measures, the first annual review of the functioning of the Privacy Shield, and a mutual 

recognition agreement on good manufacturing practices in pharmaceutical products. Under the 

framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council, the United States hosted the eighth workshop for 

small and medium-sized enterprises in Wichita, Kansas. All of these topics are described below.

In other developments, negotiations for the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

(TTIP) agreement between the United States and the EU remained dormant in 2017.548 The UK 

continued to prepare for exiting the EU (Brexit) in March 2019. In May 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the EU had lifted 

rules requiring that U.S. citrus groves be surveyed for citrus canker before U.S. citrus exports to the EU 

would be permitted.549 According to USTR, the EU requirement had effectively eliminated EU market 

access for a majority of Florida citrus groves.550 USTR estimates that U.S. citrus producers will save $5.6 

million annually with the elimination of the EU rules.551

During 2017, there were new developments in two long-running World Trade Organization (WTO) 

dispute settlement cases on civil aircraft filed by the EU against the United States. On June 9, 2017, the 

WTO compliance panel issued a report in the complaint by the EU regarding U.S. measures affecting 

trade in large civil aircraft (DS353). In the second case, on September 4, the WTO Appellate Body 

circulated its report in the complaint by the EU relating to U.S. conditional tax incentives for large civil 

aircraft (DS487). The developments in these two cases are described in more detail in chapter 3.

548 For more information, see chapter 5. 549 USTR, “Agriculture Secretary Perdue and Acting U.S. Trade Representative Vaughn Announce,” May 3, 2017. 550 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, 2017, 152–53. 551 USTR, “Agriculture Secretary Perdue and Acting U.S. Trade Representative Vaughn Announce,” May 3, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

152 | www.usitc.gov

Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance Measures

On January 13, 2017, the United States and EU announced conclusion of an agreement552 on insurance 

and reinsurance measures.553 Negotiations began in February 2016 following the implementation on 

January 1, 2016, of a new EU insurance regulatory regime554 known as Solvency II.555 Solvency II requires 

that U.S. prudential regulation be deemed equivalent to that in the EU to prevent “disadvantageous 

treatment” of U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU market.556 To address this issue, on 

September 22, 2017, U.S. and EU officials signed a “covered agreement” on prudential measures 

affecting insurance and reinsurance.557 At the same time, the U.S. Government issued a policy statement 

that clarified how the U.S. views implementation of certain provisions of the agreement.558 Although 

some parts of the agreement will apply provisionally, the agreement is expected to fully apply after 5 

years from the date of signature.559

According to a joint U.S.-EU statement issued at the conclusion of negotiations, the new agreement will 

ensure “ongoing robust insurance consumer protection” and will provide “enhanced regulatory 

certainty for insurers and reinsurers operating in both the U.S. and the EU.”560 The U.S. policy statement 

said that the agreement “affirms the U.S. system of insurance regulation, including the role of state 

insurance regulators as the primary supervisors of the business of insurance.”561

 552 Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on Prudential Measures 

Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance, (accessed March 21, 2018). 553 U.S. Treasury Department, “Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Negotiations for a Bilateral Agreement on Insurance 

and Reinsurance Measures,” January 13, 2017. Reinsurance, commonly referred to as insurance for insurance 

companies, refers to insurance companies buying insurance contracts from specialized insurers (reinsurers) to 

protect themselves from large unexpected claims.

554 U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 1. 555 Solvency II (Directive 2009/138/EC)—as amended by Directive 2014/51/EU (“Omnibus II”)—replaces 14 existing 

directives commonly known as “Solvency I.” European Commission, “Solvency II Overview—Frequently Asked 

Questions,” January 12, 2015. 556 Wall and Harney, letter to Richard Shelby et al., November 20, 2015. 557 U.S. Treasury Department, “Statement of the United States on the Covered Agreement with the European 

Union,” September 22, 2017. The Department of the Treasury defines a covered agreement as “an international 

agreement that relates to the recognition of prudential measures with respect to the business of insurance or 

reinsurance that achieves a level of protection for insurance or reinsurance consumers that is substantially 

equivalent to the level of protection achieved under state insurance or reinsurance regulation.” U.S. Treasury 

Department, “Initiatives, U.S. and EU Covered Agreement” (accessed February 21, 2018).

558 U.S. Treasury Department, “Statement of the United States on the Covered Agreement with the European 

Union,” September 22, 2017; U.S. Treasury Department, “Initiatives, U.S. and EU Covered Agreement” (accessed 

February 21, 2018).

559 U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 4; European Commission, “EUUS Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance,” September 22, 2017. 560 U.S. Treasury Department, “Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Negotiations for a Bilateral Agreement on Insurance 

and Reinsurance Measures,” January 13, 2017. 561 U.S. Treasury Department, “Statement of the United States on the Covered Agreement with the European 

Union,” September 22, 2017.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 153

The agreement covers three areas of insurance regulation: (1) group supervision, (2) collateral and local 

presence requirements for U.S. and EU reinsurers operating in the other’s market, and (3) exchange of 

information between U.S. and EU supervisory authorities.562

Under the new agreement, U.S. and EU insurance and reinsurance groups active in both the U.S. and EU 

markets will not be subject to certain requirements under Solvency II with respect to group supervision 

for their worldwide activities. Instead, U.S. and EU groups operating in the other jurisdiction will only be 

subject to worldwide prudential insurance group oversight by the supervisors in their home 

jurisdiction.563 As a result, U.S. insurance groups operating in the EU will not have to meet EU worldwide 

group capital, reporting, or governance requirements.564

With respect to reinsurance, the agreement eliminates collateral and local presence requirements for 

EU and U.S. reinsurers operating in the other jurisdiction’s market subject to certain conditions (i.e., 

specified financial strength and market conduct requirements, such as a record of prompt payments of 

claims).565 As a result, relief from collateral requirements will reduce obstacles for EU reinsurers 

operating in the U.S. market, and within 24 months of signature, U.S. reinsurers will be fully able to 

operate in the EU without establishing a branch or subsidiary.566

The agreement also encourages U.S. and EU insurance supervisory authorities to continue to share 

supervisory information on insurers and reinsurers that operate in the U.S. and EU markets.567 To 

facilitate this exchange of information, the agreement contains an annex with model provisions for a 

possible future memorandum of understanding on information exchange.568

Privacy Shield

The first annual review of the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield was held in September 2017. The Privacy Shield, 

which became operational on August 1, 2016, provides a mechanism for companies to transfer personal 

data from the EU to the United States that is consistent with EU law.569 Company participation is 

voluntary and requires a company to certify that it will comply with a set of principles or obligations for 

562 U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 1. 563 U.S. Treasury Department, “Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Negotiations for a Bilateral Agreement on Insurance 

and Reinsurance Measures,” January 13, 2017; U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” 

January 18, 2017, 1–2. 564 U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 2. 565 U.S. Treasury Department, “Statement of the United States on the Covered Agreement with the European 

Union,” September 22, 2017, 1; USTR, “Joint Statement on Upcoming Signature of the Bilateral Agreement,” 

September 22, 2017; U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 2. 566 Bilateral Agreement on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance, art. 3; U.S. Treasury 

Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 3. 567 USTR, “Joint Statement on Upcoming Signature of the Bilateral Agreement,” September 22, 2017. 568 U.S. Treasury Department, “Bilateral Agreement, Fact Sheet,” January 18, 2017, 3; Bilateral Agreement on

Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance, Annex, art. 1; European Commission, “EU-US 

Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance,” September 22, 2017. 569 For more background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 143–44. For more information about EU 

rules on data protection, see USITC, Global Digital Trade 1: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade 

Restrictions, 2017, 377–83; European Commission Web site, “Data Protection.”
The Year in Trade 2017

154 | www.usitc.gov

the handling of data transferred from the EU to the United States.570 The Privacy Shield also contains 

obligations for the U.S. government if U.S. government officials request access to this personal data for 

national security or law enforcement purposes.571 As of the date of the annual review, over 2,400 

companies had joined the Privacy Shield.572

On September 18–19, U.S. and EU officials met for the first annual review of the functioning of the 

Privacy Shield. The meeting addressed the administration and enforcement of the Privacy Shield, and 

included Privacy Shield participants and other stakeholders who shared their views with government 

officials and informed the review process.573 Based on the meeting, the EU released a report on October 

18 that concluded that “the United States continues to ensure an adequate level of protection for 

personal data transferred under the Privacy Shield from the Union to organisations in the United 

States.”574 In addition, the report listed a number of recommendations for improving the 

implementation of the Privacy Shield, including the following:575

• Increase proactive and regular monitoring of companies’ compliance with the Privacy Shield as 

well as proactive searches for false claims of company participation in the Privacy Shield by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce.

• Increase EU individuals’ awareness about how to lodge complaints under the Privacy Shield by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce and EU data protection authorities.

• Improve cooperation between U.S. and EU enforcers, including the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, the Federal Trade Commission, and the EU data protection authorities, to develop 

guidance for companies and enforcers on the interpretation of the Privacy Shield’s rules, which 

would provide greater legal certainty for businesses.

• Strengthen the privacy protections contained in the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

• As soon as possible, appoint a permanent Privacy Shield Ombudsperson at the U.S. Department 

of State, where complaints will be addressed about U.S. authorities accessing personal data for 

national security purposes.

 570 For more information on the Privacy Shield and how companies can participate, see the website of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, which administers the program: https://www.privacyshield.gov/welcome. 571 European Commission, “First Annual Review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield,” October 18, 2017. 572 USDOC, “Joint Press Statement from Secretary Ross and Commissioner Jourova,” September 20, 2017. 573 Ibid. 574 European Commission, “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the First 

Annual Review of the Functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield,” October 18, 2017. 575 Ibid; European Commission, “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: First Review Shows It Works but Implementation Can be 

Improved,” October 18, 2017.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 155

• More proactive reporting by U.S. authorities of developments related to the Privacy Shield.576

U.S. officials welcomed the release of the report.577 On November 29, 2017, in the first three 

enforcement actions under the Privacy Shield framework, the Federal Trade Commission announced 

settlements with companies that falsely claimed they had been certified to participate in the Privacy 

Shield.578

U.S.-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement on Pharmaceutical

Inspections

On March 2, 2017, the United States and EU agreed to amend the Pharmaceutical Annex to the 1998 

U.S.-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement. The purpose of amending the annex is to avoid duplicating

good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities by allowing

each side to rely on the drug inspections conducted by the other’s regulatory authority. The updated

annex will also allow regulators to devote more inspection resources to drug manufacturing facilities in

other parts of the world where there may be greater risk.579

All drugs approved for use in the United States, regardless of where they are made, must comply with 

U.S. regulations. Because some of these drugs are either fully manufactured abroad or contain some 

foreign ingredients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) routinely inspects foreign as well as 

domestic drug manufacturing plants for compliance with manufacturing standards that assure that the 

products meet quality and product label requirements.580 The agreement with the EU to amend the 

annex will permit the FDA to rely on EU inspection reports, lowering inspection costs and enabling 

regulators to redirect resources to other parts of the world.581

Since May 2014, U.S. and EU authorities have been auditing and assessing each other’s inspection 

systems to learn if they meet domestic requirements. In June 2017, the European Commission 

determined that the FDA “has the capability, capacity and procedures in place to carry out GMP 

inspections at a level equivalent to the EU.”582 In October 2017, the FDA stated that it would recognize 

the drug regulatory authorities in 8 of the 28 EU member states (Austria, Croatia, France, Italy, Malta, 

Spain, Sweden, and the UK) as capable of conducting inspections of manufacturing facilities that meet 

576 European Commission, “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the First 

Annual Review of the Functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield,” COM(2017) 611 Final, October 18, 2017; 

European Commission, “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: First Review shows It Works but Implementation Can be 

Improved,” October 18, 2017. 577 USDOC, “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Welcomes Release of the European Commission’s Report,” 

October 18, 2017; Federal Trade Commission, “Statement of Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen on First 

Annual Review of EU-U.S.-Privacy Shield,” October 18, 2017. 578 Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Gives Final Approval to Settlements with Companies That Falsely Claimed 

Participation in Privacy Shield,” November 29, 2017. 579 Food and Drug Administration, “Mutual Recognition Promises New Framework,” March 2, 2017. 580 Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Takes Unprecedented Step,” October 31, 2017. 581 Food and Drug Administration, “Mutual Recognition Promises New Framework,” March 2, 2017. 582 Notification to the Joint Sectoral Committee by the European Union under Article 7 of the Sectoral Annex on 

Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) of the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the 

European Community and the United States of America, 2017 O.J. (L 237/36); European Medicines Agency, “EU-US 

Mutual Recognition of Inspections of Medicines Manufacturers,” October 31, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

156 | www.usitc.gov

FDA requirements.583 This is the first time that the FDA has recognized another country’s inspection 

authority.584 FDA expects to finish evaluating the remaining EU countries by July 15, 2019.585

Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC)

The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) was launched in 2007 to promote bilateral cooperation aimed 

at lowering transatlantic barriers to trade and investment.586 On October 19, 2017, under the TEC 

framework, the United States hosted the eighth workshop for small and medium-sized enterprises 

(SMEs) in Wichita, Kansas.587 The purpose of these workshops is to expand trade and investment 

opportunities for U.S. and EU SMEs and discuss trade topics of particular interest to SMEs.588

The following topics were discussed at the workshop: manufacturing SMEs in transatlantic trade, 

including export strategies, regulatory issues, and barriers to trade; SME startups, innovation, and 

competitiveness; transatlantic skills development for SMEs and best practices in apprenticeships and 

vocational training; transatlantic foreign direct investment in manufacturing; and SME export promotion 

resources in both the United States and the EU.589 Also, government officials provided an update on the 

2015 U.S.-EU SME Cooperation Arrangement,590 which aims to makes it easier for regional innovation 

clusters and their member businesses in the United States and EU to form strategic partnerships across 

the Atlantic.591

China

U.S.-China Trade

In 2017, China remained the United States’ largest single-country trading partner based on two-way 

merchandise trade, accounting for 16.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. two-way 

merchandise trade with China amounted to $635.9 billion in 2017, an increase of 10.0 percent over the 

$578.2 billion recorded in 2016. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China remained higher than the 

U.S. trade deficit with any other trading partner in 2017, amounting to $375.2 billion. Its $28.2 billion 

 583 Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Takes Unprecedented Step,” October 31, 2017. 584 Ibid. 585 European Medicines Agency, “EU-US Mutual Recognition of Inspections of Medicines Manufacturers,” October 

31, 2017.

586 For more background on the TEC, see USDOS, EUR, “Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic 

Integration,” April 20, 2007. 587 USDOS, EUR, “Joint Statement from the 8th U.S.-EU SME Workshop,” October 19, 2017. 588 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council Facilitators’ Report to Stakeholders,” November 30, 2016. 589 USDOS, EUR, “Joint Statement From the 8th U.S.-EU SME Workshop,” October 19, 2017; Adduci, Mastriani & 

Schaumberg, LLP, “8th U.S.-EU Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Best Practices Workshop, . . . October 19, 

2017, Draft Agenda.” 590 USDOS, “Cooperation Arrangement between the United States Department of Commerce International Trade 

Administration and European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 

SMEs on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” 2015. 591 USDOC, “New Agreement with the European Union Will Strengthen Partnerships,” April 23, 2015; USDOS, EUR, 

“Joint Statement from the 8th U.S.-EU SME Workshop,” October 19, 2017.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 157

increase relative to the year before reflected a $42.3 billion increase in U.S. merchandise imports from 

China that outpaced a $14.8 billion increase in U.S. merchandise exports to China in 2017 (figure 6.3).

China was the third-largest single-country destination for U.S. merchandise exports in 2017, behind 

Canada and Mexico. U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $130.4 billion in 2017, increasing 

by 12.8 percent, or $14.8 billion, relative to 2016. Leading U.S. exports to China in 2017 were civilian 

aircraft, engines, and parts, and soybeans. Other leading U.S. exports to China included small passenger 

motor vehicles, petroleum, and semiconductors.

In 2017, U.S. merchandise imports from China amounted to $505.6 billion, representing 21.6 percent of 

total U.S. goods imports in that year. This was more than imports from any other country, and U.S. 

merchandise imports from China increased by 9.3 percent relative to the year before. Leading 2017 U.S. 

imports from China were cellphones; portable computers and tablets; telecommunications equipment; 

computer parts and accessories; and tricycles, scooters, and related toys. U.S.-China merchandise trade 

data are shown in appendix tables A.31 through A.34.

Services trade between the two countries was also significant. In 2017, China continued to be the United 

States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way cross-border services trade of 

$73.0 billion. U.S. services trade with China amounted to 5.7 percent of total U.S. cross-border services 

trade in 2017, compared to 5.7 percent in 2016 and 5.2 percent in 2015. The U.S. services trade surplus 

with China increased $600.0 million in 2017 to $38.2 billion, as a result of growing U.S. exports. In 2017, 

U.S. services exports to China grew by $1.9 billion, or 3.6 percent, while U.S. services imports from China 

grew by $1.4 billion, or 8.6 percent, relative to the year before (figure 6.4).
The Year in Trade 2017

158 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 6.3 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.

Figure 6.4 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with China, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 159

Trade Developments

Since China’s accession to the WTO in 2001, the United States has filed 22 WTO complaints against 

China. Those complaints are more than half of the total 40 worldwide complaints the United States filed 

during that time using the dispute settlement mechanism. China has filed 12 such complaints against the 

United States of the 17 it has filed since 2001.592 In 2017, the United States filed 1 new complaint against 

China. Specifically, on January 12, 2017, the United States requested consultations with China 

concerning alleged subsidies that China provides to its producers of primary aluminum.593 In 2017, China 

did not file any complaints against the United States, though it had filed 2 by April 4, 2018. 

Developments in these and other WTO dispute settlement proceedings during 2017 are described in 

more detail in chapter 3 and appendix table A.25.

In 2017, the most prominent U.S.-China bilateral trade issues were discussed in the context of a newly 

formed Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED). The CED supplanted both the U.S.-China Joint 

Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED).

The JCCT had been the primary forum for high-level trade dialogue since 2003, while the S&ED, 

established in 2009, had focused on a wide range of bilateral and global political, strategic, security, and 

economic issues. Major topics addressed by U.S. and Chinese officials in the CED in 2017 included 

China’s protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs); Chinese policies and practices 

that require or pressure the transfer of U.S. and other foreign technologies to China; and the 

implementation of China’s new Cybersecurity Law, as well as a new draft Standardization Law.

In addition, a 100-day action plan was agreed upon by U.S. President Donald Trump and China’s 

President Xi Jinping during their May 11, 2017, meeting. This plan called for the co-chairmen, which 

include U.S. Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and China’s 

Vice Premier Wang Yang, to jointly address and resolve several outstanding agricultural trade, financial 

services, investment, and energy related issues.594 According to the 100-day action plan, there were

several notable results: (1) China agreed to take steps to reopen its market to U.S. beef on conditions 

consistent with international food safety and animal health standards; (2) China agreed to allow wholly 

foreign-owned financial institutions from the United States to provide credit-rating services in the 

Chinese market by July 2017; (3) both sides agreed to resolve outstanding issues to allow U.S. imports of 

cooked poultry from China; and (4) the United States agreed to allow its liquefied natural gas exports to 

China in volumes comparable to other trade partners with which the United States has no free trade 

agreement (FTA).595

 592 WTO, “Chronological List of Dispute Settlement Cases” (accessed April 8, 2018). 593 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS519; China―Subsidies to Producers of Primary Aluminum” (accessed April 8, 

2018). Primary aluminum is aluminum that has been smelted from ore rather than recycled from scrap. 594 U.S. Treasury Department, “Joint Press Release: Initial Results of the 100-Day Action Plan of the U.S.-China 

Comprehensive Economic Dialogue,” April 2017. 595 USDOC, “Joint Release: Initial Results of the 100-Day Action Plan of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic 

Dialogue,” May 11, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

160 | www.usitc.gov

Intellectual Property Rights

The United States and China have long held consultations on IPRs, technology transfer, and innovationrelated issues, particularly since China’s WTO accession and its acceptance of the WTO Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.596 China has undertaken substantive legal and 

judicial reforms since 2001 aimed at protecting IPRs of domestic and foreign entities, in accordance with 

TRIPS.597 However, USTR continued to find China’s 2017 IPR protection and enforcement regime to be 

insufficient in many regards.598 USTR has also recommended that the Chinese government expand its 

efforts to combat the scope and scale of IPR infringement in online and physical marketplaces, including 

areas such as Beijing’s Silk Market and Hongqiao Market, and numerous locations in Guangdong 

Province.599 Given the scope and scale of its reported IPR infringement activities, China remained on 

USTR’s Priority Watch List in its 2017 Special 301 Report.

In its 2017 Special 301 Report, USTR described recent IPR-related policy developments in China as well 

as ongoing IPR-related problems. The report noted some positive developments in 2017, including (1) 

high-level government statements and official goals aimed at developing a culture of innovation through 

strengthened intellectual property (IP) laws; (2) incremental gains in IPR protection reported by U.S. 

rights holders in China; and (3) judicial system reforms. Examples of China’s 2017 judicial system reforms 

included the expansion of four new specialized IP courts and the establishment of the Beijing IP Court as 

the base for the Supreme People’s Court’s research on case guidance and precedent.600

Despite these positive developments in 2017, issues remain regarding China’s progress in protecting the 

IPRs of foreign rights holders. According to the 2017 Special 301 Report, the volume of counterfeited 

products manufactured, sold, and exported from China continued to be a major concern for U.S. 

businesses and posed health and safety risks to purchasers. Moreover, difficulties associated with badfaith trademark registrations in China, and the lack of unified legislation on trade secret protection, 

continued to be problematic in 2017. According to USTR, industry has continued to identify trade secret 

misappropriation as one of their greatest concerns about operating in China. 601

Technology Transfers

In 2017, USTR also expressed concern about requirements and pressures faced by U.S. firms to transfer 

their technology to Chinese entities in exchange for market access.602 Such practices have reportedly 

affected U.S. IP holders in a number of sectors, including information and communications technology, 

 596 For information about the estimated effect of China’s IPR infringement on the U.S. economy, see USITC, China: 

Intellectual Property Infringement, Indigenous Innovation Policies, and Frameworks for Measuring the Effects on 

the U.S. Economy, November 2010, and USITC, China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous 

Innovation Policies on the U.S. Economy, May 2011. 597 USTR, 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 16. 598 Ibid. 599 USTR, 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets,” January 2018. 600 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, 2017, 29-30. 601 Ibid., 30. 602 Ibid., 29.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 161

medical device, biotechnology, semiconductor, new energy vehicles, aviation, and high-tech 

equipment.603

On August 14, 2017, President Trump instructed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to 

investigate whether China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions may be considered unreasonable or 

discriminatory, or may be harming U.S. IPRs, innovation, and technical development.604 Three days later, 

USTR Lighthizer, upon consultation with U.S. governmental and private sector advisory committees, 

launched an investigation of China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.605 This part of the Trade 

Act of 1974 gives USTR authority to respond to a foreign country’s allegedly unfair trade practices. In the 

event of an affirmative determination on the allegations of wrongdoing, USTR has the authority to take 

“all appropriate and feasible action to obtain the elimination of the act, policy, or practice, subject to the 

direction of the President.”606 The results of USTR’s Section 301 Investigation were released in March 

2018.607

Cybersecurity Law

In 2017, China implemented a Cybersecurity Law drafted by the Standing Committee of the National 

People’s Congress in 2016.608 According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 

this law will tighten government control over information flows and technology products.609 Before 

China’s new Cybersecurity Law went into effect, U.S. technology companies expressed concern about 

being compelled to disclose trade secrets to Chinese authorities.610 Now that legislation has been 

implemented, U.S. stakeholders continue to express concern, stating that ambiguities in the law may be 

used to pressure them to disclose information about their most critical technologies. Examples of their 

most critical technologies that they believe may be susceptible to disclosure include source codes, 

design databases, behavioral and logic models, and floor plans of central processing units.611

China committed to keeping its Cybersecurity Law consistent with WTO agreements in 2016.612 At that 

time, it stated that this law would not impose nationality-based conditions or restrictions on business’s 

 603 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, 2017, 29. 604 See “Addressing China's Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to Intellectual Property, Innovation, and 

Technology,” 82 Fed. Reg. 39007 (August 17, 2017). For more information on this case, see chapter 2. 605 USTR, Findings of the Investigation Into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, 

March 22, 2018.

606 USTR, “USTR Announces Initiation of Section 301 Investigation of China,” August 2017. 607 In its Section 301 report, which was released in March 2018, USTR found that the Chinese government used 

foreign ownership restrictions, such as joint-venture requirements and other foreign restrictions, to pressure or 

force technology transfer from U.S. companies operating in China. These ownership restrictions prohibited foreign 

investors from operating in select industries in China unless they partnered with Chinese companies. In some 

cases, these partnerships had to ensure that the Chinese partnering entities was the controlling shareholder. USTR 

also found that the Chinese government used administrative licensing procedures and approval processes to force 

technology transfers in exchange for administrative approvals needed to operate businesses in China. See USTR, 

Findings of the Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, March 22, 

2018, 19.

608 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 93-94. 609 USCC, Economics and Trade Bulletin, December 6, 2016. 610 Ibid. 611 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report, April 2017, 43. 612 USTR, 2016 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 11.
The Year in Trade 2017

162 | www.usitc.gov

purchase, sale, or use of information and communications technology products.613 USTR, however, has 

remained critical of the law, stating that the cybersecurity-related restrictions on U.S. and foreign high 

technology products and services are ultimately aimed at displacing foreign firms from the Chinese 

market.614

Standards

As in years past, U.S.-China engagement in 2017 included standards as part of the bilateral dialogue. As 

part of its reforms in this area, Chinese authorities allowed greater foreign participation in its technical 

committees on related matters and also published a draft version of a Standardization Law in September 

2017.615 USTR expressed concern about the draft law, noting that it would introduce preferences for 

Chinese technologies in standards development in line with the government’s longer-term efforts to 

leverage the power of the large Chinese market to promote or compel the adoption of Chinese 

standards in global markets.616 Despite such concerns, China’s September 2017 draft Standardization 

Law was finalized in November 2017 and put into effect in January 2018.617

With respect to technical standards committees, some progress was made as U.S. and other foreign 

firms have been increasingly allowed to participate in standards development and setting in China.618

This greater participation has reportedly included voting in working groups on specific standards 

development processes.619

Canada

U.S.-Canada Trade

For the third year in a row, Canada was the second-largest U.S. single-country trading partner in 2017 

after China, having fallen from the top position it held in 2014 and previous years. Nonetheless, the 

value of U.S. merchandise trade with Canada rose 7.0 percent in 2017 to $582.4 billion, accounting for 

15.0 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world—a share unchanged from 2016. Both U.S.

merchandise exports and imports with Canada increased in 2017 from the previous year, but imports 

outpaced exports, resulting in a $6.5 billion increase in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Canada 

to $17.5 billion (figure 6.5).

 613 USTR, 2016 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 11. 614 Ibid. 615 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 97. 616 USTR, 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 15. 617 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 97. 618 Ibid. 619 USTR, 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 15.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 163

Figure 6.5 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5. 

Figure 6.6 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Canada, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7. 

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
The Year in Trade 2017

164 | www.usitc.gov

In 2017, Canada was the United States’ largest single-country export market for goods, taking 18.3 

percent of U.S. merchandise exports. U.S. exports to Canada increased by 5.9 percent to $282.5 billion in 

2017. Leading U.S. exports to Canada included motor vehicles––vehicles both for passengers and for 

goods transport––as well as their parts and accessories; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; crude 

petroleum; and light oils.

In 2017, Canada remained the third-largest single-country import source for the United States, after 

China and Mexico. U.S. imports from Canada were $300.0 billion in 2017, up 8.0 percent from $277.8 

billion in 2016. Energy-related products and transportation equipment accounted for nearly half of U.S. 

imports from Canada. Leading U.S. imports were crude petroleum, passenger motor vehicles, natural 

gas, coniferous wood and products, and refined petroleum products. U.S.-Canada merchandise trade 

data are shown in appendix tables A.35 through A.38.

Canada remained the second-largest single-country U.S. trading partner in services in 2017. It reached 

$90.8 billion in two-way cross-border trade in services, ranked only behind the UK at $121.6 billion. U.S. 

two-way trade in services with Canada grew 9.1 percent in 2017, accounting for 7.1 percent of total U.S. 

services trade with the world. U.S. exports of services to Canada increased 8.9 percent ($4.8 billion) to 

$58.3 billion in 2017, whereas U.S. services imports from Canada—while only about half the value of 

U.S. services exports to Canada—also increased significantly in 2017, by 9.5 percent ($2.8 billion) to 

$32.5 billion. Overall, the U.S. cross-border trade surplus in services with Canada grew in 2017 to $25.8 

billion. While the surplus was up from $23.8 billion in 2016, it was still below its recent peak (2013) of 

$31.9 billion (figure 6.6).

Trade Developments

Much of the U.S.-Canada trade relationship is governed by the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA). On May 18, 2017, the U.S. Administration notified Congress of its intent to renegotiate 

NAFTA’s terms so as to modernize and rebalance its provisions. Five negotiating rounds were held by 

yearend 2017.620

In other developments, several U.S. trade remedy cases involving Canada were active in 2017. In 

addition, the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council continued to meet in 2017 to 

address regulatory issues that hinder cross-border trade and investment.

Softwood Lumber

The United States and Canada signed the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) on October 12, 2006. In it, 

Canada agreed to apply certain export measures—notably export charges and volume limits—on its 

exports of softwood lumber to the United States when the price of such products fell below a certain 

level.621

 620 See chapter 5 for more details on the NAFTA renegotiation. 621 USITC, Softwood Lumber Products from Canada––Investigation Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Final), 

December 2017, I–12.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 165

The 2006 SLA had a term originally of seven years; in 2013, however, the two countries agreed to take 

advantage of an option to extend the agreement for an additional two years.622 After nine years, 

though, the 2006 SLA officially expired on October 12, 2015, although the agreement contained a oneyear grace period (“standstill” clause) to allow renegotiation of a new agreement. During the grace 

period, the U.S. lumber industry was not allowed to petition for any trade remedy investigation.623

Absent a new agreement following the one-year standstill period, on November 25, 2016, the U.S. 

lumber industry petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) and the Commission to initiate 

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of certain softwood lumber products 

from Canada.624

On November 8, 2017, USDOC published its final determination on antidumping and countervailing 

duties on U.S. imports of softwood lumber from Canada.625 Subsequently, on December 7, 2017, the 

Commission voted unanimously that imports of softwood lumber from Canada had caused material 

injury to U.S. softwood lumber producers.626

On January 3, 2018, USDOC issued its amended final affirmative determinations for antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations concerning certain softwood lumber products from Canada.627 The 

amended antidumping duty rates published on four companies ranged between 3.20 percent and 7.28 

percent, as well as an “all others” rate of 6.04 percent. The published amended countervailing duty rates 

on four companies ranged from 3.34 percent to 17.99 percent, with an “all others” rate of 14.19 

percent.628

In response to these cases, on November 14, 2017, Canada requested establishment of a panel under 

NAFTA to review the softwood lumber duties issued in the case,629 and initiated WTO dispute settlement 

consultations with the United States on November 28, 2017.630

Aircraft

In May 2005, the government of Canada first announced its support for research and development into 

a family of larger commercial aircraft––the Bombardier's C-series––with a C$350 million repayable 

contribution (US$275.2 million). The government signed contribution agreements with Bombardier in 

2008. During this time, the government of Quebec contributed C$117 million (US$89.7 million) and the 

UK government contributed £123 million (US$228.1 million) to the C-series project.

631

 622 USITC, Softwood Lumber Products from Canada––Investigation Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Final), 

December 2017, I–12. 623 Ibid., 25. 624 CRS, Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Current Issues, April 12, 2018, ii. 625 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 22. 626 CRS, Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Current Issues, April 12, 2018, ii. 627 83 Fed. Reg. 347 (January 3, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 350 (January 3, 2018). 628 Ibid. 629 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 22–23; CRS, Softwood Lumber Imports 

from Canada: Current Issues, April 12, 2018, 14. 630 WTO, “Canada initiates WTO dispute proceedings on US softwood lumber duties,” November 30, 2017. 631 Government of Canada, “Bombardier Contribution,” Backgrounder, February 7, 2017; USTR, 2018 National 

Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2018, 83.
The Year in Trade 2017

166 | www.usitc.gov

On February 7, 2017, the government of Canada announced it was making additional repayable program 

contributions of C$372.5 million (US$284 million) to Bombardier. These contributions support the 

development of the Global 7000 business aircraft through Canada’s Strategic Aerospace and Defence 

Initiative (SADI) as well as the Bombardier C-series aircraft. The contributions will extend over four 

years, with the majority allocated to the Global 7000 project.632 SADI is a domestic support program for 

industrial research and pre-competitive development projects in the aerospace, defense, space, and 

security industries that are considered strategic.633

On April 27, 2017, the Boeing Company filed antidumping duty and countervailing duty petitions with 

the Commission and USDOC concerning imports of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft from Canada. 

Boeing alleged that imports of these aircraft from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, and that such imports are threatening material injury to the 

domestic aircraft industry in the United States.634 The USDOC made its preliminary determinations 

concerning these aircraft in fall 2017—on September 25 for countervailing duty subsidy rates and on 

October 4 for antidumping margins.635

On October 16, 2017, Airbus and Bombardier announced the signing of an agreement to become 

partners on the C-series aircraft program.636 Under the agreement, Airbus acquired a controlling interest 

of 50.01 percent in the C-series program, with Bombardier holding about a 31 percent interest and 

Quebec a 19 percent interest.637 As part of the agreement, Airbus is to provide its expertise in 

procurement, sales and marketing, and customer support.638

On December 18, 2017, USDOC issued its final determinations in the case, finding a dumping margin of 

79.82 percent and a subsidy rate of 212.39 percent regarding Bombardier. At yearend 2017, these duties 

had not entered into effect, pending a final injury determination by the Commission in early 2018.639

 632 Government of Canada, “Bombardier Contribution,” February 7, 2017. USTR reports that according to the 

February 2017 announcement, the contribution consisted of approximately US$187 million allocated to 

Bombardier’s Toronto-based Global 7000 project—making it one of the largest loans ever made with the SADI 

program—and approximately US$97 million in a repayable contribution for the Montreal-based Bombardier Cseries aircraft program. USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2018, 83. 633 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2018, 83. Subsequently, in 

February 2017, Brazil requested WTO consultations with Canada concerning Canadian federal and provincial 

subsidies to Bombardier, and a WTO dispute settlement panel was established on September 29, 2017. WTO, 

“Dispute Settlement: DS522; Canada—Measures Concerning Trade in Commercial Aircraft” (accessed March 29, 

2018). Embraer S.A. of Brazil designs, develops, manufactures, and sells aircraft and systems worldwide, some 

similar to the C-series line in development by Bombardier. Bloomberg, “Company Overview of Embraer S.A.,” May 

7, 2018.

634 82 Fed. Reg. 24296 (May 26, 2017). 635 USDOC, ITA, EAC, “Fact Sheet––Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of 100- to 150-Seat 

Large Civil Aircraft from Canada,” n.d. (accessed March 29, 2018). 636 Airbus, “Airbus and Bombardier Announce C Series Partnership,” October 16, 2017. 637 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2018, 83. 638 Ibid. 639 On January 26, 2018, the Commission determined that there was no injury or threat of injury to the U.S. 

industry in the case concerning large civil aircraft from Canada. As a result, no antidumping or countervailing duty 

orders were issued by USDOC. USITC, “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada,” January 26, 2018; 

USDOC, ITA, EAC, “Fact Sheet—Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports,” n.d. (accessed March 29, 

2018), 3.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 167

Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council

In 2011, Canada and the United States established the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation 

Council (RCC) to advance economic growth by deepening regulatory cooperation and reducing 

unnecessary regulatory differences while maintaining high health, safety, and environmental 

standards.640 The RCC Secretariat—involving the United States Office of Management and Budget and 

the Treasury Board of Canada—coordinates and monitors the Council’s work as well as provides a forum 

for industry, consumers, and nongovernmental organizations to discuss regulatory barriers and 

opportunities as stakeholders.

In 2016–17, the RCC developed 23 technical work plans that currently contain over 100 initiatives that 

bring together regulators from both U.S. and Canadian departments. These work plans cover issue areas 

addressing agriculture and food, transportation, health and personal care products, workplace 

chemicals, the environment, and various cross-sectoral issues. In 2017, U.S. and Canadian agencies 

worked together to publish these work plans, implementing many of the initiatives included in these 

agencies’ joint partnership statements.641

Mexico

U.S.-Mexico Trade

In 2017, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country merchandise trading partner, 

following China and Canada. Merchandise trade between the two countries increased 6.4 percent to 

$557.0 billion in 2017, accounting for 14.3 percent of U.S. trade with the world. While both imports and 

exports increased in 2017, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico rose by $6.7 billion to $71.1 

billion, since U.S. imports from Mexico increased more than U.S. exports (figure 6.7).

Mexico remained the United States’ second-largest single-country export market after Canada in 2017, 

accounting for 15.7 percent of total U.S. exports to the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico 

totaled $243.0 billion, an increase of 5.8 percent from 2016. In 2017, the leading U.S. exports to Mexico 

were light oils; computer parts and accessories; refined petroleum products; processors and controllers; 

and internal combustion diesel engines.

 640 USDOC, ITA, “U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council––United States and Canada Announce the 2016 

Annual Work Plans,” n.d. (accessed March 28, 2018); Government of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada 

Secretariat, “Learn More about Regulatory Cooperation,” February 21, 2018 (last modified). 641 USDOC, ITA, “RCC Partnership Statements and Work Plans,” n.d. (accessed May 7, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

168 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 6.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.

Figure 6.8 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Mexico, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 169

Mexico was the United States’ second-largest single-country import source in 2017 after China and 

accounted for 20.3 percent of U.S. total imports. In 2017, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico 

increased by 6.8 percent to $314.0 billion, driven mainly by the increased value of U.S. imports of 

transportation equipment. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included passenger motor vehicles, 

computers, motor vehicles for goods transport, crude petroleum, telecommunications equipment, and 

color TV reception apparatus. U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.39 

through A.42.

At the same time, the U.S. cross-border trade surplus in services with Mexico shrank 6.5 percent to $6.6 

billion in 2017, largely a result of increasing U.S. services imports from Mexico (figure 6.8). U.S. exports 

of services to Mexico increased 3.9 percent ($1.2 billion) to $32.8 billion in 2017 whereas U.S. services 

imports from Mexico increased 7.0 percent ($1.7 billion) to $26.2 billion. Mexico continued to be the 

United States’ sixth-largest single-country trading partner for services in 2017, after the UK, Canada, 

Japan, China, and Germany.

Trade Developments 

Most of the trade relations between Mexico and the United States are governed by NAFTA. On August 

16, 2017, negotiations between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to modernize NAFTA started in 

Washington, DC.642 Other major U.S.-Mexico trade developments in 2017, including work to improve 

U.S.-Mexico border crossings and recent results of NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions, are

described below.

Modern Borders

In 2017, the United States and Mexico continued to make progress on cross-border improvements. On 

April 20, 2017, officials of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Mexico’s Tax Administration 

Service (SAT) met in Mexico City to advance the development of customs practices for both the United 

States and Mexico.643 At the meeting, Mexico’s SAT and the CBP expressed their intent to enhance 

bilateral work in trade and travel facilitation; continue to cooperate on innovative approaches to cargo 

inspection for faster goods flow; improve the efficiency of their customs processes to manage risk and 

reduce processing times and transactional costs; promote better international standards, measures, and 

controls in order to enhance supply chain security; and keep working towards harmonizing data 

requirements to make cargo processing easier.644

On April 21, 2017, CBP Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleenan traveled to Mexico City with a 

Department of Homeland Security delegation to meet with Mexican officials. During their meetings, he 

praised the success of the Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot645 at the Mariposa port of entry in Nogales, 

642 Chapter 5 in this report describes major developments on the NAFTA negotiations. 643 USDHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “United States and Mexico Hold Official Meeting to Strengthen 

Economic Competitiveness and Security,” April 20, 2017. 644 Ibid. 645 The Unified Cargo Inspection program was announced in August 2016. USDHS, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. “U. S. Customs and Border Protection Announces Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot,” August 5, 2016.
The Year in Trade 2017

170 | www.usitc.gov

Arizona, for significantly reducing wait times for both U.S. and Mexican businesses.646 On August 17, 

2017, senior management from CBP and Mexico’s SAT, together with executives from Kansas City 

Southern, a transportation holding company, formally dedicated a railway processing building in Laredo, 

TX. Constructed by Kansas City Southern, the building enables Mexico customs officers to work 

collaboratively with CBP officers. According to the CBP, “The joint operations allow Mexico Customs to 

complete their outbound inspections and CBP to perform their inbound inspection processes 

simultaneously, eliminating unnecessary delays and duplication while maintaining security and 

facilitating lawful commerce.”647

In addition, on September 20, 2017, U.S. CBP together with Mexico’s SAT announced the piloting of their 

Unified Cargo Processing Program at the Otay Mesa Cargo Facility. The joint cargo inspections are aimed 

at ending separate inspections and reducing wait times at the border.648 These efforts add to earlier 

cross-border projects and facilities undertaken in previous years.649

Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico

Under the cross-border trucking commitments in Chapter 12 of NAFTA, Mexican trucks were allowed to 

provide cross-border truck services throughout the United States beginning in 2000. However, the 

implementation of these provisions was delayed because of U.S. safety concerns.650 To address these 

concerns, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) launched the U.S.-Mexico Cross-Border Long-Haul Trucking Pilot Program on October 14,

2011.651 The program successfully concluded on October 10, 2014.652 On January 15, 2015, the FMCSA 

began accepting applications from Mexico-domiciled motor carriers interested in conducting long-haul 

operations beyond the U.S. commercial zones.653

In 2017, reports from the FMCSA indicated that Mexican-owned or Mexico-domiciled motor carriers 

continued to operate more safely than U.S. carriers on U.S. roads. For instance, FMCSA data from 2017 

showed that roadside inspections of Mexican-owned or Mexico-domiciled carriers resulted in driver outof-service rates—that is, rates of violations serious enough to halt drivers’ trips immediately654—of 0.75 

 646 USDHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Readout of Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleeman’s Trip to 

Mexico City,” April 21, 2017. 647 USDHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “CBP, SAT/Aduana Mexico, Kansas City Southern Dedicate,” 

August 17, 2017.

648 USDHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “CBP Announces Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot Program,” 

September 20, 2017.

649 See the section on Mexico in USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 156. Also, infrastructure at the border is 

further discussed in USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, July 2016, 181. 650 Developments in cross-border truck services between the United States and Mexico are reported in USITC, The 

Year in Trade 2014, July 2015, 177. 651 76 Fed. Reg. 20807 (April 13, 2011). 652 USDOT, FMCSA, “United States-Mexico Cross-Border Long-Haul Trucking Pilot Program,” January 2015. Details 

of the program may be found in USITC, The Year in Trade 2016, July 2017, 156. 653 80 Fed. Reg. 2179 (January 10, 2015). The U.S. commercial zones refer to the 25-mile commercial zones along 

the southern U.S. border.

654 USDOT, FMCSA, “Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates (Mexican-Owned or Mexico-Domiciled Carriers),”2014–18 

(accessed April 13, 2018).
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 171

percent, compared with a rate of 5.08 percent for all motor carriers on U.S. highways.655 Those rates 

compare favorably with the 0.82 percent and 4.89 percent, respectively, in 2016.656

In March 2017, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters challenged the FMCSA’s statutory authority 

to issue permits for U.S. long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies, given that the 

FMCVSA’s inspector general had found that the 13 drivers used in the pilot program were too few to 

draw inferences about the safety of the entire population of Mexico-domiciled carriers expected to 

receive long-haul authority within the United States. In June 2017, a three-judge panel denied the 

petition on the grounds that the law did not mandate any particular threshold of statistical validity.657

Japan 

U.S.-Japan Trade

In 2017, Japan remained the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner in terms of twoway trade, accounting for 5.3 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. Specifically, U.S. merchandise 

trade with Japan increased 4.6 percent, from $195.3 billion in 2016 to $204.2 billion in 2017. At the 

same time, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Japan rose by just $38 million in 2017 to $68.8 

billion. The increase in the bilateral merchandise trade deficit was attributable to a $4.46 billion increase 

in U.S. exports to Japan, and a corresponding $4.49 billion increase in U.S. imports (figure 6.9).

Japan remained the fourth-largest destination for U.S. merchandise exports in 2017, accounting for 4.4 

percent of global U.S. exports. Between 2016 and 2017, U.S. exports to Japan increased 7.1 percent, 

from $63.2 billion in 2016 to $67.7 billion in 2017. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were civilian aircraft, 

engines, and parts; liquefied propane; corn; semiconductor manufacturing machines; and medicaments.

Japan remained the fourth-largest source of U.S. merchandise imports in 2017, accounting for 5.8 

percent of global U.S. imports. The value of U.S. imports from Japan increased 3.4 percent in 2017, from 

$132.0 billion in 2016 to $136.5 billion in 2017. Leading U.S. imports from Japan were passenger motor 

vehicles, parts for airplanes or helicopters, motor vehicle gearboxes, and parts for printers. U.S.-Japan 

merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.43–A.46.

In 2017, Japan was once again the United States’ third-largest single-country services trading partner, 

accounting for 5.8 percent of total U.S. two-way services trade. U.S. cross-border services exports to 

Japan increased by $1.9 billion, or 4.2 percent, to $45.4 billion in 2017, while U.S. cross-border services 

imports from Japan increased by $0.8 billion, or 3.0 percent, to $28.4 billion. As a result, the U.S. surplus 

in services trade with Japan grew to $17.1 billion from $16.0 billion the year before (figure 6.10).

655 USDOT, FMCSA, “Roadside Inspection Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates,” 2014-2018 (accessed April 13, 2018. 656 USDOT, FMCSA, “Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates (Mexican-Owned or Mexico-Domiciled Carriers),” 2014-2018 

(accessed April 13, 2018).

657 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 9th Circuit, Nos. 15-70754, 16-

71137 and 16-71992, June 29, 2017. 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/29/15-70754.pdf.
The Year in Trade 2017

172 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 6.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.

Figure 6.10 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Japan, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 173

Trade Developments

Economic dialogue between the United States and Japan in 2017 focused on a variety of trade issues, 

including agricultural trade developments and the efficiency of the Japanese regulatory review process 

for medical devices and pharmaceuticals. According to USTR, one of the Administration’s top trade 

policy goals was to resolve Japanese import barriers for U.S. lamb, beef, horticultural products, and 

processed foods.658

These topics were discussed in a variety of bilateral and international forums in 2017. In February, 

President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Abe agreed to hold regular bilateral discussions on traderelated matters, which came to be called the “U.S. -Japan Economic Dialogue.” 659 Given the U.S. 

withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, both leaders also agreed to explore how best to 

accomplish their shared objectives, both bilaterally and in light of Japan’s continuing efforts to advance 

progress on regional economic interests.660 In April 2017, Vice President Mike Pence and Deputy Prime 

Minister Taro Aso officially started the U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue in Tokyo and established “trade 

and investment issues” as one of its three principal pillars. (“Macroeconomic and financial policy” and 

“infrastructure and energy” cooperation were the other two pillars of the dialogue.)661

In October 2017, Vice President Pence and Deputy Prime Minister Aso met for a second U.S.-Japan 

Economic Dialogue round, where they agreed to lift Japanese import restrictions on potatoes from 

Idaho and to streamline Japanese noise and emissions testing procedures for U.S. automobile exports 

certified under Japan’s Preferential Handling Procedure system.662 In that meeting, Japan also agreed to 

increase transparency in its system for geographical indications and in its pharma-related 

reimbursement policies.663 In November 2017, President Trump and Prime Minister Abe met again, and 

reinforced their commitments to the bilateral trade negotiation process that had already begun.664

The United States and Japan worked together in a variety of international forums to address common 

trade issues. For example, at the WTO ministerial meeting in December 2017, the United States, Japan, 

and the EU strengthened their commitment to address overcapacity and other market-distorting 

practices of third countries. The United States and Japan also worked closely together in the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to advance common interests on such issues as digital trade.665

Agricultural Products

Japan remained an important market for U.S. agricultural exports in 2017. In that year, U.S. agricultural 

exports to Japan amounted to $12.0 billion, making Japan the fourth-largest single-country market for 

 658 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13. 659 White House, “Joint Statement from President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,” February 10, 

2017.

660 Ibid. 661 Center for Strategic Studies, “What to Expect from the U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue,” April 14, 2017. 662 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13. 663 White House, “Joint Statement from Vice President Mike Pence and Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso on the 

Second Round of the U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue,” October 16, 2017. 664 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13. 665 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

174 | www.usitc.gov

these goods. Bilateral agriculture trade negotiations focused on a variety of matters in 2017, including 

market access issues affecting U.S. rice, beef, and potato exports to Japan.666

In particular, U.S. officials identified some continuing market access issues connected with U.S. rice 

exports to Japan in 2017. For many years, USTR has considered Japan’s importation and distribution 

system for rice to be both highly regulated and nontransparent. This is largely due to the administration 

of Japan’s 682,200-metric-ton WTO tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on imported rice through a complex 

tendering system that is regulated by Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF). 

Following Japan’s September 2017 revisions of administrative rules governing the sale, transfer, and 

handover of imported rice under its official tendering system, the market access issues were once again 

brought to the forefront of negotiations. According to USTR, the implemented rule changes will prevent 

Japanese imported rice from being distributed at prices below a government-imposed threshold value. 

Despite the fact that Japan is the United States’ second-largest export market for rice, only a small share 

of U.S. exported rice that reaches Japanese consumers is labeled as U.S. rice.667

U.S. officials have also called attention to increased Japanese tariffs on frozen beef in 2017. Between 

April and June of that year, Japanese duties on frozen beef from the United States increased from 38.5 

percent to 50.0 percent ad valorem, following a Japanese safeguard action on this commodity.668 Since 

1995, Japan has maintained a safeguard on beef to protect its domestic industry from import surges. 

This safeguard is triggered when Japanese beef import volumes increase by more than 17 percent yearon-year from all trading partners as well as those from its non-FTA trading partners, including the United 

States. As both of these conditions were met in 2017, Japanese import tariffs increased to 50.0 percent. 

Nonetheless, in 2017, Japan remained the largest export market for U.S. beef and beef products on a 

value basis. In that year alone, the United States exported 303,762 metric tons of beef to Japan, or $1.9 

billion in value terms.669

In 2017, the Japanese government lifted a previously imposed ban on the importation of chipping 

potatoes from Idaho.670 Chipping potatoes are a particular type of potato whose skin can be easily 

rubbed off and whose low sugar content creates a gold coloration when fried (rendering them attractive 

to chip manufacturers). Japan stopped importing such potatoes from Idaho in 2006 after an outbreak of 

pests of the potato crops, called pale cyst nematode (PCN), was detected in the southeastern part of the 

state.671 According to the USDA, its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service worked closely with the 

U.S. potato industry and the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to eradicate PCN.672 As a result, as of 

September 15, 2017, Japan reopened the market to chipping potatoes from most Idaho counties (except 

Bingham and Bonneville, which remain under quarantine for PCN). The lifting of this restriction 

represents the resumption of these exports to Japan after 11 years. 

 666 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 13. 667 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 265. 668 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Statement of Secretary Perdue Regarding Japan’s Planned Increase,” July 

28, 2017.

669 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 266. 670 Ibid., 265. 671 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Japan Expands Market Access for U.S. Chipping Potatoes,” September 15, 

2017.

672 Ibid.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 175

The United States supplies Japan with the vast majority (98 percent) of its imported potatoes. While this 

will include chipping potatoes from Idaho beginning in the 2018 agricultural season, Japanese imports of 

this commodity will be allowed only for half the year (February to July). According to USTR, such potato 

exports are still subject to a number of conditions, including Japanese restrictions on overland 

transportation to chipping facilities away from ports.673

Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals

Japan is a major market for U.S. medical devices and pharmaceutical products. In 2017, the United 

States and Japan continued to address longstanding barriers to U.S. medical device and pharmaceutical 

exports to Japan. Some improvements have been made in the speed of Japan’s regulatory review 

process for medical devices and pharmaceuticals in recent years. For example, in 2017, the Japanese 

government initiated a “conditional early approval system” for medical devices and pharmaceuticals 

targeting incurable or other major diseases. With respect to medical devices, Japan has continued its 

efforts to track performance goals to speed up its regulatory approval period of medical devices, under 

its “New Collaborative Plan to Accelerated Review of Medical Devices” program.674

However, USTR has also encouraged Japan to improve its goals on this program by ensuring that qualityfocused audits are completed within standard review periods. With respect to pharmaceuticals, Japan 

has brought its approval periods within comparable U.S. and European norms (in some circumstances,

they are even faster). Nonetheless, USTR has continued to encourage Japan to harmonize its regulatory 

agencies’ efforts to international standards in clinical development, multiregional clinical trials, and risk 

management.675

Republic of Korea

U.S.-South Korea Trade

The Republic of Korea (South Korea) continued to be the United States’ sixth-largest single-country 

merchandise trading partner in 2017. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $119.4 billion, up from 

$112.2 billion in 2016. The share of U.S. trade with South Korea remained unchanged from previous 

years, at 3.1 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United States recorded a trade deficit of $22.9 

billion with South Korea in 2016, a 17.0 percent decrease from the $27.6 billion deficit in 2016, as U.S. 

exports to South Korea increased more than U.S. imports from South Korea (figure 6.11).

U.S. merchandise exports to South Korea were valued at $48.3 billion in 2017, increasing 14.1 percent 

($6.0 billion) from 2016. Leading U.S. exports to South Korea were machines for the manufacture of 

semiconductor devices or electronic integrated circuits, which jumped to $4.7 billion in 2017 from $1.9 

billion in 2016 (a 147.5 percent increase). As in previous years, other leading U.S. exports to South Korea 

included civilian aircraft, engines, and parts, as well as processors or controllers. For the first time, 

however, crude petroleum and liquefied propane were among the top U.S. exports to South Korea (see 

below). Although U.S. exports of passenger motor vehicles to South Korea declined slightly to $1.5 

 673 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 265. 674 Ibid., 274. 675 Ibid.
The Year in Trade 2017

176 | www.usitc.gov

billion in 2017 from $1.6 billion in 2016, exports of all passenger motor vehicles combined are the 

United States’ fourth-largest export to South Korea.676 U.S. exports of beef to South Korea were the 

fifth-largest U.S. export to South Korea, with a total value of $1.2 billion in 2017, up 13.9 percent from 

$1.1 billion in 2016.677 South Korea is the second-largest export market for U.S. beef, after Japan, 

accounting for approximately 16.9 percent of U.S. exports of beef.678

U.S. merchandise imports from South Korea totaled $71.2 billion in 2017, increasing 1.8 percent ($1.3 

billion) from 2016. U.S. imports of passenger motor vehicles, the top import from South Korea, declined 

to $14.3 billion in 2017, down $1.8 billion (11.0 percent) from 2016.679 Other top U.S. imports from 

South Korea included cellphones, computer parts and accessories, refined petroleum products, and 

microchips. U.S.-South Korea merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.47 through A.50.

In 2017, South Korea became the United States’ 9th-largest single-country services trading partner in 

terms of two-way trade, up from 10th-largest in 2016. U.S. cross-border services exports to South Korea 

increased 10.0 percent in 2017 to reach a new high of $22.8 billion. U.S. cross-border services imports 

from South Korea also increased in 2017, by 7.2 percent, to reach $9.4 billion. Because U.S. services 

exports increased more than U.S. services imports, the U.S. services trade surplus with South Korea 

increased from $12.0 billion in 2016 to $13.4 billion in 2017, an increase of 12.0 percent (figure 6.12).

 676 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018). Passenger motor vehicles includes the following HTS 6-digit 

lines: 8703.21, 8703.22, 8703.23, 8703.24, 8703.31, 8703.32, 8703.33, 8703.90, 8704.21, and 8704.31.

677 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 18, 2018). Total beef exports consist of fresh, frozen, and prepared beef 

and beef products and includes the following HTS 6-digit lines: 0201.10, 0201.20, 0201.30, 0202.10, 0202.20, 

0202.30, 0206.10, 0206.21, 0206.22, 0206.29, 0210.20, and 1602.50.

678 When measured by value; by volume, South Korea is the third-largest export market for U.S. beef. USITC 

DataWeb/USDOC (accessed May 2, 2018).

679 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018). Passenger motor vehicles includes the following HTS 6-digit 

lines: 8703.21, 8703.22, 8703.23, 8703.24, 8703.31, 8703.32, 8703.33, 8703.90, 8704.21, and 8704.31.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 177

Figure 6.11 U.S. merchandise trade with South Korea, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5. 

Figure 6.12 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with South Korea, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7. 

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
The Year in Trade 2017

178 | www.usitc.gov

Trade Developments

In 2017, U.S. trade relations with South Korea occurred within the framework of the U.S.-Korea Free 

Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA or KORUS), as discussed below and in chapter 5. In June 2017, President 

Trump hosted President Moon Jae-in in Washington, DC, and in November 2017, President Trump 

traveled to South Korea for his third bilateral meeting with President Moon.680 Other trade 

developments included the WTO dispute regarding U.S. antidumping measures on certain oil country 

tubular goods from South Korea, in which the panel report was circulated on November 14, 2017.681 In 

the dispute regarding U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures on large residential washers 

from South Korea, the award of the arbitrator was circulated on April 13, 2017.682

U.S-Korea FTA

In 2017, the sixth round of tariff reductions under KORUS was implemented.683 As outlined in KORUS, as 

of March 2017, U.S. law firms are allowed to form joint-venture law firms in South Korea and employ 

Korean-licensed lawyers.684 Also as of March 2017, U.S. accounting firms are allowed to purchase less 

than a 50 percent share of Korean accounting firms.

On July 12, 2017, USTR Lighthizer formally notified South Korea that the United States was calling for a 

special session of the KORUS Joint Committee to discuss possible amendments and modifications to 

KORUS.685 This special session, which was held on August 22, 2017, in South Korea, was the first special 

session held under KORUS.686 The first special session was a daylong meeting that was attended by USTR 

Lighthizer via teleconference.687 The second special session took place on October 4, 2017, in 

Washington, DC, and was co-chaired by Ambassador Lighthizer and Korean Trade Minister Hyun-chong 

Kim.688 Following that meeting, Korea began the procedures required to begin discussions to amend the 

agreement.689 These procedures were completed in December 2017, when it was announced that 

 680 White House, “Joint Statement between the United States and the Republic of Korea,” June 30, 2017; White 

House, “Joint Press Release by the United States of America and the Republic of Korea,” November 8, 2017. 681 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS488; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Korea” (accessed April 9, 2018). For more information, see chapter 3. 682 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large 

Residential Washers from Korea” (accessed April 9, 2018). For more information, see chapter 3. 683 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 293. 684 Ibid., 299. 685 USTR, “USTR Calls a Special Session Under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” July 12, 2017; USTR, Letter 

from Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer to Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Dr. Joo Hunghwan, July 12, 2017. 686 Inside U.S. Trade, “USTR to Request First-Ever KORUS Joint Committee Special Session,” July 3, 2017. 687 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Special Session of the U.S.-Korea FTA Joint 

Committee,” August 22, 2017. 688 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Second Special Session of the U.S.-Korea FTA Joint 

Committee,” October 4, 2017. 689 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 6.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 179

negotiations on amendments and modifications to KORUS would begin on January 5, 2018.690 For more 

information, please see chapter 5.

Oil-related Exports

In 2017, U.S. exports of oil and gas products increased significantly, with South Korea becoming a major 

importer of these products. U.S. exports of crude petroleum to South Korea became the United States’ 

fourth-largest export to South Korea, reaching $1.1 billion in 2017, up from $181 million in 2016. At the 

same time, South Korea became the fifth-largest importer of U.S. crude petroleum—after Canada, 

China, the UK, and the Netherlands—purchasing 5.1 percent of these U.S. exports. Liquefied propane 

exports to South Korea have also increased steadily in recent years, rising from $227 million in 2015, to 

$556 million in 2016 and reaching $947 million in 2017 to become the fifth-largest U.S. export to South 

Korea. South Korea has become the fourth-largest importer of U.S. liquefied propane—after Japan, 

Mexico, and China—purchasing 7.8 percent of these U.S. exports. Additionally, U.S. exports of natural 

gas to South Korea reached $596 million in 2017, up from $22 million in 2016. South Korea became the

second-largest importer of U.S. liquefied natural gas after Mexico, purchasing 17.2 percent of total U.S. 

exports.691

The increase in U.S. exports of these products to South Korea in 2017 resulted from a number of factors. 

These included a decline in output from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 

and Russia in 2017; South Korea’s lack of domestic production, leading to an ongoing demand for 

imports; the removal of U.S. restrictions on exports of crude petroleum; and favorable spot pricing for 

U.S. products relative to other suppliers.692 In addition, U.S. facilities for exporting these products have 

recently expanded or come online, allowing for an increase in U.S. exports to distant destinations.693

Finally, the government of South Korea has encouraged diversification of the oil supply, providing 

Korean firms with tax rebates on transport costs for purchases of crude produced outside of the Middle 

East.694

India

U.S.-India Trade

In 2017, India was the United States’ ninth-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way 

merchandise trade, a position it has maintained since 2016. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with India 

690 USTR, “United States, Korea to Hold Amendment Negotiations on KORUS FTA,” December 28, 2017. 

Negotiations occurred on January 5, 2018 and January 31–February 1, 2018, and an agreement in principle was 

announced on March 27, 2018. USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 6; USTR, 

2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 293. 691 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 28, 2018) 692 Friedman and Kenneally, “U.S. Crude Petroleum Exports Expand to Asia,” January 2018; EIA, “U.S. Liquefied 

Natural Exports Quadrupled in 2017,” March 27, 2018. For more information on changes affecting U.S. oil exports, 

see chapter 1.

693 EIA, “U.S. Crude Oil Exports Increased and Reached More Destinations,” March 15, 2018; EIA, “U.S. Liquefied 

Natural Gas Exports Have Increased,” December 7, 2017. 694 S&P Global Platts, “APPEC Analysis: South Korea Aims to Reduce Dependence,” September 27, 2017; WTO, 

“Trade Policy Review: Republic of Korea,” September 6, 2016, 63.
The Year in Trade 2017

180 | www.usitc.gov

increased by 9.8 percent to $74.3 billion in 2017. At the same time, India’s share of total U.S. 

merchandise trade with the world for 2017 was the same as 2016—1.9 percent. U.S. exports to India 

rose significantly in 2017, shrinking the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with India by 5.9 percent to $22.9 

billion in 2017 (figure 6.13).

U.S. merchandise exports to India increased 18.7 percent from $21.7 billion in 2016 to $25.7 billion in 

2017. Leading U.S. exports to India in 2017 were nonindustrial diamonds; nonmonetary gold; civilian 

aircraft, engines, and parts; bituminous coal; and almonds. While U.S. exports of nonindustrial diamonds 

(the leading U.S. export) decreased by $693 million (or 14.4 percent) in 2017, most other U.S. exports 

increased.

U.S. merchandise imports from India increased by 5.6 percent in 2017 to $48.6 billion. Leading U.S. 

imports from India in 2017 were nonindustrial diamonds,695 certain medicaments, frozen shrimp, light 

oils, and gold jewelry. U.S.-India merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.51 through 

A.54.

India is the United States’ seventh-largest single-country services trading partner, based on two-way 

cross-border services trade, with total services trade increasing 11.6 percent to $51.3 billion in 2017. 

India is one of only two of the top 20 services trading partners with which the United States had a 

services trade deficit in 2017 (the other was Italy).696 While this trade deficit decreased in 2015 and 

2016, it increased 5.3 percent to $5.8 billion in 2017 (figure 6.14).

 695 Because the United States and India are both major centers for the global trade of cut or faceted diamonds, 

diamonds lead U.S.-India trade for both U.S. imports and exports. 696 Although disaggregated 2017 data are not available, 2016 data indicate that over half of U.S. services imports 

from India were computer services. For more information on services trade with India, see chapter 1.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 181

Figure 6.13 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5. 

Figure 6.14 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with India, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
The Year in Trade 2017

182 | www.usitc.gov

Trade Developments

There were several active WTO dispute settlement proceedings involving the United States and India in 

2017. In March 2017, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel in response to a request 

from India in a case alleging imposition of domestic-content requirements in the renewable energy 

sector by several U.S. states.697 In May, the DSB established a compliance panel in response to a request 

by India in a case concerning prohibitions by India on the importation of various U.S. agricultural 

products because of concerns related to avian influenza. India claims that it has complied with DSB 

rulings following arbitration proceedings in 2016.698 In December, in a case regarding certain measures 

that India has taken relating to solar cells and solar modules, the United States requested authorization 

to suspend concessions or obligations with respect to India, arguing that India failed to comply with the 

DSB’s rulings and recommendations issued in 2016.699 For more information on WTO dispute settlement 

cases, see chapter 3.

In 2017, the United States and India continued dialogue on improving bilateral trade and investment, 

including the protection of IPRs and manufactured goods exports. These are discussed in detail below.

India and U.S. Trade Policy Forum

On October 26, 2017, USTR Robert Lighthizer, and India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry, Sri Suresh 

Prabhu, met in Washington, DC for the 11th ministerial-level meeting of the India and United States 

Trade Policy Forum (TPF). This meeting covered several topics, including non-science-based barriers on 

agricultural trade, regulatory and technical barriers to trade in technology and other products, market 

access for services, barriers to U.S. exports of manufactured goods (including medical devices), high 

tariffs in certain industrial and agricultural sectors, and IPRs.700 Regarding digital trade, the United States 

expressed concern over India’s data localization requirements.701 According to USTR, the TPF “yielded 

limited progress” on U.S. areas of concern.702

Intellectual Property

India remained on USTR’s Priority Watch List in the 2017 Special 301 Report due to continuing concerns 

regarding weak protection and enforcement of IPRs.703 Of concern are patentability issues; inadequate 

trade secret protection; the production, domestic distribution, and export of counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals; and digital piracy. Patent issues that were noted as being particularly burdensome for 

U.S. firms include an opposition procedure that allows any third party to oppose a patent application, 

 697 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS510; United States—Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector,” 

(accessed March 23, 2018).

698 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS430; India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural 

Products,” (accessed March 23, 2018). 699 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS456; India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules,” 

(accessed March 23, 2018).

700 USTR, “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the U.S.-India Bilateral Trade Policy Forum,” October 2017. 701 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 64. 702 Ibid., 33. 703 India has been on USTR’s Priority Watch List or has been designated a priority foreign country since 1989.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 183

long wait times to receive patents, and onerous reporting requirements.704 The report also notes that 

products in the pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals sector are susceptible to the unfair 

commercial use of data generated during the market approval process that are supposed to be 

protected from disclosure.705

USTR’s 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets Report highlighted several markets of concern in 

India, including markets for counterfeit apparel and footwear, pirated media, and counterfeit and illegal 

pharmaceuticals.706

Taiwan 

U.S.-Taiwan Trade

In 2017, Taiwan became the United States’ 11th-largest single-country trading partner, dropping from its 

position as 10th largest in 2016. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with Taiwan grew 4.5 percent to $68.2 

billion in 2017 from $65.2 billion in 2016, continuing to account for 1.8 percent of total merchandise 

trade with the world. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan widened 26.7 percent to $16.7 

billion in 2017, as U.S. imports rose $3.2 billion while U.S. exports fell $0.3 billion (figure 6.15).

U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan decreased from $26.0 billion in 2016 to $25.8 billion in 2017, a 1.1 

percent fall. The top U.S. exports to Taiwan during the year were civilian aircraft, engines and parts; 

machines for semiconductor or integrated circuit manufacturing; processors or controllers; computer 

memories; and machines for semiconductor boules or wafer manufacturing. The top three U.S. exports 

all declined in 2017 and were primarily responsible for the overall decline in U.S. exports to Taiwan.

U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan increased from $39.2 billion in 2016 to $42.5 billion in 2017, an 

8.3 percent rise. The top U.S. imports from Taiwan in 2017 were microchips; telecommunications 

equipment; processors or controllers; computer parts and accessories; and portable computers and 

tablets. U.S.-Taiwan merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.55 through A.58.

From 2016 to 2017, total U.S.-Taiwan two-way services trade fell 8.8 percent from $18.9 billion to $17.2 

billion, accounting for 1.4 percent of all U.S. cross-border services trade in 2017. U.S. services exports to 

Taiwan fell by 18.4 percent to $9.2 billion, while imports rose 5.5 percent to $8.1 billion. These trends 

resulted in a sharp 68.6 percent decrease in the U.S. services trade surplus, from $3.6 billion in 2016 to 

$1.1 billion in 2017 (figure 6.16).

704 USTR, 2017 Special 301 Report to Congress, April 2017, 42. 705 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 42. 706 USTR, 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, January 2018.
The Year in Trade 2017

184 | www.usitc.gov

Figure 6.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2013–17

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 24, 2018).

Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.

Figure 6.16 U.S. cross-border trade in private services with Taiwan, 2013–17

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

Exports Imports Services trade balance
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 185

Trade Developments 

The primary forum for bilateral discussions on trade and investment issues is the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).707 In 2017, while there was no TIFA Council meeting, the U.S.-

Taiwan trade relationship continued under the TIFA framework as well as through congressional and 

department-level exchanges. The key issues under discussion were IPRs, market access for medical 

devices and pharmaceuticals, agriculture, investment issues, and technical barriers in industries such as 

chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.708

U.S.-Taiwan TIFA

The most recent bilateral TIFA meeting was in October 2016, where participants discussed IPRs, 

agriculture, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. In July 2017, under the auspices of the American 

Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States 

(TECRO), the two governments held follow-up meetings to the October 2016 TIFA meetings in order to 

assess progress that had been made on these issues.709

Also, during July 2017, the two sides held the Second Medical Devices Time-to-Market Dialogue and the 

Transparency and Procedural Fairness Dialogue.710 The first iterations of each of these two dialogues 

were held during the 2016 TIFA meetings.711

There are three primary issues under discussion in the Medical Devices Time-to-Market Dialogue 

involving product license approvals and pricing review mechanisms. First, the Taiwan Food and Drug 

Administration requires facilities that manufacture medical devices sold in Taiwan, regardless of their 

location, to reapply for registration every three years. While the renewal process can be expedited, the 

documentation required restricts the availability of this option for U.S. companies to only a fraction of 

U.S. manufacturers.712

Second, Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) causes delays in market availability 

for devices whose costs to the patient are not covered by them in full. NHIA must issue a self-pay code 

for these devices, which is only issued after a review of up to two months, which delays patient access 

to new U.S. devices.713

Finally, NHIA has also instituted ceilings on how much a patient can self-pay on high-end devices or new 

items. There is little methodological transparency in how the ceilings are set.714

The Transparency and Procedural Fairness Dialogue focuses on improving transparency and procedural 

fairness in trade and investment matters.715 For example, the United States seeks increased 

707 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 29. 708 Ibid., 30. 709 Ibid., 29. 710 Ibid. 711 USTR, “United States and Taiwan Hold Dialogue on Trade and Investment Priorities,” October 2016. 712 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 435. 713 Ibid. 714 Ibid. 715 USTR, “United States and Taiwan Hold Dialogue on Trade and Investment Priorities,” October 2016.
The Year in Trade 2017

186 | www.usitc.gov

transparency in Taiwan’s investment review process.716 Taiwan limits, and sometimes prohibits, 

investment in certain sectors, causing lengthy and redundant review processes.717

Intellectual Property Rights

IPRs remained a prominent issue during bilateral discussions in 2017. On February 22, 2017, AIT and 

TECRO signed a memorandum of understanding to combat IP infringement and trade fraud crimes.718

The memorandum of understanding will facilitate cooperation between national authorities from each 

country to investigate IPR violations and trade fraud and share best practices and information.719

The United States continues to share its views on amendments to Taiwan’s Copyright Act, which were 

approved by the Executive Yuan in October 2017 and are currently under review by the Legislative 

Yuan.720 Some of the key IPR issues with the Copyright Act that remain points of concern for the United 

States are digital copyright protection and enforcement, licensing, the role of collective management 

organizations, fair use exceptions, and the use of copyrighted teaching materials.721

Agriculture

Although Taiwan remains the seventh-largest export market for U.S. agricultural goods,722 the United 

States continues to see some of Taiwan’s agricultural policies as concerning.723 Taiwan notified the 

World Trade Organization of its intent to implement a maximum residue limit on ractopamine in U.S. 

pork and some beef products in 2007, but it has not yet implemented one.724 In the absence of a 

maximum residue limit, the subject U.S. pork and beef products cannot be imported into Taiwan.725

Taiwan also has barriers to U.S. beef offal products.726

Taiwan’s biennial Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission took place in September 2017, led by the deputy 

minister of agriculture for Taiwan.727 The mission included a signing ceremony for three letters of intent 

to buy nearly $3 billion in U.S. soybeans, wheat, and grains.728 Also in September 2017, U.S. 

 716 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 434. 717 Ibid. 718 American Institute in Taiwan. “AIT and TECRO Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Strengthen Intellectual 

Property Rights Enforcement Cooperation,” March 2017. 719 Ibid. 720 The Executive Yuan is the executive branch, led by the premier, and the Legislative Yuan is the legislature. See 

Republic of China (Taiwan), “Executive Yuan,” (accessed on April 5, 2018); USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 

2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 29; USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018. 721 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 433. 722 USDA, FAS, Global Agricultural Trade System Online (accessed March 14, 2018). 723 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 30. 724 Ibid.; USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 431. 725 USTR, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2018, 432. 726 USTR, 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report, March 2018, 30. 727 Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., “The 2017 Republic of China (Taiwan) 

Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission,” September 14, 2017. 728 Ibid.; Harper, Connolly, Diaz-Balart, and Sires, “Congressional Taiwan Caucus Co-Chairs Release Statement,” 

October 2017.
Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Major Trading Partners

U.S. International Trade Commission | 187

Congressman Steve Daines led a mission to Taiwan, where he met with President Tsai Ing-wen and 

Secretary General Joseph Wu regarding expanding export markets.729

729 Office of Senator Steve Daines, “Daines Returns from Security, Trade Mission to South Korea, Taiwan,” 

September 2017.
188 | www.usitc.gov
U.S. International Trade Commission | 189

Bibliography

Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg. “8th U.S.-EU Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Workshop, Wichita 

State University Innovation Campus, Wichita, Kansas, Thursday, October 19, 2017, Draft 

Agenda.” http://www.adduci.com/sites/default/files/INVITATION_AGENDA2017%20US-EU.pdf.

Agence France-Presse. “US Claims Victory in Food Trade Dispute with Indonesia over Import Restrictions 

on Meat, Fruits and Vegetables.” Coconuts Jakarta, November 10, 2017. 

https://coconuts.co/jakarta/news/us-claims-victory-indonesia-food-trade-dispute-importrestrictions-meat-fruits-vegetables/. 

Airbus S.A.S. “Airbus and Bombardier Announce C Series Partnership.” News release, October 16, 2017. 

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseriesagreement.html. 

American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). “AIT and TECRO Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Strengthen 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cooperation.” Press release, March 22, 2017. 

https://www.ait.org.tw/ait-tecro-sign-memorandum-understanding-strengthen-intellectualproperty-rights-enforcement-cooperation/. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). 2017 Leaders’ Declaration, November 11, 2017. 

https://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2017/2017_aelm. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). 2016 Committee on Trade and Investment Annual Report to 

Ministers, November 2017. https://www.apec.org/Publications/2017/11/CTI-Annual-Report2017. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “About APEC.” https://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC

(accessed March 19, 2018).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “APEC Initiative of Cooperation to Promote Internet 

Economy,” 2014. http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2014/MM/AMM/14_amm_jms_anxf.pdf. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Events: 2017.” https://www.apec.org/EventsCalendar?SelectedYear=2017&SelectedMonth=-1&SelectedGroup=all (accessed March 19, 

2018).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Facilitating Digital Trade for Inclusive Growth: Key Issues in 

Promoting Digital Trade in APEC, April 2017. 

https://www.apec.org/Publications/2017/04/Facilitating-Digital-Trade-for-Inclusive-GrowthKey-Issues-in-Promoting-Digital-Trade-in-APEC. 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “How APEC Operates.” https://www.apec.org/AboutUs/How-APEC-Operates (accessed March 19, 2018).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Member Economies.” https://www.apec.org/AboutUs/About-APEC/Member-Economies.aspx (accessed March 19, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

190 | www.usitc.gov

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Promoting E-Commerce to Globalize MSMEs, November 

2017. https://www.apec.org/Publications/2017/11/Promoting-E-commerce-to-GlobalizeMSMEs.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Updates by the Ad Hoc Steering Group on the Internet 

Economy to APEC Senior Officials,” August 27–28, 2016. 

http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2016/SOM/SOM3/16_som3_013.pdf.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Viet Nam 2017. “APEC 2017: Priorities.” 

https://www.apec2017.vn/ap17-c/page/priorities (accessed March 19, 2018).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Work Plan for Advancing “Facilitating Digital Trade for 

Inclusive Growth” As a Potential Next Generation Trade and Investment Issue, September 5–6, 

2015. http://mddb.apec.org/Documents/2015/SOM/SOM3/15_som3_021anx03.pdf.

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy).

“Factsheet—‘Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity,’” November 30, 2017.

https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/factsheet-global-forum-on-steel-excesscapacity.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. 

Castano Freeman, Ivan. “Haiti Garment Industry Says Union Wage Claims Unrealistic.” Just-style.com, 

August 3, 2017. https://www.just-style.com/analysis/haiti-garment-industry-says-union-wageclaims-unrealistic-update_id131327.aspx.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “24th Regular Session of the CEC Council and 

Meeting of the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC).” http://www.cec.org/news-andoutreach/events/24th-regular-session-cec-council-and-meeting-joint-public-advisorycommittee-jpac (accessed June 7, 2018).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “About Submission on Enforcement Matters.” 

http://www.cec.org/about-us/public-engagement-and-transparency/about-submissionsenforcement-matters (accessed April 5, 2018).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “About the CEC.” http://www.cec.org/aboutus/about-cec (accessed April 5, 2018).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “New Trilateral Environmental Initiatives Announced 

by Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).” http://www.cec.org/news-andoutreach/press-releases/new-trilateral-environmental-initiatives-announced-commissionenvironmental-cooperation-cec (accessed April 10, 2018).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “North American Agreement on Environmental 

Cooperation,” http://www.cec.org/about-us/NAAEC (accessed April 5, 2018).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Operational Plan 2017–2018, June 28, 2018. 

http://www.cec.org/about-us/operational-plans/operational-plan-17-18.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 191

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Submission on Enforcement Matters Compliance 

Tracker. “Active Submissions.” http://www4.cec.org/sem-tracker/tracker.html (accessed April 9, 

2018).

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Free Trade Agreements: Impact on U.S. Trade and Implications for 

U.S. Trade Policy, by William H. Cooper. CRS Report RL31356, February 26, 2014. 

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=key_workplac

e.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Overview of Labor Enforcement Issues in Free Trade Agreements, 

by Mary Jane Bolle. CRS Report RS22823, February 22, 2016. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22823.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Current Issues, by Katie 

Hoover and Ian F. Fergusson. CRS Report R42789, April 12, 2018. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42789.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, by Rachel F. Fefer. CRS 

Report RS20210, August 30, 2017. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20210.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers and the TAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2015, by Benjamin Collins. CRS Report R44153, September 14, 2016. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44153.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations: Overview and 

Issues for Congress, by Rachel F. Fefer. CRS Report R44354, January 3, 2017. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44354.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress, by 

Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Martin A. Weiss. CRS Report R43052, April 29, 2013. 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43052.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). U.S. Trade in Services: Trends and Policy Issues, by Rachel F. Fefer. 

CRS Report R43291, January 26, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43291.pdf.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners, by James K. 

Jackson. CRS Report R44044, April 23, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44044.pdf.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). “Persistence 

Pays Off––Singapore Authorities’ Successful Prosecutions Against Wildlife Crime Recognized by 

CITES Secretary-General Certificate of Commendation.” Press release, July 22, 2017. 

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/69/sum/E-SC69-SR.pdf.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Sixty-ninth 

Meeting of the Standing Committee; Summary Record. Geneva (Switzerland), 27 November–1 

December 2017. CITES, SC69 SR Rev. 1, December 12, 2017. 

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/69/sum/E-SC69-SR.pdf.
The Year in Trade 2017

192 | www.usitc.gov

Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). Economic Report of the President: Together with the Annual Report 

of the Council of Economic Advisors, February 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/ERP_2018_Final-FINAL.pdf. 

DR-CAFTA. See Tratado de Libre Comercio entre la República Dominicana, Centroamérica y Estados 

Unidos (DR-CAFTA).

EIA. See U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

European Commission (EC). “EU-US Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance.” Fact sheet, September 

22, 2017. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-3426_en.htm?locale=en.

European Commission (EC). “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: First Review Shows It Works but Implementation 

Can Be Improved.” Press release, October 18, 2017. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP17-3966_en.htm.

European Commission (EC). “First Annual Review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.” Fact sheet, October 18, 

2017. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-3967_en.htm.

European Commission (EC). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 

the First Annual Review of the Functioning of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. Staff working document 

SWD (2017) 344 Final, October 18, 2017. 

http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=47798.

European Commission (EC). “Solvency II Overview—Frequently Asked Questions.” Fact sheet, January 

12, 2015. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-3120_en.htm.

European Medicines Agency (EMA). “EU-US Mutual Recognition of Inspections of Medicines 

Manufacturers Enters Operational Phase.” Press release, October 31, 2017. 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2017/10/news

_detail_002842.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1.

Executive Office of the President. “Addressing China's Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to 

Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Technology.” Federal Register, August 14, 2017. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/17/2017-17528/addressing-chinas-lawspolicies-practices-and-actions-related-to-intellectual-property-innovation.

Federal Reserve System. “Foreign Exchange Rates—H.10,” n.d. 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H10 (accessed March 26, 

2018).

Federal Reserve System. “Foreign Exchange Rates—H.10: Historical Rates for the UK Pound*.” June 18, 

2018. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_uk.htm.

Federal Reserve System. “Real Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Broad,” n.d. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TWEXBPA (accessed March 30, 2018). 
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 193

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). “FTC Gives Final Approval to Settlements with Companies That Falsely 

Claimed Participation in Privacy Shield.” Press release, November 29, 2017. 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-gives-final-approval-settlementscompanies-falsely-claimed.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). “Statement of Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen on First 

Annual Review of EU-U.S.-Privacy Shield.” Press release, October 18, 2017. 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/10/statement-acting-ftc-chairmanmaureen-k-ohlhausen-first-annual.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “FDA takes Unprecedented Step toward More Efficient Global 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Inspections.” News release, October 31, 2017. 

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm583057.htm.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Mutual Recognition Promises New Framework for Pharmaceutical 

Inspections for United States and European Union.” News release, March 2, 2017. 

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm544357.htm.

Friedman, Diana, and Grace Kenneally. “U.S. Crude Petroleum Exports Expand to Asia.” Executive 

Briefings on Trade, U.S. International Trade Commission, January 2018. 

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/executive_briefings/us_crude_expor

ts_expand_to_asia_final.pdf.

GAO. See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Goodman, Matthew P., Michael J. Green, and Nicholas Szechenyi. “What to Expect from the U.S.-Japan 

Economic Dialogue.” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), April 14, 2017. 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-expect-us-japan-economic-dialogue.

Government of Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). “Australia-United States FTA: 

AUSFTA Joint Committee Meeting,” December 7, 2017. http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/inforce/ausfta/Pages/australia-united-states-fta.aspx.

Government of Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). “Trade in Services 

Agreement––News,” n.d. http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/trade-in-servicesagreement/news/Pages/news.aspx (accessed March 23, 2018).

Government of Burma (Myanmar). Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA). 

“U.S.-Myanmar TIFA Planning Meeting,” July 14, 2017. https://dica.gov.mm/en/news/usmyanmar-tifa-planning-meeting. 

Government of Canada. “Bombardier Contribution: Backgrounder.” Fact sheet, February 7, 2017. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economicdevelopment/news/2017/02/bombardier_contribution.html?_ga=2.244267526.2030191289.15

25301285-2310.
The Year in Trade 2017

194 | www.usitc.gov

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Round 

Seven of Negotiations on the Modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA).” News release, March 5, 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2018/03/address-by-the-minister-of-foreign-affairs-at-round-seven-ofnegotiations-on-the-modernization-of-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta.html.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Canada Requests WTO Consultations on U.S. Duties on 

Canadian Softwood Lumber.” Press release, November 28, 2017. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2017/11/canada_requests_wtoconsultationsonusdutiesagainstcanadiansoftwoo.ht

ml.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Statement by Canada on U.S. Duties on Canadian 

Softwood Lumber.” Press release, November 2, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2017/11/statement_by_canadaonusdutiesoncanadiansoftwoodlumber.html.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Statement by Canada on U.S. International Trade 

Commission Vote on Duties on Canadian Softwood Lumber.” Press release, December 7, 2017. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2017/12/statement_by_canadaonusinternationaltradecommissionvoteondutieso.h

tml.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs on Bombardier 

C Series Aircraft.” Press release, January 26, 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2018/01/statement_by_ministerofforeignaffairsonusinternationaltradecommi.htm

l.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Final 

U.S. Duties on Canadian Softwood Lumber.” Press release, January 3, 2018. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/globalaffairs/news/2018/01/statement_by_theministerofforeignaffairsonfinalusdutiesoncanadia.html.

Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada. “WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” modified 

December 14, 2016. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accordscommerciaux/topics-domaines/env/plurilateral.aspx?lang=eng.

Government of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS). “Learn More about Regulatory 

Cooperation––Canada’s Regulatory Cooperation Activities––Canada-U.S. Regulatory 

Cooperation Council,” modified February 21, 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-boardsecretariat/services/regulatory-cooperation/learn-about-regulatory-cooperation.html.

Government of Mexico. Secretaría de Economía (Ministry of the Economy). “Concluye la Sexta Ronda de 

Negociaciones para la Modernización del TLCAN.” [The sixth round of NAFTA negotiations 

concludes]. News release, January 29, 2018. https://www.gob.mx/se/prensa/concluye-la-sextaronda-de-negociaciones-para-la-modernizacion-del-tlcan.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 195

Government of Morocco. Ministry of Culture and Communication. Department of Communication. 

“Morocco-USA Joint Committee in Charge of Following Up FTA Meets in Washington.” News 

release, October 19, 2017. http://www.maroc.ma/en/news/morocco-usa-joint-committeecharge-following-fta-meets-washington.

Government of New Zealand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). “Trade in Services 

Agreement (TiSA).” https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreementsunder-negotiation/tisa/ (accessed March 23, 2018).

Government of South Korea. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE). “2nd Special Session of 

KORUS FTA Joint Committee Held in Washington, DC.” Press release, October 5, 2017. 

http://english.motie.go.kr/en/pc/pressreleases/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_seq_n=593&bbs_cd_n=2

¤tPage=41&search_key_n=&search_val_v=&cate_n.

Government of South Korea. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE). “Korea, U.S. Host 4th 

KORUS FTA Joint Committee Meeting in Seoul.” Press release, January 31, 2017. 

http://english.motie.go.kr/en/pc/pressreleases/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_cd_n=2&bbs_seq_n=494.

Government of South Korea. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE). “Korean, US Trade 

Ministers Meet in Washington, DC.” Press release, September 20, 2017. 

http://english.motie.go.kr/en/pc/pressreleases/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_cd_n=2&bbs_seq_n=586.

Government of South Korea. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE). “Letter from Minister of 

Trade, Industry and Energy Hyun Chong Kim to Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer.” September 21, 

2017. 

https://insidetrade.com/sites/insidetrade.com/files/documents/sep2017/wto09212017_KORUS

_FTA_Letter.pdf.

Harper, Gregg, Gerald E. Connolly, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires. “Congressional Taiwan Caucus Cochairs Release Statement on the 106th National Day of Taiwan.” Press release, October 3, 2017. 

https://harper.house.gov/congressional-taiwan-caucus-co-chairs-release-statement-on-the106th-national-day-of-taiwan/.

Hasselback, Drew. “IMF Predicts Canada Will Pass the U.S. to Top G7 Growth This Year.” Financial Post

(Toronto), July 24, 2017. http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-predictscanada-will-pass-the-u-s-to-top-g7-growth-this-year. 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). Advancing Multilateral Trade 

Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies. Policy brief, March 2018. 

https://www.ictsd.org/sites/default/files/event/fisheries_subsidies_negotiationsictsd_policy_brief_2018.pdf.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook, October 2017—Seeking Sustainable 

Growth: Short-Term Recovery, Long-Term Challenges, October 2017. 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/09/19/world-economic-outlookoctober-2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

196 | www.usitc.gov

International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook Update––Brighter Prospects, Optimistic 

Markets, Challenges Ahead, January 22, 2018. 

http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2018/Update/January/0118.ashx.

J.P. Morgan. “Dollar Declines as Global Growth Takes Off,” February 8, 2018. 

https://commercial.jpmorganchase.com/pages/commercial-banking/executive-connect/fxdollar-declines (accessed June 28, 2018).

Maghreb Times. “New Algeria-US Discussions on TIFA April 24 in Algiers,” April 20, 2017. 

https://themaghrebtimes.com/04/20/new-algeria-us-discussions-on-tifa-april-24-in-algiers/.

Mcfarlane, Cody. “Chile: Chilean Labour Reform Now In Force.” Harris Gómez Group newsletter in 

Mondaq, April 13, 2017. 

http://www.mondaq.com/x/585726/employee+rights+labour+relations/Chilean+Labour+Refor

m+Now+In+Force.

Morgan Stanley, “Gauging the U.S. Dollar Drop,” n.d. 

https://www.morganstanley.com/spc/knowledge/managing-wealth/research/gauging-the-u-sdollardrop/ (accessed June 28, 2018).

NAFTA Secretariat. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions.” https://www.nafta-secalena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions (accessed 

April 9, 2018).

NAFTA Secretariat. “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases.” https://www.naftasec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Status-Report-of-Panel-Proceedings (accessed April 9, 

2018).

North American Development Bank (NADB). “About Us: Origins.” 

http://www.nadbank.org/~nadborg/index.php?acc=contest&tpl=origins (accessed April 10, 

2018).

North American Development Bank (NADB). “Summary of Project Implementation Activities: Active 

Projects,” December 31, 2017. http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/ProjectMatrix.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “2017 Ministerial Council 

Statement—Making Globalisation Work: Better Lives for All,” June 8, 2017. 

http://www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/2017-ministerial-council-statement.htm.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Economic Outlook no. 102: Statistics 

and Projections, (Edition 2017/2). Paris, OECD: November 2017. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/economics/data/oecd-economic-outlook-statistics-and-projections/oecd-economicoutlook-no-102-edition-2017-2_05b705e7-en.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “List of OECD Member Countries—

Ratification of the Convention on the OECD,” n.d. (accessed February 28, 2018). 

http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 197

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Meeting of the OECD Council at 

Ministerial Level: Chair’s Statement,” June 8, 2017. http://www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/CMIM-2017-18-EN.pdf.

Organization of American States (OAS). Sistema de Información sobre Comercio Exterior/ Foreign Trade 

Information System (SICE) database. “Trade Policy Developments: Canada-Mexico-United States 

(NAFTA).” http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/NAFTA/NAFTA_e.ASP (accessed April 5, 2018).

Organization of American States (OAS). Sistema de Información sobre Comercio Exterior/ Foreign Trade 

Information System (SICE) database. “Sixth Meeting of the AUSFTA Joint Committee.” News 

release, December 7, 2017. 

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/USA_AUS/Implementation/Committee_December_2017_e.pdf.

Rogoff, Kenneth. “India’s Currency Exchange: Will Modi’s Plan Work?” World Economic Forum, 

November 22, 2016. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/indias-currency-exchangewill-modis-plan-work.

RSM International Association. “Approved Labor Reform Bill in the House of Representatives,” by 

Marcelo Sampaio and Leonardo Biar. News release, April 28, 2017. 

https://www.rsm.global/brazil/en/news/approved-labor-reform-bill-house-representatives.

S&P Global Platts. “APPEC Analysis: South Korea Aims to Reduce Dependence on Middle Eastern 

Crudes,” September 27, 2017. https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/singapore/appecanalysis-south-korea-aims-to-reduce-dependence-27875129.

Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol. Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol 2017 Year End Report, n.d. Copy 

supplied by Mark D’Sa Consulting Services, LLC (accessed February 20, 2018). 

Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S. “The 2017 Republic of China (Taiwan) 

Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission Signed Three Letters of Intent on Capitol Hill with U.S. 

Exporters for the Purchase of Grains with a Total Value Near US$ 3 Billion,” September 14, 2017. 

https://www.roc-taiwan.org/us_en/post/6467.html.

Tratado de Libre Comercio entre la República Dominicana, Centroamérica y Estados Unidos [DR-CAFTA]. 

Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales [Environmental Affairs Council]. “Undécima Reunión del 

Consejo de Asuntos Ambientales––San José, Costa Rica––Junio 21–22, 2017––Comunicado 

Conjunto.” [Eleventh Meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council—Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)—San José, Costa Rica—June

21–22, 2017—Joint Communiqué]. EAC Final, June 21, 2017. http://www.caftadrenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Comunicado-Conjunto-de-la-Und%C3%A9cimaReuni%C3%B3n-del-Consejo-de-Asuntos-Ambien.pdf.

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). “Economics and Trade Bulletin,” 

December 6, 2016. https://www.uscc.gov/Research/december-2016-trade-bulletin.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs). “CBP Announces Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot 

Program at the Otay Mesa Cargo Facility.” Press release, September 20, 2017. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/cbp-announces-unified-cargo-inspectionpilot-program-otay-mesa-cargo.
The Year in Trade 2017

198 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs). “CBP, SAT/Aduana Mexico, Kansas City Southern 

Dedicated Unified Rail Cargo Processing Facility.” Press release, August 17, 2017. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/cbp-sataduana-mexico-kansas-citysouthern-dedicate-unified-rail-cargo.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs). “Readout of Acting Commissioner Kevin 

McAleeman’s Trip to Mexico City.” Press release, April 21, 2017. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/speeches-and-statements/readout-acting-commissionerkevin-mcaleenan-s-trip-mexico-city.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs). “United States and Mexico Hold Official Meeting to 

Strengthen Economic Competitiveness and Security.” Press release, April 20, 2017. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/united-states-and-mexico-holdofficial-meeting-strengthen-economic-0.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (U.S. Customs). “U. S. Customs and Border Protection Announces 

Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot and Participates in Building Strong Border Communities Event 

with Government of Mexico.” Press release, August 5, 2016. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/speeches-and-statements/us-customs-and-border-protectionannounces-unified-cargo-inspection.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “South Korea Lifts U.S. Poultry Ban.” Press release, August 17, 

2017. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/08/17/south-korea-lifts-us-poultryban.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “USDA Announces Regionalization Agreement with South Korea 

to Help Protect U.S. Trade during HPAI Detections.” Press release, March 15, 2018. 

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/15/usda-announces-regionalizationagreement-south-korea-help-protect.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Fragile Trade—A Year in Egg 

Exports to Korea, by Amanda F. Hinkle. GAIN Report no. KS1809, March 9, 2018. 

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/south-korea-fragile-trade-year-egg-exports-korea.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “Japan Expands Market 

Access for U.S. Chipping Potatoes.” News release, September 15, 2017. 

https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/japan-expands-market-access-us-chipping-potatoes.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Morocco: US Common Wheat 

TRQ Fully Allocated in 2017. GAIN Report Number MO 1709, November 16, 2017. 

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/US%20Common%20Wheat%20TRQ

%20Fully%20Allocated%20in%202017_Rabat_Morocco_11-13-2017.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “Statement of Secretary 

Perdue Regarding Japan’s Planned Increase of Tariff on U.S. Beef.” Press release, July 28, 2017. 

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/07/28/statement-secretary-perdueregarding-japans-planned-increase-tariff.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 199

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “USDA, USTR Announce 

Expanded Access for U.S. Rice Exports to Colombia.” News release USDA 0084.17, August 17, 

2017. https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda-ustr-announce-expanded-access-us-riceexports-colombia. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade 

System Online (GATS). https://apps.fas.usda.gov/GATS/Default.aspx (accessed March 14, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Fact Sheet: Commerce Preliminarily Finds Dumping of Imports 

of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from China.” June 2018. 

https://enforcement.trade.gov/download/factsheets/factsheet-prc-common-alloy-aluminumsheet-ad-prelim-061818.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Joint Press Statement from Secretary Ross and Commissioner 

Jourova on the Privacy Shield Review.” Press release, September 20, 2017. 

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/09/joint-press-statement-secretaryross-and-commissioner-jourova-privacy. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Joint Release: Initial Results of the 100-Day Action Plan of the 

U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.” Press release, May 11, 2017.

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/05/joint-release-initial-results-100-dayaction-plan-us-china-comprehensive.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “New Agreement with the European Union Will Strengthen 

Partnerships Across Atlantic.” The Commerce Blog, April 23, 2015. 

https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2015/04/new-agreement-european-union-willstrengthen-partnerships-across-atlantic. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of 

Aluminum on U.S. National Security,” updated March 18, 2018. 

https://www.commerce.gov/page/section-232-investigation-effect-imports-aluminum-usnational-security.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The Effect of Imports of Aluminum on the National Security: An 

Investigation Conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended, 

January 17, 2018. 

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_aluminum_o

n_the_national_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180117.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security: An 

Investigation Conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended, 

January 11, 2018. 

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_steel_on_the

_national_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180111.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “U.S. Department of Commerce Self-Initiates Historic 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from 
The Year in Trade 2017

200 | www.usitc.gov

China,” Press release, November 28, 2017. https://www.commerce.gov/news/pressreleases/2017/11/us-department-commerce-self-initiates-historic-antidumping-and. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Welcomes Release of 

the European Commission’s Report on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.” Press release, October 18, 

2017. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/10/us-secretary-commercewilbur-ross-welcomes-release-european-commissions.

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

International Transactions Accounts.” Survey of Current Business 97, no. 7 (July 2017). 

https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2017/07%20July/0717_annual_update_of_international_transact

ions_accounts.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Contributions to Percent 

Change in Real Gross Domestic Product by Industry,” April 19, 2018. 

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a

&5102=13.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Gross Domestic Product: 

Fourth Quarter and Annual 2017 (Second Estimate).” News release, February 28, 2018. 

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2018/pdf/tech4q17_2nd.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Information on Goods and 

Services.” News release, February 6, 2018. 

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2018/info1217.htm.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Interactive data: 

International Transactions, Services, & International Investment Position (IIP), International 

Transactions, tables 1.2 and 1.3, U.S. International Trade in Services, March 21, 2018. 

https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed March 28, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Interactive data: 

International Transactions, Services, and International Investment Position (IIP), International 

Transactions, table 3.1, “U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018. 

https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed April 2, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Interactive data: table 2.3, 

U.S. Trade in Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type of Service, India, October 24, 2017. 

https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed March 28, 2018).

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

Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons, Form BE-125 

(September 2016). https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be125.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). Fiscal Year 2016 

Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, n.d. (accessed 

March 29, 2018). https://www.eda.gov/pdf/annual-reports/taaf/FY16-TAAF-Annual-Report-toCongress.pdf. 
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 201

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). “Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for Firms.” https://www.eda.gov/pdf/about/TAAF-Program-1-Pager.pdf

(accessed March 29, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “Subject: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada.” Investigation C-122-860, December 18, 2017.

https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/canada/2017-27875-1.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “U.S.-Canada 

Regulatory Cooperation Council––United States and Canada Announce the 2016 Annual Work 

Plans,” n.d. https://www.trade.gov/rcc/ (accessed March 28, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). Enforcement and 

Compliance. “Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large 

Civil Aircraft from Canada.” Fact sheet, n.d. 

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/fact_sheet_commerce_finds_dumping_

and_subsidization_of_imports_of_100-_to_150-seat_large_civil_aircraft_from_canada.pdf

(accessed March 29, 2018). 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Public Affairs (OPA). “Presidential Memorandum 

Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation.” Press release, April 20, 2017. 

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/04/presidential-memorandumprioritizes-commerce-steel-investigation. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Public Affairs (OPA). “U.S. Department of Commerce 

Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from 

Canada.” Press release, December 20, 2017. https://www.commerce.gov/news/pressreleases/2017/12/us-department-commerce-finds-dumping-and-subsidization-imports-100-150. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “Trade and 

Development Act of 2002: Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership for 

Encouragement Act (HAITI HOPE).” http://otexa.trade.gov/agoa-cbtpa/agoa-cbtpa.htm

(accessed February 12, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “U.S. General Imports 

by Country: Major Shippers Report.” http://otexa.trade.gov/msrcty/v2450.htm (accessed 

February 21, 2018).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “U.S. Imports under 

Trade Preference Programs.” http://otexa.trade.gov/agoa-cbtpa/catv0.htm (accessed February 

12, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). “Second Periodic Review of Progress to Address Issues Identified in 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Public Report of Review of Submission 2015-01 (Peru),” April 20, 

2018. 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/Peru%20FTA%20Submission%20Secon

d%20Review%20Statement%20Final.pdf. 
The Year in Trade 2017

202 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). “US Labor Department Report Identifies Labor Concerns In 

Colombia––Responds to Submission Filed under the US-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.” 

News release, January 11, 2017. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ilab/ilab20170111-0.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). “TAA Program 

Benefits and Services under the 2015 Amendments.” 

https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/2015_amend_benfits.cfm (accessed March 30, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Workers Program, Fiscal Year 2016, 2017. 

https://doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/AnnualReport16.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Report of the Study of Domestic Industry under Section 224 of the Trade Act of 1974: 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other 

Products), November 2017. https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/CSPV_Study.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Report of the Study of Domestic Industry under Section 224 of the Trade Act of 1974: 

Large Residential Washers, December 2017. 

https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/LRW_Study.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). “Submissions under the 

Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements,” n.d. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/ourwork/trade/fta-submissions (accessed April 26, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). U.S. National 

Administrative Office (NAO). “North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: A Guide.” 

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/naalcgd.htm (accessed April 5, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and 

Labor Affairs (OTLA). “North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation.” 

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/naalc.htm (accessed April 5, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and 

Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Submission under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: 

Currently under Review.” https://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/naalc.htm (accessed 

April 5, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and 

Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Submissions under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: 

U.S. Currently under Review.” https://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/naalc.htm (accessed 

April 5, 2018).

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “Eleventh Meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council––Dominican 

Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)––San José, Costa 

Rica––June 21–22, 2017––Joint Communiqué.” Jun 21 2017-EAC Final, June 21, 2017. 

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/275544.pdf.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 203

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “Joint Press Statement: U.S.-Philippines Bilateral Strategic Dialogue 

2017,” December 1, 2017. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/12/276161.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “United States-Jordan 2018–2021 Work Program for Environmental 

Technical Cooperation,” n.d. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/279492.pdf

(accessed April 6, 2018).

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB). “Outcomes of Current 

U.S. Trade Agreements,” n.d. https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tpn/bta/fta/c76143.htm (accessed 

April 6, 2018).

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR). “Framework for 

Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration between the United States of America and the 

European Union (EU),” April 30, 2007. https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/130772.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR). “Joint Statement 

from the 8th U.S.-EU SME Workshop in the Framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council,” 

October 19, 2017. https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rt/eu/tec/276419.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR). “Transatlantic 

Economic Council Facilitators’ Report to Stakeholders,” November 30, 2016. 

https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/265818.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs (OES). “2018–2019 Plan of Action for Environmental Cooperation under the U.S.-

Singapore Memorandum of Intent on Environmental Cooperation.” News release, January 19, 

2018. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/trade/singapore/278254.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs (OES). “Joint Communiqué of the United States-Bahrain Joint Forum on Environmental 

Cooperation and Free Trade Agreement Subcommittee on Environmental Affairs.” News release, 

March 7, 2018. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/trade/bahrain/280257.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs (OES). “Joint Communiqué of the United States-Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental 

Technical Cooperation.” News release, February 12, 2018. 

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/trade/jordan/279252.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs (OES). “Joint Communiqué for United States-Singapore 5th Biennial Review Meeting.” 

News release, January 19, 2018. 

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/trade/singapore/277677.htm.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Office of the Legal Adviser. International Claims and Investment 

Disputes (L/CID). “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of 

Canada.” https://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed April 10, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

204 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Office of the Legal Adviser. International Claims and Investment 

Disputes (L/CID). “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican 

States.” https://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed April 10, 2018).

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Office of the Legal Adviser. International Claims and Investment 

Disputes (L/CID). “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States of 

America.” https://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed April 10, 2018).

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). Chapter 

10 in “Submission of the United States of America re: Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc., and 

Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Claimants, and The Republic of Panama, Respondent.” ICSID 

Convention Case No. Arb/16/34, August 28, 2017.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). Chapter 

10 in “Supplemental Submission of the United States.” ICSID Convention Case No. Arb/16/34, 

September 25, 2017. https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocuments/italaw9341.pdf.

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Turkey. “U.S.-Turkey Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement,” October 2, 2017. https://tr.usembassy.gov/u-s-turkeytrade-investment-framework-agreement/. 

U.S. Department of State (USDOS). U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. “Joint Statement on the United StatesUkraine Trade and Investment Council,” October 5, 2017. https://ua.usembassy.gov/jointstatement-united-states-ukraine-trade-investment-council/. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

“Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates (Mexican-Owned or Mexico-Domiciled Carriers),” April 13, 2018. 

https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptMex.aspx?rpt=MXOOS.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

“Roadside Inspection Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates,” April 13, 2018. 

https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptRoadside.aspx?rpt=RDOOS.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

United States-Mexico Cross-Border Long-Haul Trucking Pilot Program: Report to Congress, 

January, 2015. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/US-Mexico%20CrossBorder%20LongHaul%20Trucking%20Pilot%20Program%20Report%20FINAL%20January%202015.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and 

the United States of America on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance 

[U.S.–EU Covered Agreement].” Fact sheet, January 18, 2017. 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/Covered-AgreementFact-Sheet-(011317)-FINAL.PDF.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Joint Press Release: Initial Results of the 100-Day 

Action Plan of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.” Press release, May 11, 2017. 

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0082.aspx.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 205

U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Joint Statement on the U.S.-EU Negotiations for a 

Bilateral Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance Measures.” Press release, January 13, 2017. 

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0706.aspx.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Statement of the United States on the Covered 

Agreement with the European Union,” September 22, 2017. 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-andnotices/Documents/US_Covered_Agreement_Policy_Statement_Issued_September_2017.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” March 2018. 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, Official 

Statistics, Summary Statistics database. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm

(accessed April 17, 2018).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Today in Energy: U.S. Crude Oil Exports Increased and 

Reached More Destinations in 2017,” March 15, 2018. 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35352.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Today in Energy: U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Have 

Increased as New Facilities Come Online,” December 7, 2017. 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34032.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Today in Energy: U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports 

Quadrupled in 2017,” March 27, 2018. 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35512.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Exports database. 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EP00_EEX_mbbl_a.htm (accessed April 17, 

2018).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Imports by Country of Origin database. 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm (accessed 

April 17, 2018).

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. https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650894.txt.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, 23nd Report 

2015–16. USITC Publication 4728. Washington, DC: USITC, September 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4728.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and 

Indigenous Innovation Policies on the U.S. Economy. USITC Publication 4226. Washington, DC: 

USITC, May 2011. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4226.pdf.
The Year in Trade 2017

206 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 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. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4199.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not 

Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products), Investigation No. TA-201-75. USITC Publication 

4739. Washington, DC: USITC, November 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/safeguards/pub4739-vol_i.pdf (volume 1) and 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/safeguards/pub4739-vol_ii.pdf (volume 2).

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). “Frequently Asked Questions.” Shifts in U.S. Merchandise 

Trade, 2016. USITC Publication 4723. Washington, DC: USITC, September 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/trade_shifts_2016/faqs.htm.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Global Digital Trade 1: Market Opportunities and Key 

Foreign Trade Restrictions. USITC Publication 4176. Washington, DC: USITC, August 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4716_0.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (DataWeb). Based on 

official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). http://dataweb.usitc.gov

(accessed various dates).

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Large Residential Washers, Investigation No. TA-201-76. 

USITC Publication 4745. Washington, DC: USITC, December 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/safeguards/pub4745.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Nepal: Advice Concerning Whether Certain Textile and 

Apparel Articles Are Import Sensitive. USITC Publication 4640. Washington, DC: USITC, October 

2016. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4640.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Softwood Lumber Products from Canada––Investigation 

Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Final). USITC Publication 4749. Washington, DC: USITC, 

December 2017. 

https://www.usitc.gov/investigations/701731/2017/softwood_lumber_canada/final.htm.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti on 

Trade, Markets, and Industries. USITC Publication 4016. Washington, DC: USITC, June 2008. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4016.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2016: Operation of the Trade Agreement 

Program, 68th Report. USITC Publication 4711. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2017. 

https://usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4711.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade in 2015: Operation of the Trade 

Agreement Program, 67th Report. USITC Publication 4627. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2016. 

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4627.pdf.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 207

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2014: Operation of the Trade Agreement 

Program, 66th Report. USITC Publication 4543. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2015. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4543.pdf (accessed April 13, 2018).

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2011: Operation of the Trade 

Agreements Program, 63rd Report. USITC Publication 4336. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2012. 

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4336.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2010: Operation of the Trade 

Agreements Program, 62nd Report. USITC Publication 4247. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2011. 

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4247_0.pdf.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade 

Agreements Program, 60th Report. USITC, Publication 4091. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009. 

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4091_0.pdf.

U.S. Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization (U.S. Mission to the WTO). “Statement by the 

United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Geneva, January 22, 2018.” 

https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Jan22.DSB_.Stmt_.asdelivered.fin_.public.pdf.

U.S. Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization (U.S. Mission to the WTO). “Statement by the 

United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Geneva, November 22, 

2017.” https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Nov22.DSB_.pdf.

U.S. Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization (U.S. Mission to the WTO). “Statement by the 

United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, Geneva, August 31, 2017.” 

https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Aug31.DSB_.Stmt_.asdelivered.fin_.public.pdf.

U.S. Senate. Office of Senator Steve Daines. “Daines Returns from Security, Trade Mission to South 

Korea, Taiwan.” Press release, September 24, 2017. 

https://www.daines.senate.gov/news/press-releases/daines-returns-from-security-trademission-to-south-korea-taiwan.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. 

Washington, DC: USTR, March 2018. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018%20National%20Trade%20Estimate

%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2018 Trade Policy Agenda and 2017 Annual Report of the President of 

the United States on the Trade Agreements Program. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2018. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2018/AR/2018 Annual Report FINAL.PDF.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. 

Washington, DC: USTR, March 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/NTE/2017%20NTE.pdf.
The Year in Trade 2017

208 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets. Washington, DC: 

USTR, January 2018. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/2017%20Notorious%20Markets%20List%

201.11.18.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, 

DC: USTR, January, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Reports/China%202017%20WTO%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 Special 301 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: USTR, April 

2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/301/2017%20Special%20301%20Report%20FINAL.PDF.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report. Washington DC: 

USTR, March 1, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/AnnualReport/AnnualReport2017.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2016 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. Washington, 

DC: USTR, January 2017. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-China-Report-to-Congress.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and 2013 Annual Report. Washington DC: 

USTR, March 3, 2015. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2014%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20and%202013%20An

nual%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Agriculture Secretary Perdue and Acting U.S. Trade Representative 

Vaughn Announce Major EU Trade Breakthrough for U.S. Citrus Producers.” Press release, May 

3, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/may/agriculture-secretary-perdue-and-acting.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Closing Statement of USTR Robert Lighthizer at the Sixth Round of 

NAFTA Renegotiations.” Press release, January 29, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/fact-sheets/2018/january/closing-statement-ustr-robert.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Closing Statement of USTR Robert Lighthizer at the Third Round of 

NAFTA Renegotiations.” Press release, September 27, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/september/closing-statement-ustr-robert-0.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Findings of the Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices 

Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovations under Section 301 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, March 22, 2018. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement of the United States-Tunisia Trade and Investment 

Council.” Press release, April 21, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/april/joint-statement-united-states-tunisia.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 209

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement of the United States-Turkey Trade and Investment 

Council.” Press release, September 29, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/september/joint-statement-united-states.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the Council Meeting of the U.S.-Central Asian 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.” Press release, December 13, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/december/jointstatement-council-meeting-us.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the United States-Singapore Free Trade 

Agreement Environment Chapter Meeting.” Press release, October 4, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/october/jointstatement-united-states-1.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on Upcoming Signature of the Bilateral Agreement 

between the European Union and the United States of America on Prudential Measures 

Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance.” Press release, September 22, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/september/jointstatement-upcoming.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Letter from Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer to Minister of Trade, 

Industry, and Energy Dr. Joo Hunghwan.” Press release, July 12, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/USTR%20KORUS.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Letter to Congressional Leadership, May 18, 2017.” 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/NAFTA%20Notification.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Opening Statement of USTR Robert Lighthizer at the First Round of 

NAFTA Renegotiations.” Press release, August 16, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/august/opening-statement-ustr-robert-0.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “President Trump Determines Trade Preference Eligibility for Rwanda, 

Tanzania, and Uganda.” Press release, March 29, 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/fact-sheets/2018/march/title#.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Public Hearings on the Renegotiation of NAFTA.” Press release, June 

27, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/june/publichearing-nafta-renegotiation.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Results of the 2015/2016 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 

Annual Review,” 2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Outcomes-2015-2016-GSP-AnnualReview.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Statement of USTR Robert Lighthizer at the Closing of the Seventh 

Round of NAFTA Renegotiations.” Press release, March 3, 2018. https://ustr.gov/aboutus/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/february/statement-ustr-robert-lighthizer.
The Year in Trade 2017

210 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation,” November 17, 

2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/Nov%20Objectives%20Update.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Trilateral Statement on the Conclusion of NAFTA Round One.” Press 

release, August 16, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/august/trilateral-statement-conclusion.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Afghanistan Hold Annual Meeting under the U.S.-

Afghanistan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).” Press release, March 28, 

2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/march/us-andafghanistan-hold-annual.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Australia Meet to Review Implementation of 

Bilateral Free Trade Agreement.” Press release, December 6, 2017. https://ustr.gov/aboutus/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/december/united-states-and-australia-meet.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Bangladesh Hold 3rd Trade and Investment 

Cooperation Forum Agreement Council Meeting.” Press release, May 17, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/may/us-andbangladesh-hold-3rd-trade-and.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Cambodia Discuss Intensified Work Program.” 

Press release, August 9, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/august/united-states-and-cambodia-discuss.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Egypt Agree to Further Trade Cooperation.” Press 

release, December 5, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/december/united-states-and-egypt-agree.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), “United States and Indonesia Agree to Step Up Work to Expand 

Trade.” Press release, June 14, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/june/united-states-and-indonesia-agree-step.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Laos Hold Inaugural Meeting under the U.S.-Laos 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).” Press release, March 23, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/march/us-and-laoshold-inaugural-meeting.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Malaysia Meet under Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreement.” Press release, July 17, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/july/united-states-and-malaysia-meet-under.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Paraguay Sign Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreement.” Press release, January 13, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/january/united-states-and-paraguay-sign.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 211

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Philippines Strengthen Engagement on Trade.” 

Press release, July 11, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/july/united-states-and-philippines.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Taiwan Hold Dialogue on Trade and Investment 

Priorities.” Press release, October 6, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2016/october/united-states-and-taiwan-hold.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Thailand Discuss Trade Agenda under Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement.” Press release, April 3, 2017. https://ustr.gov/aboutus/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/april/united-states-and-thailand-discuss.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Vietnam Renew Trade Dialogue during Trade and 

Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) Meetings.” Press release, March 28, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/march/us-andvietnam-renew-trade-dialogue.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States, Korea to Hold Amendment Negotiations on KORUS 

FTA.” Press release, December 28, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/december/titleunited-states-korea-hold.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S. Announces Compliance in World Trade Organization ‘DolphinSafe’ Labeling Dispute.” Press release, July 12, 2013. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2013/july/US-complies-tuna-dolphin.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue and USTR Robert Lighthizer Announce 

Expanded Access for U.S. Rice Exports to Colombia.” Press release, August 17, 2017. 

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/08/17/usda-secretary-sonny-perdue-andustr-robert-lighthizer-announce.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S.-EU Joint Report on T-TIP Progress to Date.” Press release, 

January 17, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/pressreleases/2017/january/us-eu-joint-report-t-tip-progress-0.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, August 

2017. 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/gsp/GSP%20Guidebook%20August%202017_1.pdf.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S.-Nepal Joint Statement on 3rd Trade and Investment Framework 

Council Meeting.” Press release, April 20, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/april/us-nepal-joint-statement-3rd-trade.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Notifies Congress of Intent to 

Negotiate New International Trade Agreement on Services.” Press release, January 15, 2013. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2013/january/ustr-kirknotifies-congress-new-itas-negotiationshttps://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2013/january/ustr-kirk-notifies-congress-new-itas-negotiations. 
The Year in Trade 2017

212 | www.usitc.gov

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Announces Initiation of Section 301 Investigation of China.” 

Press release, August 2017. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Announces New GSP Eligibility Reviews of India, Indonesia, and 

Kazakhstan.” Press release, April 2018. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2018/april/ustr-announces-new-gsp-eligibility.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Announces Unprecedented Action to Block Illegal Timber 

Imports from Peru.” Press release, October 19, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/october/ustr-announces-unprecedented-action.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Calls a Special Session under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade 

Agreement.” Press release, July 12, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/july/ustr-calls-special-session-under-us. 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Extends Public Comment Period for NAFTA Renegotiations 

Objectives.” Press release, June 13, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/june/ustr-extends-public-comment-period.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Lighthizer Announces Results of Special 301 Out-of-Cycle 

Review of Thailand.” Press release, December 15, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/december/ustr-lighthizer-announces-results#.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Second Special 

Session of the U.S.-Korea FTA Joint Committee.” Press release, October 4, 2017. 

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/october/ustrlighthizer-statement.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the Conclusion of the Special Session 

of the US-Korea FTA Joint Committee.” Press release, August 22, 2017. https://ustr.gov/aboutus/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/august/ustr-lighthizer-statement-conclusion.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Lighthizer Statement on the President’s New Paradigm for USIndo-Pacific Trade.” Press release, November 10, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policyoffices/press-office/press-releases/2017/november/ustr-lighthizer-statement.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Releases 2017 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property 

Rights.” Press release, April 28, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/pressoffice/press-releases/2017/april/ustr-releases-2017-special-301-report.

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR: Trump Administration Announces Intent to Renegotiate the 

North American Free Trade Agreement.” Press release, May 18, 2017. https://ustr.gov/aboutus/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/may/ustr-trump-administration-announces.

VietNamNet. “Vietnam, US hold Trade Meeting in Washington,” May 31, 2017. 

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/business/179444/vietnam--us-hold-trade-meeting-inwashington.html.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 213

Wall, Anne, and Mike Harney. Letters (identical) to Richard Shelby, Sherrod Brown, Orrin Hatch, Ron 

Wyden, Jeb Hensarling, Maxine Waters, Kevin Brady, and Sander Levin (members of the Senate

Finance Committee and of the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means) 

from the Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury) and the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR), November 20, 2015. https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reportsand-notices/Documents/Covered%20Agreement%20Letters%20to%20Congress.pdf.

Washington Trade Daily. “Buenos Aires a Bust.” Vol. 26, no. 249, December 14, 2017.

White House. “Joint Press Release by the United States of America and the Republic of Korea.” Press 

release, November 8, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-pressrelease-united-states-america-republic-korea/.

White House. “Joint Statement between the United States and the Republic of Korea.” Press release, 

June 30, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-statement-unitedstates-republic-korea/.

White House. “Joint Statement from President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.” Press 

release, February 10, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-statementpresident-donald-j-trump-prime-minister-shinzo-abe/.

White House. “Joint Statement from Vice President Mike Pence and Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso on 

the Second Round of the U.S.-Japan Economic Dialogue.” Press release, October 16, 2017. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-press-release-vice-president-mikepence-deputy-prime-minister-taro-aso-second-round-u-s-japan-economic-dialogue/.

White House. “President Donald J. Trump’s Visit to Asia Advanced America First Priorities.” Press 

release, November 15, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presidentdonald-j-trumps-visit-asia-advanced-america-first-priorities/.

World Trade Online. “Lighthizer: TISA an ‘Important’ Agreement Now under Review.” Inside U.S. Trade,

vol. 35, no. 25, June 22, 2017. https://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/lighthizer-tisa-importantagreement-now-under-review.

World Trade Online. “U.S. Remains Silent as WTO Members Look for Ways to Resume EGA Talks.” Inside 

U.S. Trade, vol. 35, no. 25, June 22, 2017. https://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/us-remainssilent-wto-members-look-ways-resume-ega-talks.

World Trade Online. “USTR to Request First-ever KORUS Joint Committee Special Session to Amend 

Agreement.” Daily News, July 3, 2017. https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/ustr-request-firstever-korus-joint-committee-special-session-amend-agreement.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “3. Protocol Amending the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 

World Trade Organization––Agreement on Trade Facilitation.” WT/GC/M/166, May 3, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/GC/M166.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “About the Facility,” n.d. http://www.tfafacility.org/about-the-facility

(accessed June 26, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

214 | www.usitc.gov

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft,” n.d. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/civair_e/civair_e.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Briefing Note: The Expansion of Trade in Information Technology 

Products (ITA Expansion),” December 16, 2015. 

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/itabriefingnotes161215_e.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: Chronological List of Dispute Settlement Cases.” 

Trade Topics. https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm (accessed 

April 8, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS26; European Communities—Measures 

Concerning Meat and Meat Products.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.htm (accessed March 6, 2017).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS381; United States—Measures Concerning the 

Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm (accessed May 8, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 

Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States.” Trade Topics.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds427_e.htm (accessed May 30, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS430; India—Measures Concerning the 

Importation of Certain Agricultural Products.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm (accessed March 23, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS456; India—Certain Measures Relating to 

Solar Cells and Solar Modules.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds456_e.htm (accessed March 23, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-dumping and 

Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds464_e.htm (accessed April 9, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS471; United States—Certain Methodologies 

and their Application to Anti-dumping Proceedings Involving China.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds471_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS478; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural 

Products, Animals and Animal Products.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds478_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax 

Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds487_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 215

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS488; United States—Anti-dumping Measures 

on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds488_e.htm (accessed April 9, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS491; United States—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated Paper from Indonesia.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds491_e.htm (accessed May 19, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS503; United States—Measures Concerning 

Non-Immigrant Visas.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds503_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS505; United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Supercalendered Paper from Canada.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds505_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS510; United States—Certain Measures 

Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds510_e.htm (accessed March 23, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS511; China―Domestic Support for 

Agricultural Producers.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds511_e.htm (accessed May 19, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS514; United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Cold- and Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds514_e.htm (accessed May 8, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS517; China―Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain 

Agricultural Products.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds517_e.htm (accessed May 19, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS519; China―Subsidies to Producers of 

Primary Aluminum.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds519_e.htm (accessed March 1, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS520; Canada—Measures Governing the Sale 

of Wine in Grocery Stores.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds520_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS523; United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Certain Pipe and Tube Products (Turkey).” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds523_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS531; Canada—Measures Governing the Sale 

of Wine in Grocery Stores (second complaint).” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds531_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

216 | www.usitc.gov

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS533; United States—Countervailing Measures 

on Softwood Lumber from Canada.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds533_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS534; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures 

Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds534_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS535; United States—Certain Systemic Trade 

Remedies Measures.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds535_e.htm (accessed May 2, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Draft Decision Agreed on “Non-violation” Cases in Intellectual 

Property.” News release, November 23, 2015. 

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/trip_ss_23nov15_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Eleventh Ministerial Conference—Closing Statement by the 

Chairperson.” WT/MIN(17)/67, December 20, 2017. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc11_e/documents_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Eleventh Session of the Ministerial Conference––Ministerial Ends 

with Decisions on Fish Subsidies, E-commerce Duties; Ongoing Work Continues.” News release, 

December 13, 2017. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/mc11_13dec17_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Eleventh Session of the Ministerial Conference––Request for 

Observer Status by the Republic of South Sudan.” WT/L/1022, November 16, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S005.aspx.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA).” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/ega_e.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Government Procurement––Agreement on Government 

Procurement.” Trade Topics. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_gpa_e.htm

(accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Information Technology.” 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/inftec_e.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Information Technology Agreement––Majority of Participants Have 

Now Implemented ITA Expansion Commitments.” News release, November 1, 2016. 

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/ita_01nov16_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Information Technology: Introduction; Information Technology 

Agreement––An Explanation.” Trade Topics. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/itaintro_e.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “MC11 in Brief––Electronic Commerce.” Briefing note. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc11_e/briefing_notes_e/bfecom_e.htm

(accessed February 28, 2018).
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 217

World Trade Organization (WTO). “MC11 in Brief––Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies.” Briefing note. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc11_e/briefing_notes_e/bffish_e.htm

(accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Members Accepting the Protocol of Amendment to Insert the WTO 

Trade Facilitation Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement,” n.d. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_agreeacc_e.htm (accessed July 25, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Message from Director-General Roberto Azevêdo.” Annual Report—

2018, May 31, 2018. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/anrep18_e.htm. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conferences.” 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/minist_e.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conferences––Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference.” 

Briefing note. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc11_e/mc11_e.htm (accessed 

February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Ends with Decisions on Fish Subsidies, E-commerce 

Duties; Ongoing Work Continues.” News release, December 13, 2017. 

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/mc11_13dec17_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference, Nairobi, 2015––Briefing Note: 

WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.” Briefing note. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc10_e/briefing_notes_e/brief_gpa_e.htm

(accessed February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Trade Facilitation.” 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm (accessed March 20, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Trade Facilitation: Agreement––Members Accepting the Protocol of 

Amendment to Insert the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement into Annex 1A of the WTO 

Agreement.” https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_agreeacc_e.htm (accessed 

February 1, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). Trade Policy Review: Report by the Secretariat; Republic of Korea. 

WTO report WT/TPR/S/346, September 6, 2016. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s346_e.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Trade Topics: GATS Training Module; Chapter 1; Basic Purpose and 

Concepts.” https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/cbt_course_e/c1s4p1_e.htm

(accessed May 7, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “TRIPS: Reviews, Article 27.3(b) and Related Issues; Background and 

the Current Situation.” 

https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/trips_e/art27_3b_background_e.htm (accessed June 

19, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

218 | www.usitc.gov

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Understanding the WTO: The Organization––Members and 

Observers,” https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm (accessed 

February 28, 2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Adopted by the General 

Council on 25 September 1998.” WT/L/274, September 30, 1998. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/wkprog_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “WTO: 2015 News Items––Information Technology Agreement––WTO 

Members Conclude Landmark $1.3 trillion IT Trade Deal.” News release, December 16, 2015. 

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/ita_16dec15_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.” Factsheet, n.d. 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tfa_factsheet2017_e.pdf (accessed March 29, 

2018).

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products. “Status of Implementation––Note by the Secretariat––Revision.” 

G/IT/1/Rev.56, May 19, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/IT/1R56.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). “Report (2017) of the 

Committee on Trade and Environment.” WT/CTE/24, November 28, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/CTE/24.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). “Report of the Meeting 

Held on 1 November 2017––Note by the Secretariat.” WT/CTE/M/64, January 17, 2018. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/CTE/M64.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade Facilitation. “Draft— Report (2017) of the 

Committee on Trade Facilitation to the Council for Trade in Goods––Revision.” 

G/TFA/W/3/Rev.1, November 2, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-

DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=239890&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718

57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft. “Committee on Trade in Civil 

Aircraft––Unofficial Room Document––Meeting to Be Held on 1 November 2017––Draft Annual 

Report.” RD/TCA/5, October 25, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?Language=ENGLISH&SourcePag

e=FE_B_009&Context=Script&DataSource=Cat&Query=%40Symbol%3D%22RD%2FTCA%2F*%22

&DisplayContext=popup&languageUIChanged=true#.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft. “Report (2016) of the Committee 

on Trade in Civil Aircraft––(Adopted 3 November 2016).” WT/L/992––TCA/12, November 7, 

2016. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/232459/q/WT/L/992.pdf.
Bibliography

U.S. International Trade Commission | 219

World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council––30 November–1 December 2017. “Draft Annual 

Report (2017).” WT/GC/W/736, November 16, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/240220/q/WT/GC/W736.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Ministerial Conference. Eleventh Session. Buenos Aires, December 

10–13, 2017. “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Ministerial Decision of 13 December 

2017.” WT/MIN(17)/65––WT/L/1032, December 18, 2017. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN17/65.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Ministerial Conference. Singapore, December 9–13, 1996. “Ministerial 

Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products––Singapore, 13 December 1996.” 

WT/MIN(96)/16, December 13, 1996. 

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/wtodec_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). Ministerial Conference. Tenth Session. Nairobi, December 15–18, 

2015. “Work Programme on Electronic Commerce––Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015.” 

WT/MIN(15)/42––WT/L/977, December 21, 2015. 

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN15/42.pdf.
220 | www.usitc.gov
U.S. International Trade Commission | 221

Appendix A 

Data Tables
222 | www.usitc.gov
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S. International Trade Commission | 223

Table A.1 U.S. total exports to the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 146,644 148,683 153,116 3.0

2 Forest products 39,059 37,707 39,698 5.3

3 Chemicals and related products 227,676 218,089 227,270 4.2

4 Energy-related products 110,225 98,418 143,236 45.5

5 Textiles and apparel 23,272 21,656 22,082 2.0

6 Footwear 1,464 1,368 1,430 4.5

7 Minerals and metals 135,667 128,684 136,452 6.0

8 Machinery 138,765 128,097 135,945 6.1

9 Transportation equipment 327,401 320,022 325,434 1.7

10 Electronic products 264,119 260,407 268,278 3.0

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 47,366 47,754 49,138 2.9

12 Special provisions 41,444 40,125 44,655 11.3

Total 1,503,101 1,451,011 1,546,733 6.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.2 U.S. general imports from the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 136,947 139,153 147,406 5.9

2 Forest products 42,383 43,118 44,856 4.0

3 Chemicals and related products 260,293 259,846 268,112 3.2

4 Energy-related products 194,132 157,826 198,096 25.5

5 Textiles and apparel 126,538 120,265 121,423 1.0

6 Footwear 27,650 25,634 25,654 0.1

7 Minerals and metals 189,230 183,522 200,714 9.4

8 Machinery 185,884 179,537 196,414 9.4

9 Transportation equipment 426,225 418,286 434,894 4.0

10 Electronic products 449,793 449,951 484,271 7.6

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 124,817 124,973 130,453 4.4

12 Special provisions 84,291 85,695 90,610 5.7

Total 2,248,183 2,187,805 2,342,905 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

224 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.3 Leading U.S. total exports to the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 119,487 120,945 121,120 0.1

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products 

containing by weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 47,341 37,652 48,033 27.6

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from 

bituminous minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 25,774 24,268 29,754 22.6

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 8,821 9,423 21,825 131.6

1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 18,878 22,821 21,591 -5.4

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 19,077 17,516 19,610 12.0

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 20,671 18,605 19,168 3.0

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 18,153 19,849 18,962 -4.5

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 21,754 21,928 18,664 -14.9

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 18,323 18,845 18,019 -4.4

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus 18,506 18,856 17,572 -6.8

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., 

and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 20,684 19,174 17,066 -11.0

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. 15,699 15,501 15,542 0.3

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of 

electronic integrates circuits 8,237 8,830 12,489 41.4

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and 

parts and accessories thereof 11,864 12,333 12,340 0.1

Total of items shown 393,269 386,545 411,755 6.5

All other products 1,109,832 1,064,465 1,134,977 6.6

Total of all commodities 1,503,101 1,451,011 1,546,733 6.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; cc = cubic

centimeter.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 225

Table A.4 Leading U.S. general imports from the world, by HTS subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 126,073 101,841 132,945 30.5

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 97,427 106,342 101,620 -4.4

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 52,707 49,795 55,944 12.3

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages 

etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 47,880 51,062 50,270 -1.5

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, 

images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus 40,015 45,393 47,373 4.4

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 57,659 50,088 47,117 -5.9

8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting 

of at least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 39,244 35,861 39,990 11.5

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products 

containing by weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 29,319 21,830 27,003 23.7

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 17,837 19,630 23,423 19.3

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. 16,617 15,198 21,946 44.4

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 23,086 23,024 21,624 -6.1

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 18,171 20,887 21,079 0.9

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from 

bituminous minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 19,684 17,307 19,057 10.1

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 7,016 10,962 15,994 45.9

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 13,516 15,889 15,826 -0.4

Total of items shown 606,252 585,111 641,210 9.6

All other products 1,641,931 1,602,693 1,701,695 6.2

Total of all commodities 2,248,183 2,187,805 2,342,905 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; cc = cubic

centimeter; GVW = gross vehicle weight.
The Year in Trade 2017

226 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.5 U.S. merchandise trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2017

Rank Country Total exports General imports Total

% of total 

trade

Million $

1 China 130,370 505,597 635,967 16.4

2 Canada 282,472 299,975 582,447 15.0

3 Mexico 242,989 314,045 557,034 14.3

4 Japan 67,696 136,544 204,239 5.3

5 Germany 53,493 117,745 171,238 4.4

6 South Korea 48,277 71,164 119,441 3.1

7 United Kingdom 56,329 53,075 109,404 2.8

8 France 33,582 48,888 82,469 2.1

9 India 25,700 48,631 74,332 1.9

10 Italy 18,323 49,963 68,286 1.8

11 Taiwan 25,754 42,492 68,246 1.8

12 Ireland 10,737 48,844 59,580 1.5

13 Switzerland 21,694 36,002 57,696 1.5

14 Vietnam 8,164 46,483 54,647 1.4

15 Malaysia 12,826 37,409 50,235 1.3

Top 15 countries 1,038,404 1,856,857 2,895,261 74.4

All others 508,329 486,048 994,377 25.6

Total 1,546,733 2,342,905 3,889,638 100.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.6 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise export markets, 2017

Rank Country Million $ % of total exports

1 Canada 282,472 18.3

2 Mexico 242,989 15.7

3 China 130,370 8.4

4 Japan 67,696 4.4

5 United Kingdom 56,329 3.6

6 Germany 53,493 3.5

7 South Korea 48,277 3.1

8 Netherlands 42,230 2.7

9 Hong Kong 40,024 2.6

10 Brazil 37,077 2.4

11 France 33,582 2.2

12 Belgium 29,911 1.9

13 Singapore 29,753 1.9

14 Taiwan 25,754 1.7

15 India 25,700 1.7

Top 15 countries 1,145,656 74.1

All others 401,077 25.9

Total 1,546,733 100.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 227

Table A.7 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise import sources, 2017

Rank Country Million $ % of total imports

1 China 505,597 21.6

2 Mexico 314,045 13.4

3 Canada 299,975 12.8

4 Japan 136,544 5.8

5 Germany 117,745 5.0

6 South Korea 71,164 3.0

7 United Kingdom 53,075 2.3

8 Italy 49,963 2.1

9 France 48,888 2.1

10 Ireland 48,844 2.1

11 India 48,631 2.1

12 Vietnam 46,483 2.0

13 Taiwan 42,492 1.8

14 Malaysia 37,409 1.6

15 Switzerland 36,002 1.5

Top 15 countries 1,856,857 79.3

All others 486,048 20.8

Total 2,342,905 100.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

228 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.8 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2015–17

Service industry 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

Travel 205,418 205,940 203,696 -1.1

Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. 124,442 124,453 127,935 2.8

Financial services 102,595 98,180 106,424 8.4

Professional and management consulting services 66,784 74,021 78,732 6.4

Air passenger fares 41,976 38,770 39,104 0.9

Research and development services 34,539 37,176 42,763 15.0

Technical, trade-related, and other business services 35,299 31,034 32,964 6.2

Maintenance and repair services, n.i.e. 23,406 25,628 25,916 1.1

Air transporta 22,968 22,778 24,061 5.6

Sea transportb 18,044 18,078 18,738 3.7

Insurance services 16,229 16,348 17,815 9.0

Other 40,285 41,148 43,581 5.9

Total 731,985 733,554 761,729 3.8

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions Data, “Table 3.1 

U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. N.i.e. = not indicated elsewhere. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals 

shown.

a Air transport includes airport and air freight services.

b Sea transport includes sea port and sea freight services.

Table A.9 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2015–17

Service industry 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

Travel 114,723 123,618 135,209 9.4

Insurance services 47,822 48,077 49,698 3.4

Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. 39,858 44,392 48,354 8.9

Professional and management consulting services 40,423 40,169 42,906 6.8

Air passenger fares 35,494 37,198 38,629 3.8

Sea transporta 37,295 35,097 37,085 5.7

Research and development services 32,202 34,243 34,922 2.0

Computer services 27,507 28,989 31,642 9.2

Financial services 25,740 25,629 27,986 9.2

Technical, trade-related, and other business services 27,040 24,510 26,945 9.9

Other 42,046 41,204 42,639 3.5

Travel 114,723 123,618 135,209 9.4

Total 470,148 483,126 516,015 6.8

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions Data, “Table 3.1 

U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. N.i.e. = not indicated elsewhere. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals 

shown.

a Sea transport includes sea port and sea freight services.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 229

Table A.10 Antidumping cases active in 2017, by USITC investigation number

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution USITC prelim ITAa prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

Affirmative = A; Negative = N

731-TA-1306 Large residential washers China 12/16/2015 A A A A 1/30/2017

731-TA-1308 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires India 1/8/2016 A A A A 2/23/2017

731-TA-1309 Biaxial integral geogrid products China 1/13/2016 A A A A 2/24/2017

731-TA-1310 Amorphous silica fabric China 1/20/2016 A A A A 3/10/2017

731-TA-1311 Truck and bus tires China 1/29/2016 A A A N 3/13/2017

731-TA-1312 Stainless steel sheet and strip China 2/12/2016 A A A A 3/24/2017

731-TA-1313 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) China 3/3/2016 A A A A 4/5/2017

731-TA-1314 Phosphor copper South Korea 3/9/2016 A A A A 4/17/2017

731-TA-1315 Ferrovanadium South Korea 3/28/2016 A A A A 5/8/2017

731-TA-1316 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic

acid (HEDP)

China 3/31/2016 A A A A 5/8/2017

731-TA-1317 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Austria 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1318 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Belgium 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1319 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Brazil 4/8/2016 A A A A 1/19/2017

731-TA-1320 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

China 4/8/2016 A A A A 3/13/2017

731-TA-1321 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

France 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1322 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Germany 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1323 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Italy 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1324 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

Japan 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1325 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

South Korea 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1326 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length

plate

South Africa 4/8/2016 A A A A 1/19/2017
The Year in Trade 2017

230 | www.usitc.gov

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution USITC prelim ITAa prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

731-TA-1327 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length 

plate

Taiwan 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

731-TA-1328 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length 

plate

Turkey 4/8/2016 A A A A 1/19/2017

731-TA-1329 Ammonium sulfate China 5/25/2016 A A A A 3/2/2017

731-TA-1330 Dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) South Korea 6/30/2016 A A A A 8/9/2017

731-TA-1331 Finished carbon steel flanges India 6/30/2016 A A A A 8/14/2017

731-TA-1332 Finished carbon steel flanges Italy 6/30/2016 A A A A 8/14/2017

731-TA-1333 Finished carbon steel flanges Spain 6/30/2016 A A A A 6/7/2017

731-TA-1334 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Brazil 7/21/2016 A A A A 8/25/2017

731-TA-1335 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber South Korea 7/21/2016 A A A A 8/25/2017

731-TA-1336 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Mexico 7/21/2016 A A A A 8/25/2017

731-TA-1337 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Poland 7/21/2016 A A A A 8/25/2017

731-TA-1338 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Japan 9/20/2016 A A A A 6/30/2017

731-TA-1339 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Taiwan 9/20/2016 A A A A 9/11/2017

731-TA-1340 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Turkey 9/20/2016 A A A A 6/30/2017

731-TA-1341 Hardwood plywood China 11/18/2016 A A A A 12/20/2017

731-TA-1342 Softwood lumber Canada 11/25/2016 A A A A 12/22/2017

731-TA-1343 Silicon metal Australia 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1344 Silicon metal Brazil 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1345 Silicon metal Norway 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1346 Aluminum foil China 3/9/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1347 Biodiesel Argentina 3/23/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1348 Biodiesel Indonesia 3/23/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1349 Wire rod Belarus 3/28/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1350 Wire rod Italy 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1351 Wire rod South Korea 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1352 Wire rod Russia 3/28/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1353 Wire rod South Africa 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1354 Wire rod Spain 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1355 Wire rod Turkey 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1356 Wire rod Ukraine 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1357 Wire rod United Arab 

Emirates

3/28/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 231

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution USITC prelim ITAa prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

731-TA-1358 Wire rod United 

Kingdom

3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1359 Carton closing staples China 3/31/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1360 Tool chests China 4/11/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1361 Tool chests Vietnam 4/11/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1362 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing China 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1363 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing Germany 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1364 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing India 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1365 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing Italy 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1366 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing South Korea 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1367 Cold-drawn mechanical tubing Switzerland 4/19/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1368 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft Canada 4/27/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1369 Fine denier polyester staple fiber China 5/31/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1370 Fine denier polyester staple fiber India 5/31/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1371 Fine denier polyester staple fiber South Korea 5/31/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1372 Fine denier polyester staple fiber Taiwan 5/31/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1373 Fine denier polyester staple fiber Vietnam 5/31/2017 (

d

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1374 Citric acid and certain citrate salts Belgium 6/2/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1375 Citric acid and certain citrate salts Colombia 6/2/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1376 Citric acid and certain citrate salts Thailand 6/2/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1377 Ripe olives Spain 6/22/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1378 Low melt polyester staple fiber South Korea 6/27/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1379 Low melt polyester staple fiber Taiwan 6/27/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1380 Tapered roller bearings South Korea 6/28/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1381 Cast iron soil pipe fittings China 7/13/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1382 Uncoated groundwood paper Canada 8/9/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1383 Stainless steel flanges China 8/16/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1384 Stainless steel flanges India 8/16/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1385 Titanium sponge Japan 8/24/2017 N (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) 10/10/2017

731-TA-1386 Titanium sponge Kazakhstan 8/24/2017 N (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) 10/10/2017

731-TA-1387 PET resin Brazil 9/26/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1388 PET resin Indonesia 9/26/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1389 PET resin South Korea 9/26/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1390 PET resin Pakistan 9/26/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1391 PET resin Taiwan 9/26/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)
The Year in Trade 2017

232 | www.usitc.gov

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution USITC prelim ITAa prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

731-TA-1392 PFTE resin China 9/28/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1393 PFTE resin India 9/28/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1394 Forged steel fittings China 10/5/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1395 Forged steel fittings Italy 10/5/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1396 Forged steel fittings Taiwan 10/5/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1397 Sodium gluconate China 11/30/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1398 Sodium gluconate France 11/30/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1399 Common alloy aluminum sheet China 12/1/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

731-TA-1400 Plastic decorative ribbon China 12/27/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

a “ITA” is the International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).

b For cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action was taken by 

USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown.

c Pending or not applicable as of December 31, 2017.

d Withdrawn by petitioning firm(s). Investigation terminated.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 233

Table A.11 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2017

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Argentina Lemon juice (suspended) September 10, 2007

Austria Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Australia Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Belarus Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Belgium Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Brazil Iron construction castings May 9, 1986

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings December 17, 1986

Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe November 2, 1992

Stainless steel bar February 21, 1995

Carbon steel wire rod October 29, 2002

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand January 28, 2004

Frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns February 1, 2005

Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate January 26, 2017

Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber September 12, 2017

Canada Iron construction castings March 5, 1986

Citric acid and certain citrate May 29, 2009

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Chile Preserved mushrooms December 2, 1998

China Potassium permanganate January 31, 1984

Chloropicrin March 22, 1984

Barium chloride October 17, 1984

Iron construction castings May 9, 1986

Petroleum wax candles August 28, 1986

Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware December 2, 1986

Tapered roller bearings June 15, 1987

Heavy forged hand tools - axes & adzes February 19, 1991

Heavy forged hand tools - bars & wedges February 19, 1991

Heavy forged hand tools - hammers & sledges February 19, 1991

Heavy forged hand tools - picks & mattocks February 19, 1991

Silicon metal June 10, 1991

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992

Sulfanilic acid August 19, 1992

Helical spring lock washers October 19, 1993

Fresh garlic November 16, 1994

Paper clips November 25, 1994

Silicomanganese December 22, 1994

Cased pencils December 28, 1994

Glycine March 29, 1995

Pure magnesium (ingot) May 12, 1995

Furfuryl alcohol June 21, 1995

Persulfates July 7, 1997

Crawfish tail meat September 15, 1997

Carbon steel plate October 24, 1997

Preserved mushrooms February 19, 1999
The Year in Trade 2017

234 | www.usitc.gov

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

China (cont.) Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Foundry coke September 17, 2001

Pure magnesium (granular) November 19, 2001

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products November 29, 2001

Honey December 10, 2001

Folding gift boxes January 8, 2002

Ferrovanadium January 28, 2003

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings April 7, 2003

Polyvinyl alcohol October 1, 2003

Barium carbonate October 1, 2003

Refined brown aluminum oxide November 19, 2003

Malleable iron pipe fittings December 12, 2003

Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol August 6, 2004

Ironing tables August 6, 2004

Polyethylene retail carrier bags August 9, 2004

Hand trucks December 2, 2004

Carbazole violet pigment 23 December 29, 2004

Wooden bedroom furniture January 4, 2005

Crepe paper January 25, 2005

Frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns February 1, 2005

Tissue paper March 30, 2005

Magnesium April 15, 2005

Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005

Certain artist canvas June 1, 2006

Certain lined paper September 28, 2006

Certain activated carbon April 27, 2007

Certain polyester staple fiber June 1, 2007

Sodium hexametaphosphate March 19, 2008

Circular welded carbon quality steel pipe July 22, 2008

Steel nails August 1, 2008

Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube August 5, 2008

Laminated woven sacks August 7, 2008

Sodium nitrite August 27, 2008

New pneumatic off-the-road tires September 4, 2008

Raw flexible magnets September 17, 2008

Steel wire garment hangers October 6, 2008

Electrolytic manganese dioxide October 7, 2008

Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip November 10, 2008

Lightweight thermal paper November 24, 2008

Uncovered innerspring units February 19, 2009

Small diameter graphite electrodes February 26, 2009

Circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe March 17, 2009

Steel threaded rod April 14, 2009

Circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe May 13, 2009

Citric acid and certain citrate May 29, 2009

Tow behind lawn groomer August 3, 2009

Kitchen appliance shelving and racks September 14, 2009

Oil country tubular goods May 21, 2010

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand June 29, 2010

Potassium phosphate salts July 22, 2010
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 235

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

China (cont.) Steel grating July 23, 2010

Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge September 1, 2010

Magnesia carbon bricks September 20, 2010

Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe November 10, 2010

Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheetfed presses November 17, 2010

Seamless refined copper pipe and tube November 22, 2010

Aluminum extrusions May 26, 2011

Multilayered wood flooring December 8, 2011

Stilbenic optical brightening agent May 10, 2012

High pressure steel cylinders June 21, 2012

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells December 7, 2012

Utility scale wind towers February 15, 2013

Drawn stainless steel sinks April 11, 2013

Xanthan gum July 19, 2013

Prestressed concrete steel rail tie wire June 24, 2014

Monosodium glutamate November 26, 2014

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Carbon and certain alloy steel wire January 8, 2015

Calcium hypochlorite January 30, 2015

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic products February 18, 2015

Passenger vehicle and light truck tires August 10, 2015

Boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale October 21, 2015

Melamine December 28, 2015

Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products July 14, 2016

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Hydrofluorocarbon blends August 19, 2016

Large residential washers February 6, 2017

Biaxial integral geogrid products March 3, 2017

Ammonium sulfate March 9, 2017

Amorphous silica fabric March 17, 2017

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate March 20, 2017

Stainless steel sheet and strip April 3, 2017

1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) April 19, 2017

1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) May 18, 2017

France Brass sheet & strip March 6, 1987

Low enriched uranium February 13, 2002

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Germany Brass sheet & strip March 6, 1987

Seamless pipe August 3, 1995

Sodium nitrite August 27, 2008

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

India Welded carbon steel pipe May 12, 1986

Sulfanilic acid March 2, 1993

Stainless steel wire rod December 1, 1993

Stainless steel bar February 21, 1995

Preserved mushrooms February 19, 1999
The Year in Trade 2017

236 | www.usitc.gov

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products December 3, 2001

Silicomanganese May 23, 2002

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand January 28, 2004

Carbazole violet pigment 23 December 29, 2004

Frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns February 1, 2005

Certain lined paper September 28, 2006

Commodity matchbooks December 11, 2009

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Welded stainless pressure pipe November 17, 2016

New pneumatic off-the-road tires March 6, 2017

Finished carbon steel flanges August 24, 2017

Indonesia Preserved mushrooms February 19, 1999

Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products December 3, 2001

Carbon steel wire rod October 29, 2002

Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010

Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheetfed presses November 17, 2010

Monosodium glutamate November 26, 2014

Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Iran Raw in-shell pistachios July 17, 1986

Italy Pressure sensitive plastic tape October 21, 1977

Brass sheet & strip March 6, 1987

Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin August 30, 1988

Pasta July 24, 1996

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings February 23, 2001

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Finished carbon steel flanges August 24, 2017

Japan Prestressed concrete steel wire strand December 8, 1978

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings February 10, 1987

Brass sheet & strip August 12, 1988

Gray portland cement & clinker May 10, 1991

Stainless steel bar February 21, 1995

Clad steel plate July 2, 1996

Stainless steel wire rod September 15, 1998

Stainless steel sheet & strip July 27, 1999

Large diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000

Small diameter seamless pipe June 26, 2000

Tin mill products August 28, 2000

Welded large diameter line pipe December 6, 2001

Polyvinyl alcohol July 2, 2003

Diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products May 29, 2014

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 237

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Cold-rolled steel flat products July 14, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Steel concrete reinforcing bar July 14, 2017

Kazakhstan Silicomanganese May 23, 2002

Latvia Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Malaysia Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings February 23, 2001

Polyethylene retail carrier bags August 9, 2004

Welded stainless pressure pipe July 21, 2014

Steel Nails July 13, 2015

Mexico Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe November 2, 1992

Fresh tomatoes (suspended) November 1, 1996

Carbon steel wire rod October 29, 2002

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand January 28, 2004

Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube August 5, 2008

Magnesia carbon bricks September 20, 2010

Seamless refined copper pipe and tube November 22, 2010

Large residential washers February 15, 2013

Prestressed concrete steel rail tie wire June 24, 2014

Steel concrete reinforcing bar November 6, 2014

Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes September 13, 2016

Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber September 12, 2017

Moldova Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Carbon steel wire rod October 29, 2002

Netherlands Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Oman Steel nails July 13, 2015

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Philippines Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings February 23, 2001

Poland Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber September 12, 2017

Portugal Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Romania Small diameter seamless pipe August 10, 2000

Russia Uranium (suspended) October 16, 1992

Carbon steel plate (suspended) October 24, 1997

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products July 12, 1999

Silicon metal March 26, 2003

South Africa Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999

Ferrovanadium January 28, 2003

Uncovered innerspring units December 11, 2008

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate January 26, 2017

South Korea Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe November 2, 1992

Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe December 30, 1992

Stainless steel wire rod September 15, 1998

Stainless steel sheet & strip July 27, 1999

Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand January 28, 2004

Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube August 5, 2008

Large power transformers August 31, 2012

Large residential washers February 15, 2013
The Year in Trade 2017

238 | www.usitc.gov

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Steel nails July 13, 2015

Welded line pipe December 1, 2015

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes September 13, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Phosphor copper April 24, 2017

Ferrovanadium May 15, 2017

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) August 18, 2017

Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber September 12, 2017

Spain Stainless steel bar March 2, 1995

Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005

Finished carbon steel flanges June 14, 2017

Sweden Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Taiwan Small diameter carbon steel pipe May 7, 1984

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings December 17, 1986

Light-walled rectangular tube March 27, 1989

Circular welded nonalloy steel pipe November 2, 1992

Welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe December 30, 1992

Helical spring lock washers June 28, 1993

Stainless steel wire rod September 15, 1998

Stainless steel plate in coils May 21, 1999

Stainless steel sheet & strip July 27, 1999

Polyester staple fiber May 25, 2000

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products November 29, 2001

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002

Raw flexible magnets September 17, 2008

Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010

Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge September 1, 2010

Stilbenic optical brightening agent May 10, 2012

Steel wire garment hangers December 10, 2012

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic products February 18, 2015

Steel nails July 13, 2015

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Steel concrete reinforcing bar October 2, 2017

Thailand Welded carbon steel pipe March 11, 1986

Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings July 6, 1992

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products November 29, 2001

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand January 28, 2004

Polyethylene retail carrier bags August 9, 2004

Frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns February 1, 2005

Welded stainless pressure pipe July 21, 2014

Trinidad & 

Tobago Carbon steel wire rod October 29, 2002

Turkey Welded carbon steel pipe May 15, 1986
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 239

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Pasta July 24, 1996

Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube May 30, 2008

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Welded line pipe December 1, 2015

Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes September 13, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate January 26, 2017

Steel concrete reinforcing bar July 14, 2017

United Kingdom Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Ukraine Carbon steel plate (suspended) October 24, 1997

Steel concrete reinforcing bar September 7, 2001

Ammonium nitrate September 12, 2001

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products November 29, 2001

Silicomanganese September 17, 2001

United Arab 

Emirates Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip November 10, 2008

Steel nails May 10, 2012

Venezuela Silicomanganese May 23, 2002

Vietnam Frozen fish fillets August 12, 2003

Frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns February 1, 2005

Uncovered innerspring units December 11, 2008

Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010

Steel wire garment hangers February 5, 2013

Utility scale wind towers February 15, 2013

Welded stainless pressure pipe July 21, 2014

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Steel nails July 13, 2015

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
The Year in Trade 2017

240 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.12 Countervailing duty cases active in 2017, by USITC investigation number

USITC investigation no. Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution

USITC 

prelim

ITAa

prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

Affirmative = A; Negative = N

701-TA-552 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) 

tires

India 1/8/2016 A A A A 2/23/2017

701-TA-553 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) 

tires

Sri Lanka 1/8/2016 A A A A 2/23/2017

701-TA-554 Biaxial integral geogrid 

products

China 1/13/2016 A A A A 2/24/2017

701-TA-555 Amorphous silica fabric China 1/20/2016 A A A A 3/10/2017

701-TA-556 Truck and bus tires China 1/29/2016 A A A N 3/13/2017

701-TA-557 Stainless steel sheet and strip China 2/12/2016 A A A A 3/24/2017

701-TA-558 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-

diphosphonic acid (HEDP)

China 3/31/2016 A A A A 5/8/2017

701-TA-560 Carbon and alloy steel cut-tolength plateChina 4/8/2016 A A A A 3/13/2017

701-TA-561 Carbon and alloy steel cut-tolength plateSouth Korea 4/8/2016 A A A A 5/18/2017

701-TA-562 Ammonium sulfate China 5/25/2016 A A A A 3/2/2017

701-TA-563 Finished carbon steel flanges India 6/30/2016 A A A A 8/14/2017

701-TA-564 Steel concrete reinforcing bar 

(rebar)

Turkey 9/20/2016 A A A A 6/30/2017

701-TA-565 Hardwood plywood China 11/18/2016 A A A A 12/20/2017

701-TA-566 Softwood lumber Canada 11/25/2016 A A A A 12/22/2017

701-TA-567 Silicon metal Australia 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-568 Silicon metal Brazil 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-569 Silicon metal Kazakhstan 3/8/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-570 Aluminum foil China 3/9/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-571 Biodiesel Argentina 3/23/2017 A A A A 12/21/2017

701-TA-572 Biodiesel Indonesia 3/23/2017 A A A A 12/21/2017

701-TA-573 Wire rod Italy 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-574 Wire rod Turkey 3/28/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-575 Tool chests China 4/11/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-576 Cold-drawn mechanical 

tubing

China 4/19/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 241

USITC investigation no. Product

Country of 

origin

Date of 

institution

USITC 

prelim

ITAa

prelim

ITA 

final

USITC 

final

Date of final 

actionb

701-TA-577 Cold-drawn mechanical 

tubing

India 4/19/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-578 100- to 150-seat large civil 

aircraft

Canada 4/27/2017 A A A (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-579 Fine denier polyester staple 

fiber

China 5/31/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-580 Fine denier polyester staple 

fiber

India 5/31/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-581 Citric acid Thailand 6/2/2017 A N (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-582 Ripe olives Spain 6/22/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-583 Cast iron soil pipe fittings China 7/13/2017 A A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-584 Uncoated groundwood paper Canada 8/9/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-585 Stainless steel flanges China 8/16/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-586 Stainless steel flanges India 8/16/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-587 Titanium sponge Kazakhstan 8/24/2017 N (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) 10/10/2017

701-TA-588 PFTE resin India 9/28/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-589 Forged steel fittings China 10/5/2017 A (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-590 Sodium gluconate China 11/30/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-591 Common alloy aluminum 

sheet

China 12/1/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

701-TA-592 Plastic decorative ribbon China 12/27/2017 (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

) (

c

)

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. a “ITA” is the International Trade Administration of the USDOC.

b For cases in which the final action was taken by the ITA, the date shown is the Federal Register notice date of that action. For cases in which the final action was taken by 

USITC, the date of the USITC notification of USDOC is shown. c Pending or not applicable as of December 31, 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

242 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.13 Countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2017

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

Brazil Heavy iron construction castings May 15, 1986

Carbon steel wire rod October 22, 2002

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Canada Supercalendered paper December 10, 2015

China Heavy forged hand tools - hammers & sledges February 19, 1991

Circular welded carbon quality steel pipe July 22, 2008

Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube August 5, 2008

Laminated woven sacks August 7, 2008

Sodium nitrite August 27, 2008

New pneumatic off-the-road tires September 4, 2008

Raw flexible magnets September 17, 2008

Lightweight thermal paper November 24, 2008

Circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe January 23, 2009

Circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe March 19, 2009

Citric acid and certain citrate May 29, 2009

Kitchen appliance shelving and racks September 14, 2009

Oil country tubular goods January 20, 2010

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand July 7, 2010

Potassium phosphate salts July 22, 2010

Steel grating July 23, 2010

Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge September 1, 2010

Magnesia carbon bricks September 21, 2010

Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe November 10, 2010

Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed 

presses November 17, 2010

Aluminum extrusions May 26, 2011

Multilayered wood flooring December 8, 2011

High pressure steel cylinders June 21, 2012

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells December 7, 2012

Utility scale wind towers February 15, 2013

Drawn stainless steel sinks April 11, 2013

Chlorinated isocyanurates November 13, 2014

Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Carbon and certain alloy steel wire January 8, 2015

Calcium hypochlorite January 30, 2015

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic products February 18, 2015

Passenger vehicle and light truck tires August 10, 2015

Boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale October 21, 2015

Melamine December 28, 2015

Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products July 14, 2016

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Biaxial integral geogrid products March 3, 2017

Ammonium sulfate March 6, 2017

Amorphous silica fabric March 6, 2017

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate March 9, 2017

Stainless steel sheet and strip March 17, 2017
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 243

Country Commodity

Effective date of original 

action

1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) March 20, 2017

India Sulfanilic acid March 2, 1993

Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products December 3, 2001

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film July 1, 2002

Prestressed concrete steel wire strand February 4, 2004

Carbazole violet pigment 23 December 29, 2004

Certain lined paper September 28, 2006

Commodity matchbooks December 11, 2009

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Polyethylene terephthalate resin May 6, 2016

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Welded stainless pressure pipe November 17, 2016

New pneumatic off-the-road tires April 3, 2017

Finished carbon steel flanges May 18, 2017

Indonesia Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products December 3, 2001

Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed 

presses November 17, 2010

Uncoated paper March 5, 2016

Iran Raw in-shell pistachios March 11, 1986

Roasted in-shell pistachios October 7, 1986

Italy Pasta July 24, 1996

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Russia Uranium (suspended) October 16, 1992

South Africa Stainless steel plate in coils May 11, 1999

South Korea Stainless steel sheet & strip August 6, 1999

Carbon steel plate February 10, 2000

Large residential washers February 15, 2013

Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016

Cold-rolled steel flat products September 20, 2016

Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016

Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate May 25, 2017

Sri Lanka New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires July 14, 2017

Taiwan Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014

Thailand Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products December 3, 2001

Turkey Welded carbon steel pipe March 7, 1986

Pasta July 24, 1996

Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014

Steel concrete reinforcing bar November 6, 2014

Welded line pipe December 1, 2015

Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes September 13, 2016

Steel concrete reinforcing bar August 24, 2017

Vietnam Polyethylene retail carrier bags May 4, 2010

Steel wire garment hangers February 5, 2013

Steel nails July 14, 2015

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
The Year in Trade 2017

244 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.14 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspended 

investigations completed in 2017, by date of completion.

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin Action

Completion 

datea

731-TA-1058 Wooden bedroom furniture China Continued 01-25-2017

731-TA-718 Glycine China Continued 01-31-2017

731-TA-825 Polyester staple fiber South Korea Continued 01-31-2017

731-TA-826 Polyester staple fiber Taiwan Continued 01-31-2017

731-TA-1091 Artists’ canvas China Continued 03-02-2017

701-TA-475 Aluminum extrusions China Continued 03-27-2017

731-TA-1177 Aluminum extrusions China Continued 03-27-2017

731-TA-696 Pure magnesium ingot China Continued 03-29-2017

701-TA-318 Sulfanilic acid India Continued 04-17-2017

731-TA-538 Sulfanilic acid China Continued 04-17-2017

731-TA-561 Sulfanilic acid India Continued 04-17-2017

731-TA-540 Welded stainless steel pipe South Korea Continued 05-12-2017

731-TA-541 Welded stainless steel pipe Taiwan Continued 05-12-2017

731-TA-624 Helical spring lock washers China Continued 05-16-2017

731-TA-625 Helical spring lock washers Taiwan Continued 05-16-2017

731-TA-1063 Frozen warmwater shrimp Brazil Revoked 06-01-2017

731-TA-1064 Frozen warmwater shrimp China Continued 05-25-2017

731-TA-1066 Frozen warmwater shrimp India Continued 05-25-2017

731-TA-1067 Frozen warmwater shrimp Thailand Continued 05-25-2017

731-TA-1068 Frozen warmwater shrimp Vietnam Continued 05-25-2017

731-TA-638 Stainless steel wire rod India Continued 06-06-2017

731-TA-287 Raw-in-shell pistachios Iran Continued 06-26-2017

731-TA-461 Gray portland cement and clinker Japan Continued 06-29-2017

731-TA-410 Light-walled rectangular pipe Taiwan Continued 07-25-2017

731-TA-703 Furfuryl alcohol China Continued 07-28-2017

731-TA-669 Cased pencils China Continued 08-17-2017

731-TA-663 Paper clips China Continued 08-24-2017

731-TA-539-C Uranium Russia Continued 09-20-2017

701-TA-382 Stainless steel sheet and strip South Korea Continued 09-20-2017

731-TA-800 Stainless steel sheet and strip Japan Continued 09-20-2017

731-TA-801 Stainless steel sheet and strip South Korea Continued 09-20-2017

731-TA-803 Stainless steel sheet and strip Taiwan Continued 09-20-2017

731-TA-1185 Steel nails United Arab 

Emirates

Continued 09-29-2017

731-TA-847 Carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe

Japan Continued 10-10-2017

731-TA-849 Carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe

Romania Continued 10-10-2017

731-TA-313 Brass sheet and strip France Continued 10-13-2017

731-TA-314 Brass sheet and strip Germany Continued 10-13-2017

731-TA-317 Brass sheet and strip Italy Continued 10-13-2017

731-TA-379 Brass sheet and strip Japan Continued 10-13-2017

731-TA-683 Fresh garlic China Continued 10-19-2017

731-TA-1186 Stilbenic optical brightening agents China Continued 10-27-2017

731-TA-1187 Stilbenic optical brightening agents Taiwan Continued 10-27-2017

701-TA-480 High pressure steel cylinders China Continued 10-31-2017

731-TA-1188 High pressure steel cylinders China Continued 10-31-2017
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 245

USITC 

investigation 

number Product

Country of 

origin Action

Completion 

datea

701-TA-476 Multilayered wood flooring China Continued 12-13-2017

731-TA-1179 Multilayered wood flooring China Continued 12-13-2017

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. a The completion date shown is the date of the USITC notification of USDOC, except in the case of a revocation where the date 

shown is the date of ITA’s Federal Register notice.
The Year in Trade 2017

246 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.15 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the Commission during 

2017 and those pending on December 31, 2017

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

Completed

337-TA-565 Certain ink cartridges and components 

thereof

China, Hong Kong, 

Macau, South Korea

One related (ancillary) advisory 

opinion proceeding; 

terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-567 Certain foam footwear Canada One related (ancillary) 

modification proceeding; 

modification denied.

337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC controllers and products 

containing the same

Hong Kong, Taiwan One related (ancillary) 

rescission proceeding; consent 

order rescinded.

337-TA-854 Certain two-way global satellite 

communication devices, systems and 

components thereof

United Kingdom One related (ancillary) 

rescission proceeding; 

rescission denied.

337-TA-890 Certain sleep-disordered breathing 

treatment systems and components 

thereof

China One related (ancillary) remand 

proceeding; remedial orders 

vacated.

337-TA-929 Certain beverage brewing capsules, 

components thereof, and products 

containing the same

Hong Kong, China One related (ancillary) 

enforcement proceeding and 

two related (ancillary) 

rescission proceedings; no 

violation found; rescission 

denied.

337-TA-944 Certain network devices, related software 

and components thereof (I)

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

declassification proceeding; 

declassification granted in part.

337-TA-945 Certain network devices, related software 

and components thereof (II)

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-945 Certain network devices, related software 

and components thereof (II)

No foreign 

respondents

Two related (ancillary) 

rescission proceedings; 

rescission denied.

337-TA-946 Certain ink cartridges and components 

thereof

China, Hong Kong One related (ancillary) advisory 

opinion proceeding; 

terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-947 Certain light-emitting diode products and 

components thereof

China, Taiwan Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-951 Certain lithium metal oxide cathode 

materials, lithium-ion batteries for power 

tool products containing same, and power 

tool products with lithium-ion batteries 

containing same

Japan, Belgium One related (ancillary) 

rescission proceeding; remedial 

order rescinded.

337-TA-959 Certain electric skin care devices, brushes 

and chargers therefor, and kits containing 

same

China, South Korea, 

United Kingdom, 

Canada, Israel

Issued general exclusion order, 

limited exclusion order, and 

nine cease and desist orders.

337-TA-965 Certain table saws incorporating active 

injury mitigation technology and 

components thereof

Germany Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 247

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-967 Certain document cameras and software 

for use therewith

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

rescission proceeding; remedial 

orders rescinded.

337-TA-968 Certain radiotherapy systems and 

treatment planning software, and 

components thereof

Sweden, United 

Kingdom, Germany, 

China

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-971 Certain air mattress systems, components 

thereof, and methods of using the same

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order.

337-TA-972 Certain automated teller machines, ATM 

modules, components thereof, and 

products containing the same

South Korea Issued limited exclusion order 

and three cease and desist 

orders.

337-TA-973 Certain wearable activity tracking devices, 

systems, and components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-976 Certain woven textile fabrics and products 

containing same

India Issued general exclusion order.

337-TA-977 Certain arrowheads with deploying blades

and components thereof and packaging 

therefor

China Issued general exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-979 Certain radio frequency identification 

(RFID) products and components thereof

Canada, Thailand, 

Hong Kong

Terminated based on a finding 

of no violation.

337-TA-982 Certain radio frequency (RF) capable 

integrated circuits and products 

containing the same

South Korea Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-988 Certain pumping bras China Issued general exclusion order.

337-TA-989 Certain automated teller machines, ATM 

modules, components thereof, and 

products containing the same

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order 

and two cease and desist 

orders.

337-TA-995 Certain electrical conductor composite 

cores and components thereof

China Terminated based on good 

cause.

337-TA-997 Certain sleep-disordered breathing 

treatment systems and components 

thereof

China Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-998 Certain hybrid electric vehicles and 

components thereof

Germany Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-999 Certain air mattress bed systems and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

declassification proceeding; 

declassification granted in part.

337-TA-1000 Certain motorized self-balancing vehicles China, Hong Kong Terminated based on a finding

of no violation.

337-TA-1001 Certain digital video receivers and

hardware and software components 

thereof

United Kingdom, 

France

Issued limited exclusion order 

and six cease and desist orders.

337-TA-1005 Certain L-tryptophan, L-tryptophan

products, and their methods of 

production

South Korea, 

Indonesia

Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-1006 Certain passenger vehicle automotive

wheels

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1007 Certain personal transporters,

components thereof, and packaging and 

manuals therefor

No foreign 

respondents

Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.
The Year in Trade 2017

248 | www.usitc.gov

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-1008 Certain carbon spine board, cervical collar, 

CPR masks and various medical training 

manikin devices, and trademarks, 

copyrights of product catalogues, product 

inserts, and components thereof

China Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-1010 Certain semiconductor devices, 

semiconductor device packages, and 

products containing same

Taiwan, Singapore, 

United Kingdom, 

France

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1013 Certain potassium chloride powder

products

Canada Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1014 Certain composite intermediate bulk 

containers

China Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1015 Certain hand dryers and housings for hand 

dryers

United Kingdom, 

China

Issued general exclusion order 

and three cease and desist 

orders.

337-TA-1018 Certain athletic footwear No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a consent 

order.

337-TA-1019 Certain krill oil products and krill meal for 

production of krill oil products

Canada, Norway, 

New Zealand

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1020 Certain industrial control system software, 

systems using same, and components 

thereof

Germany, Taiwan Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1021 Certain personal transporters and 

components thereof

Netherlands, China, 

Turkey

Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-1022 Certain sleep-disordered breathing 

treatment mask systems and components 

thereof

New Zealand Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1025 Certain silicon-on-insulator wafers France Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1027 Certain food supplements and vitamins, 

including ocular antioxidants and 

components thereof and products 

containing the same

India Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1029 Certain mobile electronic devices China Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1030 Certain high-potency sweeteners, 

processes for making same, and products 

containing same

China Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1034 Certain flash memory devices and 

components thereof

Japan, China, 

Malaysia

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1035 Certain liquid crystal eWriters and 

components thereof

China Issued limited exclusion order 

and cease and desist order.

337-TA-1037 Certain graphics processors, DDR memory 

controllers and products containing the 

same

South Korea, China, 

Taiwan, Japan

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1038 Certain electronic devices, including 

mobile phones, tablet computers, and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 249

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-1039 Certain electronic devices, including

mobile phones, tablet computers, and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1040 Certain basketball backboard components

and products containing the same

China Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1041 Certain digital television set-top boxes,

remote control devices, and components 

thereof

China, United 

Kingdom

Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1045 Certain document cameras and software

for use therewith

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1048 Certain intravascular administration sets

and components thereof

China Issued limited exclusion order.

337-TA-1051 Certain LTE wireless communication

devices and components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1052 Certain thermoplastic-encapsulated

electric motors, components thereof, and 

products and vehicles containing same

Japan, Germany Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

337-TA-1054 Certain height-adjustable desk platforms

and components thereof

China Terminated based on a 

settlement agreement.

337-TA-1062 Certain backpack chairs No foreign 

respondents

Terminated based on 

withdrawal of the complaint.

Pending

337-TA-921 Certain marine sonar imaging devices, 

including downscan and sidescan devices, 

products containing the same, and 

components thereof

Taiwan One related (ancillary) 

enforcement proceeding and 

one related (ancillary) 

rescission proceeding; pending 

before the Commission.

337-TA-933 Certain stainless steel products, certain 

processes for manufacturing or relating to 

same and certain products containing 

same

India, Germany, 

Taiwan

One related (ancillary) bond 

forfeiture proceeding; pending 

before the ALJ.

337-TA-943 Certain wireless headsets Ireland, Australia, 

Singapore, 

Denmark, Germany, 

Japan

One related (ancillary) remand 

proceeding; pending before the 

ALJ.

337-TA-944 Certain network devices, related software 

and components thereof (I) 

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

enforcement proceeding; 

pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-945 Certain network devices, related software 

and components thereof (II) 

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

modification proceeding; 

pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-971 Certain air mattress systems, components 

thereof, and methods of using the same

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) remand 

proceeding; pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-989 Certain automated teller machines, ATM 

modules, components thereof, and 

products containing the same

No foreign 

respondents

One related (ancillary) 

enforcement proceeding; 

pending before the ALJ.
The Year in Trade 2017

250 | www.usitc.gov

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-990 Certain mobile electronic devices 

incorporating haptics (including 

smartphones and smartwatches) and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1002 Certain carbon and alloy steel products China, Hong Kong Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1003 Certain composite aerogel insulation 

materials and methods for manufacturing

the same

China Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1004 Certain mobile and portable electronic 

devices incorporating haptics (including 

smartphones and laptops) and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1012 Certain magnetic data storage tapes and 

cartridges containing the same

Japan Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1016 Certain access control systems and 

components thereof

China, Hong Kong Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1023 Certain memory modules and 

components thereof, and products 

containing same

South Korea Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1024 Certain integrated circuits with voltage 

regulators and products containing same

China, Ireland, 

Vietnam, Israel, 

Malaysia

Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1026 Certain audio processing hardware, 

software, and products containing the 

same

South Korea Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1028 Certain mobile device holders and 

components thereof

China, Hong Kong Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1031 Certain UV curable coatings for optical 

fibers, coated optical fibers, and products 

containing same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1032 Certain single-molecule nucleic acid 

sequencing systems and reagents, 

consumables, and software for use with 

same

United Kingdom Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1033 Certain arrowheads with arcuate blades 

and components thereof

China Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1036 Certain magnetic tape cartridges and 

components thereof

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1042 Certain hybrid electric vehicles and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1043 Certain electronic connectors, 

components thereof, and products 

containing the same

China, Taiwan, 

Germany, Brazil, 

Mexico

Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1044 Certain graphics systems, components 

thereof, and consumer products 

containing the same

South Korea, Taiwan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1046 Certain nonvolatile memory devices and 

products containing same

Japan, Philippines Pending before the ALJ.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 251

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-1047 Certain semiconductor devices and 

consumer audiovisual products containing 

the same

Japan, South Korea, 

Taiwan

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1049 Certain digital cable and satellite

products, set-top boxes, gateways and 

components thereof

United Kingdom Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1050 Certain dental ceramics, products thereof, 

and methods of making the same

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1053 Certain two-way radio equipment and 

systems, related software and 

components thereof

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1055 Certain mirrors with internal illumination 

and components thereof

Canada Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1056 Certain collapsible sockets for mobile 

electronic devices and components 

thereof

Hong Kong, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1057 Certain robotic vacuum cleaning devices 

and components thereof such as spare 

parts

Canada, Taiwan, 

China

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1058 Certain magnetic tape cartridges and 

components thereof

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1059 Certain digital cameras, software, and 

components thereof

Thailand, Japan, 

China, Indonesia

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1060 Certain consumer electronic devices,

including televisions, gaming consoles, 

mobile phones and tablets, and networkenabled DVD and Blu-ray players

Japan Pending before the 

Commission.

337-TA-1061 Certain bar code readers, scan engines, 

products containing the same, and 

components thereof

Singapore Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1063 Certain Xray breast imaging devices and 

components thereof

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1064 Certain shielded electrical ribbon cables 

and products containing the same

China, Taiwan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1065 Certain mobile electronic devices and 

radio frequency and processing 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1066 Certain recombinant factor IX products Germany, 

Switzerland

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1067 Certain road milling machines and 

components thereof

Switzerland, Italy Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1068 Certain microfluidic devices No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1069 Certain pool and spa enclosures Czech Republic, 

Slovakia

Pending before the ALJ

337-TA-1070 Certain periodontal laser devices and 

components thereof

Slovenia Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1071 Certain wireless audio systems and 

components thereof

Canada Pending before the 

Commission.
The Year in Trade 2017

252 | www.usitc.gov

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-1072 Wi-Fi enabled electronic devices and 

components thereof

China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1073 Certain thermoplastic-encapsulated 

electric motors, components thereof, and 

products and vehicles containing same

Japan, Germany Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1074 Certain industrial automation systems and 

components thereof including control 

systems, controllers, visualization 

hardware, motion and motor control 

systems, networking equipment, safety 

devices, and power supplies

China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1075 Certain electrochemical glucose 

monitoring systems and components 

thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1076 Certain magnetic data storage tapes and 

cartridges containing the same (II)

Japan Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1077 Certain reusable diapers, components 

thereof, and products containing the 

same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1078 Certain amorphous metal and products 

containing same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1079 Certain shaving cartridges, components 

thereof and products containing same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1080 Certain wafer-level packaging 

semiconductor devices and products 

containing same (including cellular 

phones, tablets, laptops, and notebooks) 

and components thereof

South Korea Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1081 Certain LED lighting devices, LED power 

supplies, and components thereof

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1082 Certain gas spring nailer products and 

components thereof

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1083 Certain personal computers, mobile 

devices, digital media players, and 

microconsoles

No foreign 

respondents

Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1084 Certain insulated beverage containers, 

components, labels, and packaging 

materials thereof

Hong Kong, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1085 Certain glucosylated steviol glycosides, 

and products containing same

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1086 Certain mounting apparatuses for holding 

portable electronic devices and 

components thereof

China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1087 Certain batteries and electrochemical 

devices containing composite separators, 

components thereof, and products 

containing same

Hong Kong, China Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1088 Certain road construction machines and 

components thereof

Germany Pending before the ALJ.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 253

Status of 

investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb

337-TA-1089 Certain memory modules and

components thereof

South Korea Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1090 Certain intraoral scanners and related

hardware and software

Denmark Pending before the ALJ.

337-TA-1091 Certain color intraoral scanners and

related hardware and software

Denmark Pending before the ALJ.

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

a This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the original notice of investigation and may thus not 

reflect the remaining respondents at the time of the final decision or during any ancillary proceeding. “Hong Kong” refers to

“Hong Kong, China”; “Macau” refers to “Macau, China.”

b ALJ = Administrative Law Judge.
The Year in Trade 2017

254 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.16 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2017

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-69 Certain airtight cast-iron stoves Taiwan, South 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 (namely, Rally-X and Pac-Man)

Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-112 Certain cube puzzles Taiwan, Japan Nonpatent

337-TA-114 Certain miniature plug-in blade fuses Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-118 Certain sneakers with fabric uppers and rubber soles South Korea Nonpatent

337-TA-137 Certain heavy-duty staple gun tackers Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

South Korea

Nonpatent

337-TA-152 Certain plastic food storage containers Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-167 Certain single handle faucets Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-174 Certain woodworking machines Taiwan, South Africa Nonpatent

337-TA-195 Certain cloisonne jewelry Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-197 Certain compound action metal cutting snips and 

components thereof

Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-229 Certain nut jewelry and parts thereof Philippines, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-231 Certain soft sculpture dolls, popularly known as 

“Cabbage Patch Kids,” related literature and 

packaging therefor

No foreign respondents Nonpatent

337-TA-266 Certain reclosable plastic bags and tubing Singapore, Taiwan, South 

Korea, Thailand, Hong 

Kong, Malaysia

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-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-424 Certain cigarettes and packaging thereof No foreign respondents Nonpatent

337-TA-440 Certain 4-androstenediol China July 13, 2018

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-512 Certain light-emitting diodes and products 

containing same

Malaysia July 27, 2018

July 27, 2018

July 27, 2018

337-TA-522 Certain ink markers and packaging thereof China, India, South Korea, 

Hong Kong

Nonpatent
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 255

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-541 Certain power supply controllers and products 

containing same

Taiwan Sept. 24, 2019

Sept. 24, 2019

337-TA-549 Certain ink sticks for solid ink printers South Korea Apr. 29, 2022

Apr. 29, 2022

Apr. 29, 2022

337-TA-557 Certain automotive parts Taiwan June 22, 2018

July 27, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

Oct. 5, 2018

Oct. 26, 2018

Mar. 1, 2019

Mar. 22, 2019

337-TA-563 Certain portable power stations and packaging 

therefor

China Nonpatent

337-TA-565 Certain ink cartridges and components thereof Hong Kong, China, 

Macau, Germany, South 

Korea

May 18, 2019

May 18, 2019

Apr. 3, 2022

Aug. 17, 2023

Aug. 26, 2023

337-TA-567 Certain foam footwear Canada Mar. 28, 2020

Oct. 3, 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-604 Certain sucralose, sweeteners containing sucralose, 

and related intermediate compounds thereof

China, United Kingdom, 

Hong Kong

Apr. 18, 2023

337-TA-611 Certain magnifying loupe products and components 

thereof

China May 20, 2022

337-TA-615 Certain ground fault circuit interrupters and 

products containing the same

China 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-643 Certain cigarettes and packaging thereof Moldova, Belize, 

Singapore, Ukraine, 

Kyrgyzstan, Gibraltar, 

United Kingdom, 

Switzerland

Nonpatent

337-TA-650 Certain coaxial cable connectors and components 

thereof and products containing same

Taiwan, China Jan. 24, 2020
The Year in Trade 2017

256 | www.usitc.gov

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-655 Certain cast steel railway wheels, processes for 

manufacturing or relating to same and certain 

products containing same

China Nonpatent

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-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

South Korea 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, China, Hong 

Kong

Aug. 30, 2019

July 24, 2020

July 24, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

337-TA-725 Certain caskets Mexico Sept. 13, 2020

337-TA-730 Certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof China Aug. 20, 2023

Oct. 29, 2023

337-TA-739 Certain ground fault circuit interrupters and 

products containing same

China Oct. 21, 2023

337-TA-740 Certain toner cartridges and components thereof China, Hong Kong, 

Canada, South Korea, 

Macau

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-754 Certain handbags, luggage, accessories, and 

packaging thereof

China Nonpatent

337-TA-763 Certain radio control hobby transmitters and 

receivers and products containing same

China Nonpatent

Oct. 18, 2025

337-TA-780 Certain protective cases and components thereof China, Hong Kong Nonpatent

Sept. 29, 2023

May 11, 2024

June 15, 2024

June 15, 2024

Mar. 22, 2025

Apr. 19, 2025

Jan. 25, 2029
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 257

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA791/826Certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, 

manuals for same, certain processes for 

manufacturing or relating to same and certain 

products containing same; and certain electric 

fireplaces, components thereof, manuals for same, 

certain processes for manufacturing or relating to 

same and certain products containing same

China Nonpatent

337-TA-796 Certain electronic digital media devices and 

components thereof

South Korea Sept. 6, 2026

Jan. 5, 2027

337-TA-804 Certain LED photographic lighting devices and 

components thereof

China, Taiwan Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

337-TA-807 Certain digital photo frames and image display 

devices and components thereof

Taiwan, Canada, Japan July 6, 2020

Dec. 26, 2020

Oct. 29, 2021

337-TA-832 Certain ink application devices and components 

thereof and methods of using the same

Canada, China Feb. 28, 2020

Sept. 2, 2020

337-TA-849 Certain rubber resins and processes for 

manufacturing same

China, Hong Kong, 

Canada

Nonpatent

337-TA861/867Certain cases for portable electronic devices; and 

certain cases for portable electronic devices

Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

China

Feb. 6, 2029

337-TA-878 Certain electronic devices having placeshifting or 

display replication functionality and products 

containing same

No foreign respondents May 26, 2019

May 26, 2019

June 7, 2025

June 7, 2025

June 7, 2025

May 1, 2029

337-TA-883 Certain opaque polymers Turkey, Netherlands Nonpatent

337-TA-887 Certain crawler cranes and components thereof China Nonpatent

May 12, 2027

337-TA-894 Certain tires and products containing same China, Thailand Mar. 9, 2018

Jan. 19, 2024

Mar. 2, 2024

Mar. 2, 2024

337-TA-895 Certain multiple mode outdoor grills and parts 

thereof

China, Hong Kong May 4, 2027

337-TA-918 Certain toner cartridges and components thereof China, Hong Kong, Macau Dec. 26, 2027

Dec. 26, 2027

Dec. 26, 2027

Dec. 26, 2027

Mar. 24, 2028

337-TA-919 Certain archery products and related marketing 

materials

China Nonpatent

Mar. 30, 2018

Jan. 15, 2023

337-TA-921 Certain marine sonar imaging devices, including 

downscan and sidescan devices, products containing 

same, and components thereof

Taiwan July 14, 2029

July 14, 2029

337-TA-923 Certain loom kits for creating linked articles China Dec. 15, 2031

337-TA-929 Certain beverage brewing capsules, components 

thereof and products containing the same

Hong Kong, China July 13, 2027
The Year in Trade 2017

258 | www.usitc.gov

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-933 Certain stainless steel products, certain processes 

for manufacturing or relating to same, and certain 

products containing same

India, Germany, Taiwan Nonpatent

337-TA-934 Certain dental implants Brazil May 23, 2024

Nov. 26, 2026

337-TA-935d Certain personal transporters, components thereof 

and manuals therefor

China Nonpatent

June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

Oct. 13, 2020

Sept. 25, 2021

Sept. 25, 2021

337-TA-936 Certain footwear products Canada, Italy, China, 

Australia, Japan

Nonpatent

337-TA-939 Certain three-dimensional cinema systems and 

components thereof

South Korea Oct. 18, 2026

Sept. 28, 2027

Nov. 17, 2028

337-TA-944 Certain network devices, related software and 

components thereof (I)

No foreign respondents Jan. 6, 2020

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

337-TA-945 Certain network devices, related software and 

components thereof (II)

No foreign respondents June 30, 2018

Aug. 23, 2025

337-TA-946 Certain ink cartridges and components thereof Hong Kong, China Dec. 15, 2026

Dec. 15, 2026

Dec. 15, 2026

Dec. 15, 2026

Sept. 4, 2029

337-TA-959e Certain electric skin care devices, brushes and 

chargers therefor, and kits containing same

South Korea, Israel, 

Canada, United Kingdom, 

China

Nonpatent

June 27, 2020

July 4, 2024

Dec. 15, 2024

337-TA-965 Certain table saws incorporating active injury 

mitigation technology and components thereof

Germany Sept. 29, 2020

Feb. 1, 2022

337-TA-967 Certain document cameras and software for use 

therewith

No foreign respondents Jan. 28, 2030

337-TA-972 Certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, 

components thereof, and products containing the 

same

South Korea Dec. 9. 2027

337-TA-975 Certain computer cables, chargers, adapters, 

peripheral devices and packaging containing the 

same

China Nonpatent

337-TA-976 Certain woven textile fabrics and products 

containing same

India Nonpatent
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 259

Investigation 

no. Article Countrya

Date patent 

expiresb

337-TA-977 Certain arrowheads with deploying blades and 

components thereof and packaging therefor

China Nonpatent

March 3, 2021

March 3, 2021

Aug. 12, 2028

Aug. 19, 2028

Oct. 8, 2028

Jan. 8, 2033

March 15, 2033

April 18, 2033

337-TA-988 Certain pumping bras China July 29, 2030

337-TA-989 Certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, 

components thereof, and products containing the 

same

No foreign respondents Jan. 17, 2029

337-TA-1001 Certain digital video receivers and hardware and 

software components thereof

United Kingdom, France Sept. 18, 2019

Sept. 18, 2019

337-TA-1005 Certain L-tryptophan, L-tryptophan products, and 

their methods of production

South Korea, Indonesia Jan. 30, 2018

June 15, 2023

337-TA1007/1021Certain personal transporters, components thereof, 

and packaging and manuals therefor and certain 

personal transporters and components thereof

Netherlands, China, 

Turkey

Nonpatent

337-TA-1008 Certain carbon spine board, cervical collar, CPR 

masks and various medical training manikin devices, 

and trademarks, copyrights of product catalogues, 

product inserts and components thereof

China Nonpatent

337-TA-1015 Certain hand dryers and housings for hand dryers United Kingdom, China Nonpatent

337-TA-1035 Certain liquid crystal eWriters and components 

thereof

China March 9, 2026

Nov. 14, 2033

337-TA-1048 Certain intravascular administration sets and 

components thereof

China Nov. 9, 2018

Nov. 9, 2018

Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.

a This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the original notice of investigation and may thus not 

reflect the countries of the respondents covered by an exclusion order. “Hong Kong” refers to “Hong Kong, China”; “Macau” 

refers to “Macau, China.”

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. d There are two outstanding exclusion orders in inv. no. 337-TA-935. e There are two outstanding exclusion orders in inv. no. 337-TA-959.
The Year in Trade 2017

260 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.17 U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, by source, 2015–17

Source 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

India 4,618 4,710 5,635 19.6

Thailand 3,610 4,038 4,151 2.8

Brazil 1,941 2,181 2,473 13.4

Indonesia 1,682 1,793 1,947 8.6

Turkey 1,231 1,437 1,651 14.9

Philippines 1,380 1,473 1,492 1.3

South Africa 1,129 985 1,115 13.2

Ecuador 317 390 435 11.5

Cambodia 78 179 397 121.9

Pakistan 180 247 328 32.6

Sri Lanka 178 173 193 11.5

Kazakhstan 105 89 145 62.0

Bolivia 101 115 109 -5.0

Tunisia 217 115 102 -10.7

Georgia 89 58 93 60.3

Burma 0 3 91 2,736

Serbia 52 80 90 12.6

Egypt 71 75 88 16.9

Paraguay 66 69 82 20.1

Lebanon 43 65 74 13.7

Côte d’Ivoire 58 71 66 -7.1

Ukraine 41 54 55 2.4

Congo (DROC) 111 99 47 -52.9

Zimbabwe 46 16 46 193.1

Armenia 46 25 46 84.8

Subtotal, top 25 GSP beneficiaries in 2017 17,388 18,539 20,952 13.0

All other beneficiaries 370 414 263 -36.5

Total U.S. imports for consumption under GSP 17,759 18,953 21,215 11.9

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 261

Table A.18 Value of U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 2,952 3,199 3,304 3.3

2 Forest products 681 572 666 16.5

3 Chemicals and related products 3,380 3,825 4,545 18.8

4 Energy-related products (

a

) 2 15 505.7

5 Textiles and apparel 586 629 689 9.6

6 Footwear 7 11 8 -25.5

7 Minerals and metals 3,519 3,363 4,158 23.6

8 Machinery 2,090 2,160 2,119 -1.9

9 Transportation equipment 2,187 2,422 2,501 3.3

10 Electronic products 1,073 1,129 1,118 -1.0

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,284 1,643 2,092 27.3

Total U.S. imports for consumption under GSP 17,759 18,953 21,215 11.9

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a Less than $500,000.

Table A.19 Share of U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017

% of eligible imports

1 Agricultural products 16.6 16.9 15.6

2 Forest products 3.8 3.0 3.1

3 Chemicals and related products 19.0 20.2 21.4

4 Energy-related products 0.0 0.0 0.1

5 Textiles and apparel 3.3 3.3 3.2

6 Footwear 0.0 0.1 0.0

7 Minerals and metals 19.8 17.7 19.6

8 Machinery 11.8 11.4 10.0

9 Transportation equipment 12.3 12.8 11.8

10 Electronic products 6.0 6.0 5.3

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 7.2 8.7 9.9

Total for consumption under GSP 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

262 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.20 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under GSP, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 338 555 660 18.9

7202.41 Ferrochromium, containing more than 4% (wt.) carbon 259 263 480 82.4

2202.99 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. (including milk-based drinks) (

a

) (

a

) 347 (

b

)

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 218 251 294 16.8

4015.19 Gloves, except surgical and medical gloves, of vulcanized rubber, n.e.s.o.i. 249 240 278 15.6

6802.99 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of stone n.e.s.o.i. 187 233 273 17.0

2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 199 204 237 16.1

7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 222 224 231 2.9

1701.14 Cane sugar in solid form, raw, not containing added flavoring or coloring matter, n.e.s.o.i. 100 173 229 32.2

8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes for motor vehicles 216 213 228 7.0

8415.90 Parts, n.e.s.o.i., of air conditioning machines 262 262 224 -14.4

6802.91 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of marble, travertine and alabaster 175 189 223 17.8

7801.10 Refined lead, unwrought 131 89 220 148.0

4011.20 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 88 180 190 5.1

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, 

n.e.s.o.i. 81 158 189 19.6

Total of items shown 2,725 3,235 4,301 33.0

All other HTS products 15,034 15,718 16,913 7.6

Total of all commodities 17,759 18,953 21,215 11.9

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 2202.90.

b Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 263

Table A.21 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA (excluding GSP), by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 4,814 6,210 9,162 47.5

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 1,349 1,493 1,178 -21.1

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, 

not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 278 225 263 17.1

6203.42 Men's or boys' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, not knitted or 

crocheted 179 193 201 4.2

6110.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of manmade fibers, knitted or crocheted 102 109 123 12.8

6205.20 Men's or boys' shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 148 143 119 -16.2

0802.62 Macadamia nuts, shelled, fresh or dried 103 86 108 26.5

6104.63 Women's or girls' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of synthetic fibers, knitted or 

crocheted 98 91 94 2.7

7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 0 23 93 295.7

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 

70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 55 29 90 209.7

7202.11 Ferromanganese, containing more than 2% (wt.) carbon 87 33 85 154.1

6204.62 Women's or girls' trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, not knitted or 

crocheted 88 98 85 -13.5

6105.20 Men's or boys' shirts of manmade fibers, knitted or crocheted 60 78 77 -1.4

3823.70 Industrial fatty alcohols 42 47 62 31.8

6109.90 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, of textile materials n.e.s.o.i., knitted or crocheted 47 52 54 3.9

Total of items shown 7,450 8,910 11,794 32.4

All other HTS products 534 541 718 32.7

Total of all commodities 7,984 9,451 12,512 32.4

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
The Year in Trade 2017

264 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.22 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA (excluding GSP), by source, 2015–17

Source 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Thousand $ % change

Nigeria 1,403,195 3,482,333 6,089,946 74.9

Angola 1,830,054 1,998,268 2,270,554 13.6

South Africa 1,730,100 1,858,388 1,817,607 -2.2

Chad 1,478,697 775,178 590,244 -23.9

Kenya 428,224 390,746 403,258 3.2

Ghana 9,626 29,691 312,479 952.5

Lesotho 299,314 295,164 289,013 -2.1

Madagascar 39,831 93,734 148,028 57.9

Mauritius 207,083 188,039 140,199 -25.4

Gabon 167,003 60,050 99,913 66.4

Ethiopia 40,897 61,490 86,453 40.6

Congo (ROC) 254,572 61,681 79,464 28.8

Mauritania 0 47,711 54,854 15.0

Tanzania 28,166 36,952 40,545 9.7

Côte d’Ivoire 530 120 37,717 31295.2

Malawi 40,952 45,085 35,503 -21.3

Senegal 15,544 87 5,133 5784.1

Mozambique 284 1,470 2,845 93.5

Rwanda 435 1,220 2,164 77.4

Djibouti 464 11 1,304 11758.2

Botswana 8,251 4,766 991 -79.2

Zambia 265 32 907 2725.3

Burkina Faso 3 167 720 331.6

Cabo Verde 523 586 720 22.8

Uganda 144 288 713 147.5

Cameroon 53 16,758 393 -97.7

Sierra Leone 0 523 92 -82.3

Togo 11 20 80 306.9

Guinea 4 7 32 359.4

Namibia 0 0 31 (

a

)

Mali 14 13 20 52.6

Benin 0 15 9 -39.9

Niger 0 3 2 -48.8

Liberia 0 17 0 -100.0

Seychelles 0 34 0 -100.0

Total U.S. imports for consumption under 

AGOA (excluding GSP) 7,984,240 9,450,648 12,511,932 32.4

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. 

= not elsewhere specified or included. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

a Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 265

Table A.23 Leading U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Thousand $ % change

2905.11 Methanol (methyl alcohol) 650,812 253,213 378,273 49.4

6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments of cotton, knitted or crocheted 271,502 206,745 192,440 -6.9

3903.11 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 86,880 66,625 78,149 17.3

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 120,972 84,342 73,278 -13.1

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 144,871 86,200 53,648 -37.8

0714.30 Yams, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried 20,408 21,119 23,281 10.2

2933.61 Melamine 4,236 12,257 16,681 36.1

2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 13,468 15,920 14,893 -6.4

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing 

by weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 225 298 12,441 4,068.8

2103.90 Sauces and preparations therefor, n.e.s.o.i.; mixed condiments and mixed seasonings 12,888 11,452 12,283 7.3

6109.90 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, of textile materials n.e.s.o.i., knitted or

crocheted 17,536 11,853 11,981 1.1

0804.50 Guavas, mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried 13,804 8,421 11,942 41.8

2009.19 Orange juice, other than frozen, whether or not sweetened 7,912 6,476 4,709 -27.3

2008.99 Fruit and other edible parts of plants, n.e.s.o.i., prepared or preserved, whether or not 

containing added sweetening or spirit, n.e.s.o.i. 5,254 6,009 4,696 -21.8

2208.40 Rum and tafia 2,862 3,174 4,353 37.2

Total of items shown 1,373,632 794,103 893,047 12.5

All other HTS provisions 168,190 76,793 67,941 -11.5

Total of all commodities 1,541,822 870,896 960,989 10.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

266 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.24 U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA, by source, 2015–17

Source 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Thousand $ % change

Trinidad and Tobago 830,291 378,983 488,160 28.8

Haiti 433,402 317,860 295,323 -7.1

Bahamas 88,389 68,403 79,826 16.7

Jamaica 81,583 74,847 72,676 -2.9

Belize 36,881 17,136 12,398 -27.7

St. Kitts-Nevis 10,481 7,210 5,122 -29.0

Barbados 22,570 2,254 3,558 57.8

Grenada 1,728 1,809 2,405 32.9

Guyana 34,918 1,551 707 -54.5

St. Lucia 1,301 627 342 -45.4

Antigua Barbuda 82 37 161 330.7

Curaçao 3 85 124 45.6

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 16 45 102 125.8

Dominica 77 22 48 116.5

Aruba 93 15 36 145.1

British Virgin Islands 9 9 0 -100.0

Montserrat 0 0 0 (

a

)

Total U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA 1,541,822 870,896 960,989 10.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

a Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 267

Table A.25 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in 

2017

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS217 United States—

Continued Dumping 

and Subsidy Offset Act 

of 2000 (CDSOA or 

Byrd Amendment)

Australia, Brazil, 

Chile, European 

Communities 

(EC), India, 

Indonesia, 

Japan, South 

Korea, Thailand

Complaining parties request consultations (12/21/00).

Panel is established (08/23/01) and composed (10/25/01).

Panel report is circulated (09/16/02).

U.S. notifies Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) it will appeal 

panel decision (10/18/02).

Appellate Body report is circulated (01/16/03).

Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and 

Mexico request DSB authorization to suspend concessions 

(01/15/04); U.S. objects and DSB refers the matter 

arbitration (01/24/04).

Arbitrator circulates decisions and rejects position of Brazil, 

Canada, Chile, the EC, India, Japan, South Korea, and 

Mexico, and finds it appropriate to rely on the economic 

effect of the measure (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 (2006-2013) and EC (2006-2018) notify DSB annually 

of the new list of products on which the additional import 

duty would be imposed further to the authorized 

suspension of concessions.

Japan notifies DSB that, because the level of authorization 

was marginal, no suspension of concessions would be 

applied for the 10th year starting September 1, 2014 

(08/18/14) and similarly notifies the same for 2015, 2016, 

and 2017.
The Year in Trade 2017

268 | www.usitc.gov

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 is established (07/20/05) and composed (10/17/05).

Panel report is circulated (06/30/10).

European Union (EU) notifies DSB it will appeal decision to 

Appellate Body (07/21/10); U.S. does the same (08/19/10).

Appellate Body report is circulated (05/18/11).

DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (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).

U.S. requests establishment of an Article 21.5 compliance 

panel (03/30/12); panel established (04/13/12).

Compliance panel issues report, finding that the EU has 

largely failed to comply (09/22/16).

EU notifies the Appellate Body of its decision to appeal 

certain issues of law and interpretation in the panel report 

(10/13/16).

U.S. notifies the Appellate Body it will appeal certain issues 

of law and interpretation in the panel report (11/10/16).

Appellate Body circulates its report to members, largely 

upholding the panel report (05/18/18).
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 269

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 is 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 is circulated (03/31/11).

EU notifies DSB that it will appeal the decision to the 

Appellate Body (04/01/11); U.S. also notifies its decision to 

appeal (04/28/11).

Appellate Body report is circulated (03/12/12); DSB adopts 

Appellate Body and panel reports (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 Agreement on Subsidies 

and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) (04/24/12).

U.S. notifies DSB of withdrawal of subsidies and removal of 

adverse effects in this dispute, and that it fully complies 

with DSB recommendations and rulings (09/23/12).

Compliance proceedings: EU requests consultations under 

Article 21.5 (09/25/12), and then requests establishment of 

a compliance panel (10/11/12). A compliance panel is 

established and composed (10/30/12). The panel chair 

subsequently informs the DSB several times of delays in 

circulating its report due to scale and complexity of the 

dispute.

Compliance report circulates to members, upholding certain 

EU claims and rejecting others (06/09/17).

EU notifies DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law 

and legal interpretations (06/29/17); and the U.S. notifies 

the DSB of its decision to cross-appeal (08/10/17).

Countermeasures: EU requests authority to take 

countermeasures under Article 22 of the DSU (remedies) 

and Articles 4, 10, and 7.9 of the SCM Agreement 

(09/27/12).

U.S. objects to the level of suspension of concessions and 

other obligations, and refers the matter to arbitration under 

Article 22.6 of the DSU (10/22/12). At the DSB meeting the 

two parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration 

(10/23/10).

U.S. and EU later ask the arbitrator to suspend arbitration 

proceedings (11/27/12), and the arbitrator suspends 

proceedings (11/28/12).
The Year in Trade 2017

270 | www.usitc.gov

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 U.S. (10/24/08).

Panel is established (04/20/09) and composed (12/14/09).

Panel chairman informs DSB that the 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 is circulated (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 (05/16/12); DSB adopts 

the Appellate Body and panel reports (06/13/12).

U.S. states that it intends to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings (06/25/12), and U.S. and 

Mexico inform DSB that they have agreed that a reasonable 

period of time to do so is by July 13, 2013 (09/17/12).

U.S. advises DSB that it has made effective a final rule 

amending dolphin-safe labeling requirements for tuna and 

tuna products, bringing its requirements into compliance 

(07/23/13).

Mexico and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (08/02/13).

Compliance proceedings. Mexico requests establishment of 

a compliance panel (11/14/13); DSB agrees to refer to the 

original panel (01/22/14); panel is composed (01/27/14).

Compliance panel report circulated to members (04/14/15).

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of 

law covered in the compliance panel report (06/05/15); 

Mexico files an appeal in the same dispute (06/10/15).

Appellate Body report is circulated to members (11/20/15).

DSB adopts Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports and panel 

reports, as modified by Appellate Body reports 

(12/03/15).Mexico requests Article 22.2 authorization to 

suspend concessions (03/10/16).

U.S. requests Article 22.6 arbitration of Mexico’s request to 

suspend concessions (03/22/16) and requests 

establishment of an Article 21.5 panel to resolve 

disagreement over U.S. compliance measures (04/11/16). 

Panels established and composed (04/22/16, 05/27/16).

Mexico requests Article 21.5 (second recourse) 

consultations with U.S. (05/13/16); consultations held 

(06/02/16).

Mexico requests establishment of an Article 21.5 

compliance panel to resolve disagreement over the U.S. 

final rule as amended in 2016 (06/09/16).

Compliance panel composed (07/11/16).

Compliance panel report circulated to members; panel finds 

U.S. measures consistent with Article 2.1 of TBT Agreement 

and justified under Article XX of GATT 1994 (10/26/17).

Mexico notifies DSB of decision to appeal certain issues of

law and legal interpretation in the compliance panel report 

(12/01/17).
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 271

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS427 China—Anti-dumping 

and Countervailing 

Duty Measures on 

Broiler Products from 

the United States

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/20/11).

Panel established (01/20/12) and composed (05/24/12).

Panel report circulated (08/02/13) and is adopted by DSB 

(09/25/13).

China informs DSB it intends to implement DSB 

recommendations and rulings (10/22/13).

China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a 

reasonable period of time to implement is by July 9, 2014 

(12/19/13).

China informs DSB that it has fully implemented DSB 

recommendations and rulings, but U.S. disagrees that China 

has fully complied (07/22/14).

China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (07/15/14).

U.S. requests Article 21.5 consultations for China’s failure to 

comply with DSB recommendations (05/10/16).

U.S. requests establishment of a compliance panel 

(05/27/16); and panel composed ((07/18/16).

Compliance report circulated; panel upheld most of U.S. 

claims in its report (01/18/18).

DSB adopts compliance panel report (02/28/18).

DS430 India—Measures 

Concerning the 

Importation of Certain 

Agricultural Products 

from the United States

United States U.S. requests consultations (03/06/12).

Panel is established (06/25/12).

Director-General composes a panel (02/18/13).

Panel report is circulated (10/14/14).

India, after receiving an extension, notifies DSB it will appeal 

the decision to the Appellate Body (01/26/15).

Appellate Body issues its report (06/04/15).

DSB adopts the Appellate Body report and the panel report, 

as modified by the Appellate Body report (06/19/15).

India informs DSB it intends to implement DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

period of time to do so (07/13/15).

India and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the 

reasonable period of time is 12 months, expiring on June 

19, 2016 (12/08/15).

U.S. requests authorization to suspend concessions for 

India’s failure to comply with recommendations and rulings 

of DSB (07/07/16).

India objects to level of suspension of concessions/ 

obligations, requests Article 22.6 arbitration, and informs 

DSB it has adopted necessary measures to comply with DSB 

recommendations and rulings (07/18/16 and 09/22/16).

India informs DSB of subsequent amendments to its 

measures to comply with DSB’s rulings and 

recommendations (03/02/17).

India requests establishment of a compliance panel 

(04/06/17) and DSB agrees (05/22/17).

Compliance panel chair informs DSB that it expects to issue 

its final report by the end of May 2018 (11/23/17).
The Year in Trade 2017

272 | www.usitc.gov

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS436 United States—

Countervailing 

Measures on Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products 

from India

India India requests consultations (04/12/12).

Panel is established (08/31/12).

Director-General composes the panel (02/18/13).

Panel report is circulated (07/14/14).

India notifies DSB that it will appeal certain issues of law 

and legal interpretation in the panel report (08/08/14).

U.S. files an appeal (08/13/14).

Appellate Body circulates its report (12/08/14).

DSB adopts the Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified (12/19/14).

U.S. informs DSB that it intends to implement DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

period of time to do so (01/16/15).

India and U.S. inform DSB that they agree that a reasonable 

period of time is 15 months, expiring on March 19, 2016 

(03/24/15).

India and U.S. inform DSB they have agreed to modify the 

reasonable period of time, to expire April 18, 2016 

(03/09/16).

U.S. informs DSB that USITC and USDOC have issued new 

final determinations making findings consistent with DSB 

recommendations and rulings (04/22/16).

India and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under DSU 

Articles 21 and 22 (05/06/16).

India requests consultations with U.S. concerning U.S. 

compliance measures (06/05/17).

India requests establishment of a compliance panel 

(03/29/18).
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 273

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS437 United States—

Countervailing Duty 

Measures on Certain 

Products from China

China China requests consultations (05/25/12).

Panel is established (09/28/12).

Director-General composes the panel (11/26/12).

Panel report is circulated (07/14/14).

China appeals the panel decision to the Appellate Body 

(08/22/14).

U.S. files a cross-appeal of a preliminary determination by 

the panel (08/27/14).

Appellate Body issues its report (12/18/14).

DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (01/16/15).

U.S. informs DSB that it intends to implement DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and that it will need a 

reasonable period of time to do so (02/13/15).

China requests that the reasonable period of time be 

determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 

21.3(c) of the DSU (06/26/15).

An arbitrator determines that the reasonable period of time 

expires on April 1, 2016 (10/09/15).

China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under 

Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (04/15/16).

China requests DSU Article 21.5 consultations (05/13/16) 

and subsequently establishment of a compliance panel 

(07/08/16).

A compliance panel is established (07/21/16) and composed 

(10/05/16).

Compliance panel report is circulated (03/21/18).

U.S. notifies DSB it will appeal to the Appellate Body certain 

issues of law and legal interpretations in the compliance 

panel report (04/27/18).
The Year in Trade 2017

274 | www.usitc.gov

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS456 India—Certain 

Measures Relating to 

Solar Cells and Solar 

Modules

United States U.S. requests consultations (02/06/13); U.S. requests 

supplementary consultations (02/10/14).

Panel is established (05/23/14).

Parties agree on composition of panel (09/24/14).

Panel report is circulated to members (02/24/16).

India notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 

Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the 

panel report (04/20/16).

Appellate Body report circulated (09/16/16).

DSB adopts the panel and Appellate Body reports 

(10/26/16).

India informs DSB it intends to implement DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings (11/08/16).

U.S. and India inform DSB they have agreed that a 

reasonable time to implement would be 14 months, 

expiring on Dec. 14, 2017 (06/16/17).

India informs DSB it has ceased to apply measures found to 

be inconsistent (12/14/17).

U.S. requests authorization from DSB to suspend 

concessions/obligations on grounds India has failed to 

comply within a reasonable time (12/19/17).

India objects and disagrees it has failed to comply 

(01/02/18).

Matter is referred to arbitration (01/12/18).

DS464 United States—Antidumping and 

Countervailing 

Measures on Large 

Residential Washers 

from South Korea

Republic of 

Korea (South 

Korea)

South Korea requests consultations (08/29/13).

Panel is established (01/22/14).

Director-General composes the panel (06/20/14).

Panel report is circulated to members (03/11/16).

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 

Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the 

panel report (04/19/16).

Appellate Body report is circulated (09/07/16).

DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (09/26/16).

U.S. states that it intends to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

period of time (10/26/16).

South Korea requests that the reasonable period of time be 

determined through arbitration (12/9/16).

Arbitrator determines that the reasonable period of time is 

15 months, expiring on Dec. 26, 2017 (04/13/17).
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 275

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS471 United States—Certain 

Methodologies and 

Their Application to 

Anti-dumping 

Proceedings Involving 

China

China China requests consultations (12/3/13).

Panel is established (03/26/14).

Director-General composes the panel (08/28/14).

Panel report is circulated (10/19/16).

China notifies DSB it will appeal certain issues of law and 

legal interpretation in the panel report (11/18/16).

Appellate Body report is circulated and upholds in part and 

reverses in part certain panel findings regarding U.S. 

Department of Commerce antidumping methodologies 

(05/11/17).

U.S. states that it intends to implement the DSB’s 

recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable 

period of time (06/19/17).

China requests that reasonable period of time be 

determined through arbitration (10/17/17).

Arbitrator determines that the reasonable period of time is 

15 months, expiring on Aug. 22, 2018 (01/19/18).

DS478 Indonesia—

Importation of 

Horticultural Products, 

Animals and Animal 

Products

United States U.S. requests consultations (05/08/14).

Single panel established to consider this dispute and DS477 

brought by New Zealand (05/20/15).

Director-General composes the panel (10/08/15).

Panel report is circulated (12/22/16).

Indonesia notifies DSB it will appeal certain issues of law 

and legal interpretation in the panel report (02/17/17).

Appellate Body report is circulated and upholds panel 

findings that 18 import measures imposed by Indonesia are 

inconsistent with Indonesia’s obligations (11/09/17).

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by Appellate Body (11/22/17).

Indonesia informs the DSB it will require a reasonable 

period of time to comply (12/15/17).

DS487 United States—

Conditional Tax 

Incentives for Large 

Civil Aircraft

European Union EU requests consultations (12/19/14).

EU requests establishment of a panel (02/12/15); panel 

established (02/23/15); panel composed (04/13/15).

Panel circulates its report (11/28/16).

U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of 

law and legal interpretation in the panel report (12/16/16).

EU notifies DSB it will cross-appeal (01/17/17).

Appellate Body circulates its report, affirming the panel’s 

rejection of six of seven EU claims alleging that certain 

Washington State tax incentives were inconsistent with U.S. 

obligations and reversing the panel finding of U.S. 

inconsistency on the seventh claim (09/04/17).

DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report as 

modified by the Appellate Body (09/22/17).
The Year in Trade 2017

276 | www.usitc.gov

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS488 United States—Antidumping Measures on 

Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from 

South Korea

South Korea South Korea requests consultations (12/22/14).

DSB establishes a panel (03/25/15).

Parties agree on composition of panel (07/13/15).

Panel circulates its report; panel finds the U.S. acted 

inconsistently with its obligations in several respects and 

rejects other claims of South Korea (11/14/17).

The DSB adopts the panel report (01/12/18).

U.S. and South Korea agree that a reasonable time for U.S. 

to implement the panel’s recommendations and rulings is 

by January 19, 2019 (01/12/18).

DS491 United States—Antidumping Measures 

and Countervailing 

Measures on Certain 

Coated Paper from 

Indonesia

Indonesia Indonesia requests consultations (03/13/15).

DSB establishes a panel (09/28/15).

Director-General composes the panel (02/04/16).

Panel report rejecting all of Indonesia’s claims is circulated 

to members (12/06/17).

DSB adopts the panel report (01/12/18).

DS501 China—Tax Measures 

Concerning Certain 

Domestically Produced 

Aircraft

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/08/15).

DS503 United States—

Measures Concerning 

Non-Immigrant Visas

India India requests consultations (03/03/16).

DS505 United States—

Countervailing 

Measures on 

Supercalendered 

Paper from Canada

Canada Canada requests consultations (03/30/16).

DSB establishes a panel (07/21/16).

Director-General composes the panel (08/31/16).

Panel chair informs DSB panel expects to issue final report 

before the end of 2017 (01/27/17).

DS508 China—Export Duties 

on Certain Raw 

Materials

United States U.S. requests consultations (07/13/16).

DSB establishes a panel (11/08/16).

DS510 U.S.—Certain 

Measures Relating to 

the Renewable Energy 

Sector

India India requests consultations (09/09/16).

DSB establishes a panel (03/21/17).

Director-General composes the panel (04/24/18).

DS511 China—Domestic 

Support for 

Agricultural Producers

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/13/16).

DSB establishes a panel (01/25/17).

Parties agree on panel composition (06/24/17).

Panel chair informs DSB panel expects to issue final report 

no earlier than third quarter 2018 (02/22/18).

DS514 United States—

Countervailing 

Measures on Coldand Hot-Rolled Steel 

Flat Products from 

Brazil

Brazil Brazil requests consultations (11/11/16).

DS515 United States—

Measures Related to 

Price Comparison 

Methodologies

China China requests consultations (12/12/16).
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 277

Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)

DS517 China—Tariff Rate 

Quotas for Certain 

Agricultural Products

United States U.S. requests consultations (12/15/16).

DSB establishes a panel (09/22/17).

Director-General composes the panel (02/12/18).

DS519 China—Subsidies to 

Producers of Primary 

Aluminum

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/12/17).

DS520 Canada—Measures 

Governing the Sale of 

Wine in Grocery Stores

United States U.S. requests consultations (01/18/17).

DS523 United States—

Countervailing 

Measures on Certain 

Pipe and Tube 

Products (Turkey)

Turkey Turkey requests consultations (03/08/17).

DSB establishes a panel (06/19/17).

Director-General composes the panel (09/14/17).

Panel chair informs DSB it expects to issue final report in 

second half of 2018 (03/06/18).

DS531 Canada—Measures 

Governing the Sale of 

Wine in Grocery Stores 

(second complaint)

United States U.S. requests consultations (09/28/17).

DS533 United States—

Countervailing 

Measures on 

Softwood Lumber 

from Canada

Canada Canada requests consultations (11/28/17).

DSB establishes a panel (04/09/18).

DS534 United States—AntiDumping Measures 

Applying Differential 

Pricing Methodology 

to Softwood Lumber 

from Canada

Canada Canada requests consultations (11/28/17).

DSB establishes a panel (04/09/18).

DS535 United States—Certain 

Systemic Trade 

Remedies Measures

Canada Canada requests consultations (12/20/17).

Source: WTO, “Chronological List of Dispute Cases” (accessed May 23, 2018).
The Year in Trade 2017

278 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.26 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of 

USITC and USDOC, developments in 2017

Panel review no. Dispute Action (month/day/year)

MEX-USA-2012-1904-01 Chicken thighs and legs from the 

United States (AD) (Investigating 

authority: Secretaría de Economía)

Request for panel review (09/03/12). 

Oral argument hearing date 

(08/25/15). Decision date 1 

(04/21/17). Decision date 2 

(12/20/17) Status: Completed.

MEX-USA-2015-1904-01 Ammonium sulfate from U.S. and 

China (AD) (Investigating authority: 

Secretaría de Economía)

Request for panel review (11/06/15). 

Oral argument hearing date 

(06/25/18) Status: Active.

USA-CDA-2015-1904-01 Supercalendered paper from Canada 

(AD) (Investigating authority: 

International Trade Administration)

Request for panel review (11/18/15). 

Oral argument hearing date 

(10/25/16); Decision date (04/13/17). 

Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings 

for 60 days affirmed by panel 

(04/06/18).

Status: Suspended/stayed.

MEX-USA-2016-1904-01 Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (AD) 

(Investigating authority: Secretaría 

de Economía)

Request for panel review 

(06/24/2016). Status: Active.

CDA-USA-2017-1904-01 Certain gypsum board originating in 

or exported from the United States 

(Investigating Authority: Canadian 

International Trade Tribunal)

Request for panel review (02/06/17). 

Decision: panel review was 

terminated by joint consent of the 

participants. Status: Terminated.

USA-MEX-2017-1904-01 Certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe from Mexico (AR) 

(Investigating authority: International 

Trade Administration)

Request for panel review (07/12/17). 

Status: Active.

USA-CDA-2017-1904-02 Certain softwood lumber products 

from Canada (CVD) (Investigating 

authority: International Trade 

Administration)

Request for panel review (11/14/17). 

Status: Active.

USA-CDA-2017-1904-03 Certain softwood lumber products 

from Canada (AD) (Investigating 

authority: International Trade 

Administration)

Request for panel review (12/05/17). 

Status: Active.

Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report: NAFTA and FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings” (accessed May 16, 2017).

Note: This list includes active cases during 2017, including those in which little if any formal action occurred during 2017. AD 

means “antidumping duty,” CVD means “countervailing duty,” and AR means “administrative review.”
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 279

Table A.27 U.S. total exports to the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 14,146 13,344 13,475 1.0

2 Forest products 5,339 5,070 5,210 2.8

3 Chemicals and related products 62,883 60,644 59,603 -1.7

4 Energy-related products 16,664 13,916 20,164 44.9

5 Textiles and apparel 2,613 2,563 2,583 0.8

6 Footwear 89 88 104 19.2

7 Minerals and metals 22,405 21,970 24,552 11.8

8 Machinery 20,779 20,028 21,497 7.3

9 Transportation equipment 59,713 63,851 64,967 1.7

10 Electronic products 48,388 47,848 50,897 6.4

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 10,443 12,034 11,663 -3.1

12 Special provisions 8,417 8,261 8,802 6.6

Total 271,879 269,617 283,517 5.2

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.28 U.S. general imports from the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 23,522 24,671 26,233 6.3

2 Forest products 5,122 5,323 5,814 9.2

3 Chemicals and related products 105,972 106,679 107,114 0.4

4 Energy-related products 14,271 12,049 12,975 7.7

5 Textiles and apparel 6,066 5,680 5,865 3.3

6 Footwear 2,055 2,053 2,099 2.2

7 Minerals and metals 30,019 27,187 29,614 8.9

8 Machinery 46,112 44,193 48,502 9.8

9 Transportation equipment 105,950 95,760 99,795 4.2

10 Electronic products 44,945 48,518 50,124 3.3

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 19,200 18,760 19,965 6.4

12 Special provisions 24,304 25,503 26,835 5.2

Total 427,537 416,377 434,933 4.5

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

280 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.29 Leading U.S. total exports to the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 32,876 36,531 36,945 1.1

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 11,277 10,343 8,861 -14.3

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by 

weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 10,394 7,161 7,027 -1.9

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 306 1,566 5,701 264.1

3002.15 Immunological products, put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale (

a

) (

a

) 5,223 (

b

)

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand executed works of art, framed or not framed 3,593 4,908 5,051 2.9

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 3,670 3,983 4,985 25.2

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 3,692 3,963 4,542 14.6

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts 

and accessories thereof 4,395 4,369 4,321 -1.1

3002.12 Antisera and other blood fractions (

a

) (

a

) 4,087 (

b

)

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 2,464 1,614 3,381 109.5

8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine 

(diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 3,855 3,890 3,349 -13.9

3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of 

heading 3002 or 3006 2,729 2,856 3,082 7.9

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 3,535 3,692 3,062 -17.1

9018.39 Medical etc., needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 2,870 2,899 2,799 -3.5

Total of items shown 85,655 87,775 102,415 16.7

All other products 186,224 181,842 181,103 -0.4

Total of all commodities 271,879 269,617 283,517 5.2

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 3002.10.

b Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 281

Table A.30 Leading U.S. total imports from the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

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 24,217 26,686 29,780 11.6

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 23,432 25,123 25,652 2.1

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 17,934 13,496 10,186 -24.5

8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 7,564 6,945 8,008 15.3

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 9,023 7,644 7,953 4.0

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 7,259 5,476 6,363 16.2

9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand executed works of art, framed or not framed 6,695 5,251 5,823 10.9

3002.15 Immunological products, put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale (

a

) (

a

) 5,741 (

b

)

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 4,344 4,641 5,093 9.7

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. 4,535 5,370 5,060 -5.8

3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 4,988 3,615 4,483 24.0

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic 

compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 7,245 4,343 3,425 -21.2

3002.12 Antisera and other blood fractions (

a

) (

a

) 3,282 (

b

)

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 4,062 3,672 3,273 -10.9

3002.13 Immunological products, unmixed, not put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for 

retail sale (

a

) (

a

) 3,121 (

b

)

Total of items shown 121,296 112,262 127,244 13.3

All other products 306,240 304,115 307,689 1.2

Total of all commodities 427,537 416,377 434,933 4.5

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 3002.10.

b Undefined.
The Year in Trade 2017

282 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.31 U.S. total exports to China, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 21,664 22,929 21,091 -8.0

2 Forest products 6,431 6,796 7,532 10.8

3 Chemicals and related products 14,248 14,372 16,681 16.1

4 Energy-related products 2,628 3,010 9,000 199.0

5 Textiles and apparel 1,010 892 932 4.5

6 Footwear 81 90 109 21.0

7 Minerals and metals 7,999 7,342 9,046 23.2

8 Machinery 10,025 9,602 10,417 8.5

9 Transportation equipment 28,767 27,700 31,963 15.4

10 Electronic products 21,167 20,972 21,529 2.7

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 956 875 898 2.6

12 Special provisions 955 1,023 1,172 14.6

Total 115,932 115,602 130,370 12.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.32 U.S. general imports from China, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 6,802 6,719 7,072 5.3

2 Forest products 9,517 9,562 9,819 2.7

3 Chemicals and related products 30,995 29,810 33,581 12.7

4 Energy-related products 538 717 686 -4.3

5 Textiles and apparel 48,887 45,204 45,029 -0.4

6 Footwear 17,276 14,821 14,255 -3.8

7 Minerals and metals 32,057 30,242 32,958 9.0

8 Machinery 50,524 48,427 53,018 9.5

9 Transportation equipment 23,920 24,235 26,357 8.8

10 Electronic products 189,217 180,404 205,606 14.0

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 67,899 67,044 71,062 6.0

12 Special provisions 5,558 5,432 6,152 13.3

Total 483,189 462,618 505,597 9.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 283

Table A.33 Leading U.S. total exports to China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 15,440 14,576 16,266 11.6

1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 10,501 14,182 12,356 -12.9

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 6,606 6,957 6,524 -6.2

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 15 361 4,434 1,129.7

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 3,474 3,847 3,107 -19.2

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic 

integrates circuits 1,423 1,741 2,003 15.0

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,966 792 1,983 150.4

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 1,681 1,359 1,712 26.0

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 912 817 1,650 102.0

8703.80 Motor vehicles with only electric motor, n.e.s.o.i. (

a

) (

a

) 1,526 (

b

)

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 737 777 1,209 55.5

7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 1,306 918 1,173 27.8

4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or 

bleached, coniferous 850 954 1,127 18.2

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 720 883 1,008 14.2

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 746 721 972 34.9

Total of items shown 46,377 48,884 57,052 16.7

All other products 69,555 66,718 73,318 9.9

Total of all commodities 115,932 115,602 130,370 12.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapter 1-97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 8703.90.

b Undefined.
The Year in Trade 2017

284 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.34 Leading U.S. general imports from China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 40,410 37,051 44,566 20.3

8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at 

least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 36,664 33,612 37,306 11.0

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 16,834 18,993 022,692 19.5

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. 10,819 10,209 15,008 47.0

9503.00 Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dolls' carriages; dolls; other toys; etc. 11,535 12,003 12,239 2.0

8504.40 Electrical static converters; power supplies for automatic data processing machines or units 

of 8471 4,748 4,421 4,614 4.3

8528.52 Other monitors capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with machines of 

heading 8471 (

a

) (

a

) 4,532 (

b

)

9504.50 Video game consoles and machines, other than those of subheading 9504.30 4,690 3,548 4,500 26.8

8523.51 Solid-state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 2,702 3,014 4,459 47.9

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 3,230 3,255 4,416 35.7

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, color, n.e.s.o.i. 4,362 3,345 4,036 20.7

9401.61 Seats with wooden frames, upholstered, n.e.s.o.i. 3,355 3,452 3,774 9.3

9403.20 Metal furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 3,113 3,192 3,531 10.6

9405.40 Electric lamps and lighting fittings, n.e.s.o.i. 2,614 2,944 3,115 5.8

4202.92 Container bags, boxes, cases and satchels n.e.s.o.i., with outer surface of sheeting of plastics 

or of textile materials 3,159 2,915 3,003 3.0

Total of items shown 148,236 141,955 171,791 21.0

All other products 334,952 320,663 333,806 4.1

Total of all commodities 483,189 462,618 505,597 9.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1-97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 8528.51.

b Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 285

Table A.35 U.S. total exports to Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 26,124 25,884 26,196 1.2

2 Forest products 10,199 9,710 9,890 1.9

3 Chemicals and related products 38,198 36,511 38,342 5.0

4 Energy-related products 22,256 17,462 19,664 12.6

5 Textiles and apparel 5,205 5,076 5,215 2.7

6 Footwear 500 509 498 -2.2

7 Minerals and metals 26,459 24,907 26,274 5.5

8 Machinery 29,164 26,254 27,468 4.6

9 Transportation equipment 74,345 73,560 78,092 6.2

10 Electronic products 32,447 31,451 32,542 3.5

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 8,847 8,454 8,806 4.2

12 Special provisions 7,110 7,020 9,483 35.1

Total 280,855 266,797 282,472 5.9

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.36 U.S. general imports from Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 25,286 25,246 26,106 3.4

2 Forest products 18,069 18,704 19,116 2.2

3 Chemicals and related products 32,211 29,680 29,449 -0.8

4 Energy-related products 70,837 54,755 74,241 35.6

5 Textiles and apparel 2,243 2,181 2,231 2.3

6 Footwear 73 50 52 4.1

7 Minerals and metals 29,762 28,778 31,585 9.8

8 Machinery 12,918 12,164 13,535 11.3

9 Transportation equipment 73,911 73,639 71,873 -2.4

10 Electronic products 8,932 8,929 9,342 4.6

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 5,250 5,537 5,250 -5.2

12 Special provisions 16,738 18,095 17,195 -5.0

Total 296,230 277,756 299,975 8.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

286 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.37 Leading U.S. total exports to Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 6,653 7,446 8,569 15.1

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 6,243 7,420 8,458 14.0

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 8,318 7,550 8,274 9.6

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 8,159 5,648 6,137 8.6

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 5,044 5,209 5,500 5.6

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,753 5,187 4,931 -4.9

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 6,273 5,661 4,199 -25.8

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or 

tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 3,005 3,922 3,837 -2.2

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by 

weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 4,032 2,784 2,954 6.1

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,757 2,820 2,802 -0.6

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 2,229 1,593 2,532 59.0

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 1,928 2,015 2,302 14.2

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 1,971 1,949 2,251 15.5

8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at 

least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 2,053 2,034 2,144 5.4

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 2,188 2,050 1,876 -8.5

Total of items shown 65,608 63,286 66,766 5.5

All other products 215,247 203,511 215,706 6.0

Total of all commodities 280,855 266,797 282,472 5.9

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; gvw = 

gross vehicle weight.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 287

Table A.38 Leading U.S. general imports from Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 46,982 36,186 50,122 38.5

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 21,072 21,848 21,360 -2.2

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 21,044 21,521 15,062 -30.0

2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 6,893 5,666 7,302 28.9

4407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, etc., 

over 6 mm (.236 in.) thick 4,425 5,549 5,793 4.4

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 90 1,317 5,494 317.1

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by 

weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 5,862 3,443 4,937 43.4

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 4,749 3,755 4,818 28.3

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,703 3,452 3,353 -2.8

7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 2,141 2,321 3,233 39.3

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 2,618 3,057 2,495 -18.4

2716.00 Electrical energy 2,462 2,192 2,375 8.4

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 3,722 3,421 2,314 -32.4

7601.20 Aluminum alloys, unwrought 2,484 1,903 2,240 17.7

8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or 

tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder capacity 2,403 2,436 2,235 -8.3

Total of items shown 130,649 118,067 133,133 12.8

All other products 165,581 159,688 166,842 4.5

Total of all commodities 296,230 277,756 299,975 8.0

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
The Year in Trade 2017

288 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.39 U.S. total exports to Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 18,296 18,503 19,276 4.2

2 Forest products 5,858 5,754 6,066 5.4

3 Chemicals and related products 34,113 32,932 35,126 6.7

4 Energy-related products 18,944 19,577 26,585 35.8

5 Textiles and apparel 5,996 5,442 5,554 2.0

6 Footwear 134 97 95 -1.8

7 Minerals and metals 22,748 20,981 21,995 4.8

8 Machinery 23,472 23,108 24,070 4.2

9 Transportation equipment 42,254 39,951 41,148 3.0

10 Electronic products 54,174 53,554 53,051 -0.9

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 3,080 3,041 2,973 -2.2

12 Special provisions 7,134 6,761 7,048 4.2

Total 236,204 229,702 242,989 5.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.40 U.S. general imports from Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 23,008 24,887 26,703 7.3

2 Forest products 1,950 1,910 1,981 3.7

3 Chemicals and related products 10,759 10,608 11,534 8.7

4 Energy-related products 13,674 8,724 11,128 27.6

5 Textiles and apparel 5,902 5,804 6,104 5.2

6 Footwear 493 413 427 3.5

7 Minerals and metals 18,104 18,099 19,377 7.1

8 Machinery 30,098 29,918 31,408 5.0

9 Transportation equipment 104,402 105,192 114,156 8.5

10 Electronic products 72,485 73,558 75,772 3.0

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 6,547 6,782 6,699 -1.2

12 Special provisions 8,980 8,161 8,756 7.3

Total 296,401 294,056 314,045 6.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 289

Table A.41 Leading U.S. total exports to Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 9,090 9,432 11,914 26.3

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. 10,661 10,856 10,441 -3.8

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by 

weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 5,687 5,830 8,731 49.8

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 2,773 3,310 3,618 9.3

8408.20 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel), for the 

propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock 2,666 2,507 3,582 42.9

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,238 3,119 3,279 5.1

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 3,123 2,673 3,229 20.8

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,993 3,666 3,028 -17.4

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 3,457 3,046 2,932 -3.7

8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 2,306 2,810 2,882 2.6

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,371 2,546 2,834 11.3

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 2,325 2,575 2,666 3.5

8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits, boards, panels etc. for electric control or 

distribution of electricity, n.e.s.o.i. 2,443 2,455 2,610 6.3

3926.90 Articles of plastics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,406 2,376 2,507 5.5

8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a video display or screen 1,588 1,788 2,015 12.7

Total of items shown 59,126 58,990 66,268 12.3

All other products 177,078 170,712 176,721 3.5

Total of all commodities 236,204 229,702 242,989 5.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
The Year in Trade 2017

290 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.42 Leading U.S. general imports from Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

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 16,388 17,964 20,349 13.3

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 13,445 15,165 17,488 15.3

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 12,816 15,400 15,378 -0.1

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 12,487 7,583 9,780 29.0

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or 

other data, including switching and routing apparatus 10,178 11,068 9,515 -14.0

8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, color, n.e.s.o.i. 11,053 8,720 8,404 -3.6

8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets for vehicles, aircraft and ships 7,243 7,060 6,879 -2.6

9401.90 Parts of seats (except parts of medical, dentist, barber, and similar seats), n.e.s.o.i. 6,388 6,613 6,207 -6.1

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 2,264 3,613 5,934 64.2

8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 7,997 4,756 5,750 20.9

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,744 4,991 4,878 -2.3

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,789 3,841 4,296 11.8

8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of 

electricity, for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 v 3,871 4,095 4,227 3.2

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 3,394 3,070 3,791 23.5

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 3,159 3,408 3,450 1.2

Total of items shown 119,216 117,346 126,326 7.7

All other products 177,185 176,710 187,719 6.2

Total of all commodities 296,401 294,056 314,045 6.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; gvw = 

gross vehicle weight.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 291

Table A.43 U.S. total exports to Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 12,421 12,107 12,953 7.0

2 Forest products 2,000 1,887 1,936 2.6

3 Chemicals and related products 11,131 11,537 11,859 2.8

4 Energy-related products 2,032 2,653 5,780 117.9

5 Textiles and apparel 569 522 513 -1.7

6 Footwear 75 56 50 -11.5

7 Minerals and metals 3,587 3,414 3,654 7.0

8 Machinery 4,794 4,314 5,776 33.9

9 Transportation equipment 10,409 11,119 9,698 -12.8

10 Electronic products 12,380 12,303 12,189 -0.9

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,839 2,172 2,077 -4.4

12 Special provisions 1,155 1,152 1,211 5.1

Total 62,393 63,236 67,696 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.44 U.S. general imports from Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 828 916 919 0.3

2 Forest products 460 446 441 -1.2

3 Chemicals and related products 11,710 11,505 11,965 4.0

4 Energy-related products 656 506 594 17.3

5 Textiles and apparel 767 737 745 1.1

6 Footwear 5 9 3 -68.7

7 Minerals and metals 6,743 6,234 6,348 1.8

8 Machinery 17,376 17,321 18,718 8.1

9 Transportation equipment 66,104 68,642 70,615 2.9

10 Electronic products 21,665 21,213 21,522 1.5

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,292 1,196 1,286 7.5

12 Special provisions 3,776 3,320 3,389 2.1

Total 131,383 132,046 136,544 3.4

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

292 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.45 Leading U.S. total exports to Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 6,385 6,877 5,752 -16.4

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 624 1,335 2,814 110.8

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 2,034 2,098 2,159 2.9

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates 

circuits 1,204 848 1,731 104.1

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 1,947 2,095 1,660 -20.8

9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and 

accessories thereof 1,169 1,211 1,234 1.9

2909.19 Acyclic ethers (excluding diethyl ether) and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated 

derivatives 720 912 1,133 24.2

3002.15 Immunological products, put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale (

a

) (

a

) 1,132 (

b

)

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 601 796 1,091 37.1

0203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., fresh or chilled 898 968 1,002 3.5

1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 1,048 1,000 976 -2.5

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 334 395 830 110.3

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 677 692 814 17.6

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 559 948 812 -14.3

1001.99 Wheat and meslin,

c not durum wheat, other than seed 746 610 724 18.7

Total of items shown 18,947 20,785 23,864 14.8

All other products 43,446 42,451 43,832 3.3

Total of all commodities 62,393 63,236 67,696 7.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 3002.10.

b Undefined.

c Mixture of wheat and rye flour.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 293

Table A.46 Leading U.S. total imports from Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

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 22,457 26,339 24,302 -7.7

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston 

engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 11,912 10,555 10,800 2.3

8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 4,737 4,470 3,983 -10.9

8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,294 2,688 3,342 24.4

8703.40 Passenger motor vehicles, with both spark-ignition combust and electric motor, other 

than those charges by plug in to external electric power (

a

) (

a

) 3,151 (

b

)

8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying machines and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 2,874 2,597 2,556 -1.6

8429.52 Mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders with 360° revolving superstructure, 

self-propelled 2,032 1,942 2,003 3.2

8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 1,912 1,815 1,927 6.2

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,171 2,090 1,896 -9.3

8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary 

engines), n.e.s.o.i. 1,222 1,287 1,384 7.6

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., 

and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 926 1,391 1,356 -2.5

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic 

integrates circuits 899 1,198 1,258 5.0

8507.90 Parts of electric storage batteries, including separators therefor 444 549 1,212 120.9

8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or 

wafers, etc., parts and accessories 838 886 1,177 32.8

8479.89 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 509 743 993 33.7

Total of items shown 55,226 58,549 61,341 4.8

All other products 76,157 73,497 75,203 2.3

Total of all commodities 131,383 132,046 136,544 3.4

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 8703.23.0022, 8703.23.0024, 8703.23.0026, 8703.23.0028, 8703.23.0032, 8703.23.0034, 

8703.23.0036, 8703.23.0038, 8703.23.0042, 8703.23.0044, 8703.23.0046, 8703.23.0048, 8703.23.0052, 8703.23.0062, 8703.23.0064, 8703.23.0066, 8703.23.0068, 

8703.23.0072, 8703.23.0074,8703.23.0076, 8703.23.0090, 8703.24.0010, 8703.24.0030, 8703.24.0032, 8703.24.0034, 8703.24.0036, 8703.24.0038, 8703.24.0042, 

8703.24.0052, 8703.24.0054, 8703.24.0056, 8703.24.0058, 8703.24.0062, 8703.24.0064, 8703.24.0066, 8703.24.0068, 8703.24.0090.

b Undefined.
The Year in Trade 2017

294 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.47 U.S. total exports to South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 6,747 6,842 7,473 9.2

2 Forest products 826 791 788 -0.4

3 Chemicals and related products 6,905 6,532 7,155 9.5

4 Energy-related products 1,392 1,733 4,211 142.9

5 Textiles and apparel 380 316 310 -2.0

6 Footwear 74 53 45 -14.5

7 Minerals and metals 3,214 2,556 2,603 1.9

8 Machinery 6,231 5,622 8,700 54.8

9 Transportation equipment 7,847 8,584 6,308 -26.5

10 Electronic products 8,388 7,653 9,110 19.0

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 823 989 863 -12.8

12 Special provisions 656 638 711 11.5

Total 43,484 42,309 48,277 14.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.48 U.S general imports from South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 739 810 844 4.2

2 Forest products 578 544 537 -1.2

3 Chemicals and related products 6,225 8,511 7,544 -11.4

4 Energy-related products 2,922 2,266 2,874 26.9

5 Textiles and apparel 1,326 1,271 1,234 -2.9

6 Footwear 22 27 45 63.7

7 Minerals and metals 6,908 5,309 5,819 9.6

8 Machinery 7,579 7,068 7,895 11.7

9 Transportation equipment 27,015 25,314 25,304 0.0

10 Electronic products 16,167 16,550 16,813 1.6

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 895 968 888 -8.2

12 Special provisions 1,380 1,243 1,366 9.9

Total imports 71,758 69,881 71,164 1.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 295

Table A.49 Leading U.S. total exports to South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates 

circuits 1,928 1,911 4,731 147.5

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 3,946 3,505 2,863 -18.3

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 2,750 2,094 2,513 20.0

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 58 181 1,122 520.8

2711.12 Propane, liquefied 227 556 947 70.3

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 4 147 946 542.7

8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, 

etc., parts and accessories 578 663 838 26.4

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 655 870 711 -18.2

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 602 741 686 -7.5

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 238 287 600 108.9

2711.11 Natural gas, liquefied 38 22 596 2,596.5

0202.20 Meat of bovine animals, cuts with bone in (other than half or whole carcasses), frozen 291 368 408 10.7

0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 390 298 403 35.3

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 133 200 371 84.9

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 313 356 339 -5.0

Total of items shown 12,150 12,199 18,072 48.1

All other products 31,334 30,110 30,204 0.3

Total of all commodities 43,484 42,309 48,277 14.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
The Year in Trade 2017

296 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.50 Leading U.S. general imports from South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

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 11,552 10,808 8,547 -20.9

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 6,394 6,287 5,557 -11.6

8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, 

cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 3,517 2,647 3,714 40.3

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. 1,846 1,325 2,661 100.9

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 

70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 2,606 2,073 2,581 24.5

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 2,077 2,443 2,032 -16.8

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,305 1,278 1,383 8.2

8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,296 1,302 1,166 -10.4

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 641 1,355 1,107 -18.3

8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with separate external doors 1,031 1,045 1,012 -3.2

8523.51 Solid-state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 692 1,034 978 -5.4

4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing 

cars) 1,109 1,068 952 -10.9

8703.40 Passenger motor vehicles, with both spark-ignition combust and electric motor, other than those 

charges by plugging to external electric power (

a

) (

a

) 921 (

b

)

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 898 937 809 -13.6

7306.29 Casing or tubing for oil or gas drilling, of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i. 502 183 717 292.6

Total of items shown 35,466 33,784 34,137 1.0

All other products 36,292 36,098 37,027 2.6

Total all commodities 71,758 69,881 71,164 1.8

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 8703.23.0022, 8703.23.0024, 8703.23.0026, 8703.23.0028, 8703.23.0032, 8703.23.0034, 

8703.23.0036, 8703.23.0038, 8703.23.0042, 8703.23.0044, 8703.23.0046, 8703.23.0048, 8703.23.0052, 8703.23.0062, 8703.23.0064, 8703.23.0066, 8703.23.0068, 

8703.23.0072, 8703.23.0074,8703.23.0076, 8703.23.0090, 8703.24.0010, 8703.24.0030, 8703.24.0032, 8703.24.0034, 8703.24.0036, 8703.24.0038, 8703.24.0042, 

8703.24.0052, 8703.24.0054, 8703.24.0056, 8703.24.0058, 8703.24.0062, 8703.24.0064, 8703.24.0066, 8703.24.0068, 8703.24.0090. b Undefined.

c Trade in 2015 and 2016 reported under HTS subheading 3002.10.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 297

Table A.51 U.S. total exports to India, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 1,271 1,450 1,895 30.7

2 Forest products 713 693 817 17.8

3 Chemicals and related products 3,304 3,361 3,370 0.3

4 Energy-related products 1,157 1,261 3,134 148.4

5 Textiles and apparel 183 206 172 -16.4

6 Footwear 3 2 2 43.1

7 Minerals and metals 7,610 7,838 7,896 0.7

8 Machinery 1,496 1,278 1,308 2.3

9 Transportation equipment 2,152 1,994 3,200 60.5

10 Electronic products 2,767 2,641 2,946 11.5

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 414 555 484 -12.7

12 Special provisions 382 374 476 27.2

Total 21,453 21,652 25,700 18.7

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.52 U.S. general imports from India, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 3,847 3,512 4,651 32.4

2 Forest products 223 251 282 12.3

3 Chemicals and related products 9,714 11,168 10,385 -7.0

4 Energy-related products 2,672 2,402 2,669 11.1

5 Textiles and apparel 7,951 7,949 8,200 3.2

6 Footwear 468 503 448 -10.9

7 Minerals and metals 10,858 11,430 12,149 6.3

8 Machinery 2,421 2,065 2,391 15.8

9 Transportation equipment 2,032 1,875 2,283 21.8

10 Electronic products 1,165 1,207 1,249 3.5

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 2,828 3,039 3,103 2.1

12 Special provisions 610 631 819 29.7

Total 44,790 46,032 48,631 5.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
The Year in Trade 2017

298 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.53 Leading U.S. total exports to India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 3,745 4,802 4,109 -14.4

7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 2,294 1,726 2,376 37.7

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 773 965 1,511 56.6

2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 455 324 1,069 229.8

0802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 446 446 584 30.8

8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 352 0 518 (

a

)

2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 273 368 461 25.3

5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 115 251 433 72.9

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 17 0 422 (

a

)

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. 208 206 320 55.4

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 371 287 316 9.8

7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 250 286 274 -4.3

2901.10 Acyclic hydrocarbons, saturated 0 10 235 2,292.9

2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% or higher 73 176 213 21.1

4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or paperboard 134 152 209 37.0

Total of items shown 9,505 9,999 13,048 30.5

All other products 11,948 11,654 12,652 8.6

Total of all commodities 21,453 21,652 25,700 18.7

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Undefined.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 299

Table A.54 Leading U.S. general imports from India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 7,370 8,620 8,193 -5.0

3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and 

pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 4,915 6,398 5,130 -19.8

0306.17 Shrimps and prawns, frozen, other than cold-water 1,188 1,394 1,972 41.5

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 1,646 1,501 1,546 3.0

7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 1,310 1,508 1,433 -4.9

2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by 

weight 70% or more of these oils, not biodiesel or waste 994 885 963 8.8

6302.31 Bed linen (other than printed) of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 791 789 829 5.1

6302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen of cotton terry toweling or similar cotton terry fabrics 694 699 729 4.4

6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 414 406 428 5.6

3004.20 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 484 420 384 -8.4

7113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver 345 320 343 7.0

1302.32 Mucilages and thickeners, whether or not modified, derived from locust beans, locust bean seeds 

or guar seeds 583 178 335 88.0

7305.11 Line pipe for oil or gas pipelines, external diameter over 406.4 mm (16 in.), of iron or steel, 

longitudinally submerged arc welded 34 18 258 1,317.9

6205.20 Men's or boys' shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 239 236 250 5.6

2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, 

n.e.s.o.i. 171 217 245 12.6

Total of items shown 21,177 23,589 23,039 -2.3

All other products 23,613 22,443 25,592 14.0

Total of all commodities 44,790 46,032 48,631 5.6

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
The Year in Trade 2017

300 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.55 U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 3,279 3,319 3,400 2.5

2 Forest products 426 424 417 -1.7

3 Chemicals and related products 3,642 3,556 3,723 4.7

4 Energy-related products 268 135 763 465.6

5 Textiles and apparel 103 101 118 16.5

6 Footwear 10 8 9 10.8

7 Minerals and metals 1,288 1,270 1,367 7.6

8 Machinery 5,101 5,531 5,061 -8.5

9 Transportation equipment 3,501 3,744 3,651 -2.5

10 Electronic products 5,962 6,605 6,355 -3.8

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,821 866 363 -58.1

12 Special provisions 422 478 528 10.6

Total 25,823 26,037 25,754 -1.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

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

Table A.56 U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2015–17

Sector Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

1 Agricultural products 516 531 587 10.5

2 Forest products 242 243 262 7.8

3 Chemicals and related products 3,673 3,547 4,016 13.2

4 Energy-related products 237 96 143 49.1

5 Textiles and apparel 1,188 1,037 1,005 -3.1

6 Footwear 87 85 55 -35.4

7 Minerals and metals 5,820 5,131 5,862 14.2

8 Machinery 4,442 4,124 4,617 11.9

9 Transportation equipment 3,589 3,393 3,556 4.8

10 Electronic products 16,327 16,442 17,635 7.3

11 Miscellaneous manufactures 3,252 3,057 3,147 3.0

12 Special provisions 1,532 1,563 1,608 2.9

Total 40,905 39,248 42,492 8.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Appendix A: Data Tables

U.S International Trade Commission | 301

Table A.57 Leading U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 2,552 2,937 2,510 -14.5

8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates 

circuits 2,500 2,747 2,432 -11.5

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 843 1,557 1,133 -27.2

8542.32 Memories, electronic integrated circuits 1,251 1,047 1,078 2.9

8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, 

etc., parts and accessories 611 621 816 31.4

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 594 658 711 8.2

1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 578 581 588 1.3

1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 345 460 397 -13.6

7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 325 281 352 25.2

2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing 70% by weight petroleum oils or oils from bituminous 

minerals, not containing biodiesel, not waste oils 97 33 317 867.1

2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 0 0 302 (

a

)

1001.99 Wheat and meslin, not durum wheat, other than seed 283 257 296 15.1

8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 270 264 285 7.8

2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 154 254 255 0.6

0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 166 186 218 17.5

Total of items shown 10,568 11,882 11,690 -1.6

All other products 15,256 14,155 14,064 -0.6

Total of all commodities 25,823 26,037 25,754 -1.1

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included. a Undefined.
The Year in Trade 2017

302 | www.usitc.gov

Table A.58 Leading U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2015–17

HTS 6 Description 2015 2016 2017 2016–17

Million $ % change

8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,390 1,461 1,646 12.7

8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other 

data, including switching and routing apparatus 1,113 1,455 1,582 8.8

8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 1,001 1,206 1,418 17.6

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. 1,196 1,248 1,388 11.2

8471.30 Portable digital automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at 

least a central processing unit, keyboard & a display 334 679 1,262 85.8

8523.51 Solid-state nonvolatile semiconductor storage devices 981 1,127 1,222 8.5

8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 1,143 754 732 -2.9

8542.32 Memories, electronic integrated circuits 1,221 689 723 4.9

8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for use 

on bicycles 616 587 633 8.0

7318.14 Self-tapping screws, threaded, of iron or steel 545 504 583 15.5

8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders 563 608 523 -14.1

7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts n.e.s.o.i., with or without their nuts or washers, of iron or steel 531 445 498 12.0

8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 461 462 476 3.1

9506.91 Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics, n.e.s.o.i.; parts and 

accessories thereof 366 390 457 17.2

8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 234 210 451 114.3

Total of items shown 11,696 11,826 13,594 15.0

All other products 29,209 27,422 28,897 5.4

Total of all commodities 40,905 39,248 42,492 8.3

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Data reflect shipments under HTS chapters 1–97. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
U.S International Trade Commission | 303

Appendix B 

Additional Tables Corresponding to 

Figures in the Report
304 | www.usitc.gov
Appendix B: Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report

U.S International Trade Commission | 305

Table B.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2003–17 (million dollars)

Year Services Goods

2003 47,753 -541,643

2004 54,883 -664,765

2005 68,558 -782,804

2006 75,573 -837,289

2007 115,821 -821,196

2008 123,765 -832,492

2009 125,921 -509,694

2010 154,020 -648,677

2011 192,020 -740,646

2012 204,398 -741,171

2013 240,368 -702,245

2014 261,158 -751,494

2015 261,410 -761,855

2016 247,714 -752,507

2017 242,771 -811,212

Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, “Table 1.2: U.S. International Transactions, Expanded 

Detail,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Corresponds to figure ES.1. Merchandise trade data are on a balance-of-payments basis.

Table B.2 U.S. goods and services trade with major bilateral trade partners, 2017 (million dollars)

Country/region Goods Services

Exports Imports Total Exports Imports Total

European Union 283,517 434,933 718,451 238,425 188,496 426,921

China 130,370 505,597 635,967 55,585 17,421 73,006

Canada 282,472 299,975 582,447 58,307 32,515 90,822

Mexico 242,989 314,045 557,034 32,795 26,150 58,945

Japan 67,696 136,544 204,239 45,421 28,353 73,774

South Korea 48,277 71,164 119,441 22,835 9,424 32,259

India 25,700 48,631 74,332 22,763 28,562 51,325

Taiwan 25,754 42,492 68,246 9,195 8,053 17,248

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 26, 2018); USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, 

& IIP, International Transactions, Tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2018.

Note: Corresponds to figure ES.2. 

Table B.3 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2013–17

Year Real GDP % change

2013 1.7

2014 2.6

2015 2.9

2016 1.5

2017 2.3

Source: USDOC, BEA, “Real Gross Domestic Product,” March 26, 2018.

Note: Corresponds to figure 1.1. 
The Year in Trade 2017

306 | www.usitc.gov

Table B.4 Economic (GDP) growth trends in the world, the United States, and major trading partners 

2015–17 (percent)

Countries 2015 2016 2017

World 2.66 2.52 3.34

United States 2.86 1.49 2.18

European Union 2.35 1.98 2.34

China 6.90 6.70 6.77

Canada 0.94 1.47 3.04

Mexico 2.65 2.29 2.15

Japan 1.11 1.03 1.51

South Korea 2.79 2.83 3.02

India 8.01 7.11 6.72

Taiwan 0.72 1.48 1.98

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2017, 3.

Note: Based on constant prices. Corresponds to figure 1.2.
Appendix B: Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report

U.S International Trade Commission | 307

Table B.5 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2013–17

Country/region Trade flow 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

European Union

Total exports 262.1 276.3 271.9 269.6 283.5

General imports 387.5 420.6 427.5 416.4 434.9

Merchandise trade balance -125.4 -144.3 -155.7 -146.8 -151.4

China

Total exports 121.7 123.7 115.9 115.6 130.4

General imports 440.4 468.5 483.2 462.6 505.6

Merchandise trade balance -318.7 -344.8 -367.3 -347.0 -375.2

Canada

Total exports 300.8 312.8 280.9 266.8 282.5

General imports 332.5 349.3 296.2 277.8 300.0

Merchandise trade balance -31.7 -36.5 -15.4 -11.0 -17.5

Mexico

Total exports 226.0 241.0 236.2 229.7 243.0

General imports 280.6 295.7 296.4 294.1 314.0

Merchandise trade balance -54.6 -54.7 -60.2 -64.4 -71.1

Japan

Total exports 65.2 66.9 62.4 63.2 67.7

General imports 138.6 134.5 131.4 132.0 136.5

Merchandise trade balance -73.3 -67.6 -69.0 -68.8 -68.8

South Korea

Total exports 41.6 44.6 43.5 42.3 48.3

General imports 62.4 69.7 71.8 69.9 71.2

Merchandise trade balance -20.7 -25.0 -28.3 -27.6 -22.9

India

Total exports 21.8 21.5 21.5 21.7 25.7

General imports 41.8 45.4 44.8 46.0 48.6

Merchandise trade balance -20.0 -23.9 -23.3 -24.4 -22.9

Taiwan

Total exports 25.5 26.7 25.8 26.0 25.8

General imports 37.9 40.8 40.9 39.2 42.5

Merchandise trade balance -12.4 -14.2 -15.1 -13.2 -16.7

World

Total exports 1,578.5 1,621.9 1,503.1 1,451.0 1,546.7

General Imports 2,268.0 2,356.4 2,248.2 2,187.8 2,342.9

Merchandise trade balance -689.5 -734.5 -745.1 -736.8 -796.2

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 14, 2018).

Note: Corresponds to figures 1.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.13, 6.15. 
The Year in Trade 2017

308 | www.usitc.gov

Table B.6 U.S. merchandise trade with major trading partners and the world, 2017

Major trading partner

U.S. total 

exports

U.S. general 

imports

Share of total 

exports

Share of total 

imports

Million $ Percent

European Union 283,517 434,933 18.3 18.6

China 130,370 505,597 8.4 21.6

Canada 282,472 299,975 18.3 12.8

Mexico 242,989 314,045 15.7 13.4

Japan 67,696 136,544 4.4 5.8

South Korea 48,277 71,164 3.1 3.0

India 25,700 48,631 1.7 2.1

Taiwan 25,754 42,492 1.7 1.8

All others 431,795 443,040 27.9 18.9

World 1,546,733 2,342,905

Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed 

March 14, 2018).

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to 100 percent. Corresponds to figures 1.5 and 1.6.
Appendix B: Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report

U.S International Trade Commission | 309

Table B.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with selected major trading partners and the world

Country/region Trade flow 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Billion $

European Union

Exports 202.8 220.7 227.1 230.0 238.4

Imports 151.5 160.7 166.2 168.3 (

a

)188.5

Services trade balance 51.3 59.9 60.9 61.7 49.9

China

Exports 37.2 43.9 48.0 53.7 55.6

Imports 13.8 13.9 15.0 16.0 17.4

Services trade balance 23.3 29.9 33.0 37.6 38.2

Canada

Exports 62.5 60.6 54.2 53.5 58.3

Imports 30.5 29.8 28.9 29.7 32.5

Services trade balance 31.9 30.8 25.3 23.8 25.8

Mexico

Exports 29.5 29.8 31.2 31.6 32.8

Imports 17.1 19.8 22.8 24.4 26.2

Services trade balance 12.3 10.0 8.4 7.1 6.6

Japan

Exports 45.2 46.2 44.3 43.6 45.4

Imports 27.6 28.2 26.3 27.5 28.4

Services trade balance 17.6 18.0 17.9 16.0 17.1

South Korea

Exports 20.7 20.0 20.4 20.8 22.8

Imports 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.8 9.4

Services trade balance 12.5 11.7 11.6 12.0 13.4

India

Exports 13.1 14.9 18.0 20.3 22.8

Imports 20.3 22.4 24.6 25.8 28.6

Services trade balance -7.3 -7.5 -6.6 -5.5 -5.8

Taiwan

Exports 11.4 12.0 11.9 11.3 9.2

Imports 7.0 7.2 7.6 7.6 8.1

Services trade balance 4.4 4.7 4.3 3.6 1.1

World

Exports 678.6 721.4 732.0 733.6 761.7

Imports 435.7 456.5 470.1 483.1 516.0

Services trade balance 242.9 264.9 261.8 250.4 245.7

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, “Table 1.2 U.S. 

International Trade in Services,” and “Table 1.3 U.S. International Transactions,” expanded detail by area and country, March

21, 2018.

Note: Data for 2017 are preliminary. Corresponds to figures 1.7, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14, 6.16. a U.S. imports from the EU in 2017 are overstated because the data include government goods and services n.i.e.
The Year in Trade 2017

310 | www.usitc.gov

Table B.8 U.S. private cross-border services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2017

Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports

Share of total 

exports

Share of total 

imports

Million $ Percent

European Union 238,425 (

a

)188,496 31.3 36.5

Canada 58,307 32,515 7.7 6.3

China 55,585 17,421 7.3 3.4

Japan 45,421 28,353 6.0 5.5

Mexico 32,795 26,150 4.3 5.1

Brazil 25,132 6,469 3.3 1.3

South Korea 22,835 9424 3.0 1.8

India 22,763 28,562 3.0 5.5

Australia 21,909 7192 2.9 1.4

All others 238,557 171,433 31.3 37.7

World 761,729 516,015

Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, “Tables 1.2 and 

1.3, U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2018.

Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. Data are preliminary. Corresponds to figures 1.8 and 1.9. a U.S. imports from the EU in 2017 are overstated because the data include government goods and services n.i.e.. 

Table B.9 TAA petitions certified, by industry sector, FY 2017

Industry sectors Petition Share of petitions

Manufacturing 487 57.7

Professional, scientific, and technical services 98 11.6

Finance and insurance 67 7.9

Wholesale trade 56 6.6

Information 50 5.9

Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services 23 2.7

All other 63 7.5

Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, March 16, 2018. 

Note: Other includes all industry sectors where fewer than 20 petitions were certified in FY 2017. Corresponds to figure 2.1.