International Business- US trade information data

1. For this section (21 total points), we’re going to focus on US trade. Begin by going to the following webpage:

http://usitc.gov/

. This is a great source of U.S. trade information and the data contained here will relate to information we will cover throughout this semester. After you have explored this page, click on the link under Research Tools titled “Dataweb.”

I. For the following questions, refer to the document attached to the assignment instruction titled AVE Duties 1891-2015. This document was published on “Dataweb” previously.

a. How many laws have impacted tariffs according to this document through 1935? (2)

b. Identify the country and the year we had our first individual free trade agreement with? (2)

c. Historically, we have seen four periods (at least two consecutive years) where there have been more than 66% goods entering our country classifying as duty free. Identify those periods and explain what the reason likely is for the high percentage of duty free imports. (4)

d. Over the last few years, we have generally seen the percentage of duty free goods stay relatively constant. Why are we seeing an increase in overall tariff revenue? (2)

II. For the following questions, use the linked attached on the “Year in Trade 2016”

a. In terms of Global Economic Trends, what was Global GDP in 2016, how did it move from 2015 and why? (3)

b. What percentage of our total merchandise trade is with China? What is our trade balance with them in that area? What about services? (3)

c. What category of merchandise did we export the most of and which did we import the most of in 2016? (2)

d. Of the selected countries discussed, which country do we actually have a positive balance of trade in merchandise and also which one do we have a negative balance in services? (2)

e. Of single countries, who is our sixth largest trading partner in merchandise and 7th in services? (1)

2. On page 26, answer #5 – 4 pts.

3. Read the New Balance Article linked to the instructions. Explain the concept of a third shift product and react briefly to New Balance’s situation in light of Chapter 2 principles. Does this surprise you? (5)

4. Answer #2 under the managerial implications section on page 54. (5)

5. Attached to the Instructions for this assignment you will find a case study titled Aguinda v. Texaco that I will be submitting to a journal shortly. Following your reading of the case, answer the following questions (20 total points):

a. Two major political risks are exposure to foreign laws and foreign courts. How did these risks impact Texaco/Chevron? (5)

b. As documented in the book, Law of the Jungle, the relationship between TexPet and the Ecuadorian government evolved significantly over time, almost always to TexPet’s detriment. Towards the end, TexPet was being taxed at an 87% rate by the end of the venture and had already lost 25% of its ownership stake. What international investment problem(s) does this sound like? Why didn’t TexPet push back harder or sue in U.S. courts over the problems that were occurring? (5)

c. The initial case in New York was based on the Alien Tort Statute. Based on what we now know, would they have been successful in NY had that been decided? Explain. (You might want to read/scan the 2013 Kiobel case attached). (7)

d. In Part (E)(3), it states that Ecuador should have to indemnify Chevron if enforcement of the verdict is successful globally. Why is the word “should” utilized and not “must,” since the arbitration ruling held Ecuador liable? (3)

HW#1 – Spring 2018

1. For this section (21 total points), we’re going to focus on US trade. Begin by going to the following webpage:

http://usitc.gov/

I. For the following questions, refer to the document attached to the assignment instruction titled
AVE Duties
1891-2015. This document was published on “Dataweb” previously.

a. How many laws have impacted tariffs according to this document through 1935? (2)

b. Identify the country and the year we had our first individual free trade agreement with? (2)

d. Over the last few years, we have generally seen the percentage of duty free goods stay relatively constant. Why are we seeing an increase in overall tariff revenue? (2)

II. For the following questions, use the linked attached on the “
Year in Trade 2016
”

a. In terms of Global Economic Trends, what was Global GDP in 2016, how did it move from 2015 and why? (3)

b. What percentage of our total merchandise trade is with China? What is our trade balance with them in that area? What about services? (3)

c. What category of merchandise did we export the most of and which did we import the most of in 2016? (2)

d. Of the selected countries discussed, which country do we actually have a positive balance of trade in merchandise and also which one do we have a negative balance in services? (2)

e. Of single countries, who is our sixth largest trading partner in merchandise and 7th in services? (1)

2. On page 26, answer #5 – 4 pts.

3. Read the
New Balance Article
linked to the instructions. Explain the concept of a third shift product and react briefly to New Balance’s situation in light of Chapter 2 principles. Does this surprise you? (5)

4. Answer #2 under the managerial implications section on page 54. (5)

5. Attached to the Instructions for this assignment you will find a case study titled
Aguinda
v. Texaco

that I will be submitting to a journal shortly. Following your reading of the case, answer the following questions (20 total points):

a. Two major political risks are exposure to foreign laws and foreign courts. How did these risks impact Texaco/Chevron? (5)

III. The Story of Aguinda v. Texaco

A. Oil in Ecuador – Prelude to a Lawsuit

Though petroleum exploration in Ecuador dates back to 1878,[footnoteRef:1] this story truly began in 1964 when a fourth level subsidiary of Texaco, Texaco Petroleum Co. (TexPet), and Gulf Oil Co (Gulf), entered into a twenty-eight year agreement with the Ecuadorian government to explore for, and produce, oil across three and a half million acres of land[footnoteRef:2] in the northern Oriente region.[footnoteRef:3] Though the area had largely been looked over by other oil companies, TexPet struck its first producing well early in 1967, which spewed almost 3,000 barrels in its first day.[footnoteRef:4] With the oil and resultant money flowing, the terms of the agreement were modified in 1974, when a relatively new law resulted in a state oil company, known as PetroEcuador today, assumed a 25% ownership stake in the venture.[footnoteRef:5] During the remaining period of the partnership, TexPet maintained a 37.5% ownership stake in the oil exploration and production venture, with Gulf Oil and PetroEcuador owning the rest. Gulf Oil relinquished its ownership interest to PetroEcuador in 1976 in exchange for $82.1 million.[footnoteRef:6] Though they were now the minority owner, Texaco remained the principal operator of the production operations until 1990,[footnoteRef:7] when TexPet transferred operational control to Petroamazona, a subsidiary of PetroEcuador.[footnoteRef:8] TexPet then relinquished its ownership stake in 1992, leaving PetroEcucador as the 100% owner and operator going forward. [1: Texaco, Inc. Texaco in Ecuador: Background on Texaco Petroleum Company’s Former Operations in Ecuador, http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/en/history/background.aspx (last visited May 31, 2014).] [2: Book at 15] [3: See Aguinda v. Texaco, 303 F.3d 470, 473 (2nd Cir. 2001); Supra note 3.] [4: Book at 16] [5: Luciene J. Dhooge, Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco: Mandatory Grounds for the Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments for Environmental Injury in the United States, 19 J. of Transnat. L. & Pol’y 1,5 (Fall 2009) (citing Republic of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2nd 334, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). ] [6: Id. at 5 (citing Judith Kimerling, Indigenous Peoples and the Oil Frontier in Amazonia: The Case of Ecuador, ChevronTexaco and Aguinda v. Texaco, 38. N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. &. Pol’y 413, 420 n. 17 (2006)).] [7: Id. at 5 (citing Republic of Ecuador, 376 F. Supp. 2nd at 340-41).] [8: Id. ]

B. Ecuadorian Fallout Comes to the United States

In 1993, just a year after TexPet’s exit from Ecuador, a class action lawsuit, Aguinda v. Texaco, was filed in the Southern District of New York against its parent company, Texaco, Inc. The complaint alleged, generally, that Texaco’s “negligent, reckless, intentional and outrageous acts” have caused “property damage, personal injuries, increased risk of cancer and other diseases.”[footnoteRef:9] Specifically, they alleged that Texaco engaged in such damaging activities as the spilling of an estimated 16.8 million gallons of oil from the pipelines it built and maintained, discharging toxic wastes in open pits, burning oil wastes in open pits without adequate temperature and pollution controls, and spreading oil on the roads.[footnoteRef:10] All of these allegations were claimed to be in violation of industry and international standards.[footnoteRef:11] The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, litigation costs, and equitable relief.[footnoteRef:12] [9: Complaint, Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 93 CV 7527 1, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3. 1993).] [10: Id. at 23-6.] [11: Id. at 23.] [12: Id. at 36-7.]

Texaco moved to dismiss the suit based largely on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, believing that Ecuador was a more appropriate forum. For such a dismissal, the court stated that “a defendant must demonstrate (1) that there exists an adequate alternative forum[footnoteRef:13] and (2) that the ordinarily strong presumption of favoring the plaintiff’s chosen forum is overcome by a balance of the relevant factors of private and public interest weighing heavily in favor of the alternative forum.”[footnoteRef:14] With regards to the first prong, the plaintiffs argued that Ecuador’s jurisdiction was inadequate due to the country not recognizing tort claims or class actions and certain procedural difficulties with claims of this type.[footnoteRef:15] Judge Rakoff found that these arguments were insufficient, as section 2241 of the Ecuadorian Civil Code expressly provides for tort actions,[footnoteRef:16] most nations do not allow class actions,[footnoteRef:17] and certain procedural hurdles regarding the requirement of preliminary administrative agency action existed in the United States as well.[footnoteRef:18] With regards to the second prong, Rakoff’s analysis was based on the public and private interest factors laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. V. Gilbert. The ‘“private interest” factors include the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses, the availability of compulsory process for obtaining attendance of unwilling witnesses, the possibility of viewing the relevant premises and other such practical concerns.”[footnoteRef:19] Given the location of the damage and the location of the relevant parties, the balance weighed in favor of Ecuador on this factor.[footnoteRef:20] The “public interest” factors include the local interest in the controversy, court congestion, avoidance of any unnecessary problems in application of foreign law, and avoidance of imposing jury duty on residents having no relationship to the controversy.”[footnoteRef:21] Here again, the factors weighed heavily in favor of Ecuadorian jurisdiction.[footnoteRef:22] Rakoff further explained that “the notion that a New York jury (which plaintiffs demanded) applying Ecuadorian law (which likely governs here) could meaningfully assess what occurred in the Amazonian rainforests in Ecuador in the 1960’s and early 1970’s is problematic on its face.”[footnoteRef:23] After weighing all of the factors, and following eight years of pre-trial actions in the United States, the motion was ultimately granted on May 30, 2001 by Judge Rakoff summarily stating that “the record overwhelmingly establishes that these cases have everything to do with Ecuador and nothing to do with the United States.”[footnoteRef:24] It should also be noted that the decision was influenced by Texaco agreeing to submit to jurisdiction in Ecuador.[footnoteRef:25] The plaintiffs immediately appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the decision on August 16, 2002, on the condition that Texaco also agree to not pursue a statute of limitations defense that might ordinarily be at its disposal.[footnoteRef:26] [13: Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534, 538 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2001) (citing DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Corp., 232 F.3d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 2000); Evolution Online Sys., Inc. v. Koninklijke PTT Nederland N.V., 145 F.3d 505, 510 (2d Cir. 1998); PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 1998)).] [14: Id. (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-57, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 102 S. Ct. 252 (1981), reh’g denied, 455 U.S. 928, 71 L. Ed. 2d 474, 102 S. Ct. 1296 (1982); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-10, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947); DiRienzo, 232 F.3d at 56-57; PT United Can Co., 138 F.3d at 73-74.).] [15: Id. at 539-45.] [16: Id. at 541.] [17: Id. At 541.] [18: Id. at 542-3.] [19: Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (Mar. 10, 1947).] [20: Aguinda, 142 F. Supp. 2d 534, 548.] [21: Id. at 551.] [22: Id.] [23: Id. at 546 (quoting language from Memorandum Order, Aguinda v. Texaco, 2000 WL 122143 at *1 (Jan. 21, 2000)).] [24: Aguinda, 142 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537.] [25: Id. at 538.] [26: Aguinda v. Texaco, 303 F.3d 470, 480 (2nd Cir. 2001).]

C. Key Events During Litigation – The Release of TexPet and a Change in Ownership

In 1995, while the litigation in New York was ongoing, TexPet entered into an agreement with PetroEcuado and the Ecuadorian Government to remediate some of the affected areas in the region. As a part of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), TexPet was to be responsible for remediating 161 pits and 7 spill areas, which was a number roughly equivalent to TexPet’s ending ownership percentage of 37.5%. PetroEcuador was then responsible for remediating the remaining 264 pits. By 1997, the remediation was completed at a cost to TexPet of approximately forty million dollars. The remediation efforts seemingly met the requirements of the RAP and were signed off on September 30, 1998 by TexPet, PetroEcuador, Petroproduccion and, most importantly, the Minister of Energy and Mines acting on behalf of the Ecuadorian government. This approval released TexPet from further liability in this matter according to the terms of the RAP.

A second major event during the U.S. litigation that impactied the storyline was the change in ownership for Texaco. After previously failing to agree to terms in 1999, Chevron agreed in October of 2000 to acquire Texaco in a thirty-six billion dollar deal.[footnoteRef:27] By the time regulators approved the deal in September of 2001, the deal was valued at over $46 billion. Texaco shareholders would receive .77 shares of stock in the new Chevron Texaco for every share of Texaco stock it held.[footnoteRef:28] [27: See Andrew Ross Sorkin & Neela Banerjee, Chevron Agrees to Buy Texaco for Stock Valued at $36 Billion, N.Y. Times, Oct, 16, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/16/business/chevron-agrees-to-buy-texaco-for-stock-valued-at-36-billion.html.] [28: Michael Davis, FTC Approves Acquisition of Texaco by Chevron, Houston Chron., Sept. 8, 2011, http://www.chron.com/business/article/FTC-approves-acquisition-of-Texaco-by-Chevron-2054018.php.]

D. Back to Where it All Began

In 2003, a renewed lawsuit, known as the Lago Agrio litigation, was filed in Ecuador.[footnoteRef:29] Though the players for the plaintiffs remained virtually the same, including Maria Aguinda Salazar, Chevron was now the named defendant after acquiring Texaco roughly two years earlier. This case was also brought under the newly adopted Ecuadorian Environmental Management Act (EMA) of 1999,[footnoteRef:30] which allows individuals to bring direct actions like this for the first time in Ecuador, but damages may only be recovered that benefit the community and not individual plaintiffs directly.[footnoteRef:31] According to Barrett, the plaintiffs team actually helped draft this law as the case proceeded in New York.[footnoteRef:32] Though Chevron sought dismissal of the suit on the grounds that the retroactive application of this law was not in accordance with Ecuadorian law, the court did not have jurisdiction over Chevron, the lapse of the statute of limitations,[footnoteRef:33] and the 1995 release, the case was still allowed to proceed.[footnoteRef:34] The trial process was filled with seemingly endless motions, appeals and evidence to try to bolster each side’s case, resulting in over two hundred thousand pages of court records.[footnoteRef:35] Ultimately, the biggest points of contention were the validity of the expert reports and the evidence samples gathered. The most critical and controversial was the report of the independent expert, Richard Stalin Cabrera Vega, who recommended in 2008 that Chevron should be held liable for $27 billion in damages.[footnoteRef:36] [29: Complaint, Aguinda v. Chevron Corp., No. 002-2003 (Super. Ct. of Nueva Loja, May 7, 2003) (Ecuador).] [30: ] [31: Manuel A. Gomez, The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecuador, 1 Stanford J. Litig. 429,436-7 (June 2013). See also Id. at note 37.] [32: 74] [33: Chevron was not the party during the 2nd Circuit decision. ] [34: Id. at 437-8.] [35: Id. at 438 (citing Aguinda v. Chevron Corp., No. 002-2003 (Super. Ct. of Nueva Loja, Feb. 14, 2011) (Ecuador) judgment at 35, 40).] [36: Id. at 439.]

As the Lago Agrio litigation played out, another major storyline in this saga developed with the filming of the documentary Crude: The Real Price of Oil.[footnoteRef:37] The documentary attempted to capture the whole story of the Ecuadorian pollution and contains many candid looks at the judicial process in Ecuador.[footnoteRef:38] The film also illustrated the new political support for the Lago Agrio litigation with a filmed visit to the pollution sites by newly elected President Rafael Correra.[footnoteRef:39] Governmental support was something that the cause had been lacking and needing prior to Correra’s election. [37: Crude: The Real Price of Oil (Entendre Films 2009).] [38: It should be worth noting that ] [39: Id. at ch. 14.]

The Ecuadorian plaintiffs ultimately prevailed, as on February 14, 2011, Judge Nicolas Zambrano issued a 188 page decision against Chevron.[footnoteRef:40] Under the verdict, Chevron was obligated to pay $8.6 billion in compensatory damages and an additional $8.6 billion in punitive damages if it did not apologize within fifteen days. From this money, Chevron was ordered to pay $864 million to the Amazon Defense Front (ADF), as the ten percent available to the plaintiffs directly under the EMA, even though the ADF was not a named plaintiff.[footnoteRef:41] The initial compensatory damages were “intended for groundwater and soil remediation, the restoration of native flora, fauna, and aquatic life, the implementation of a potable water system, a healthcare system and the rebuilding of ethnic communities and cultures.”[footnoteRef:42] [40: Aguinda v. Chevron Corp., No. 002-2003 (Super. Ct. of Nueva Loja, Feb. 14, 2011) (Ecuador) [hereinafter Lago Agrio verdict].] [41: See Gomez, supra note 30, at note 37, 72.] [42: Id. at 441 (citing Lago Agrio verdict, supra note 36 at 178,179, 181-4).]

E. Seeking Enforcement Abroad and Chevron Trying to Block it

Though the plaintiffs had claimed an initial victory with the Ecuadorian verdict, TexPet had long since ceased operations and Chevron did not “have any refineries, storage terminals, oil wells or other properties that could be seized to pressure the company to pay.”[footnoteRef:43] As a result, the plaintiffs were forced to seek enforcement elsewhere and stave off legal challenges by Chevron. The seven forums that have been utilized to either seek or block enforcement of the Lago Agrio verdict are discussed below. [43: Joe Carroll & Karen Gullo, Chevron’s $17 Billion Ecuador Judgment May Be Unenforceable, Analysts Say, Bloomberg, Feb. 15, 2011, available at http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/chevron-to-appeal-adverse-judgment-in-ecuador-pollution-case.html (quoting Mark Gillman, an analyst at Beckmark Co.).]

1. Actions in Ecuador

The greatest fight in Ecuador for the plaintiffs was not enforcement of the verdict, as Chevron had no real assets in Ecuador to satisfy the judgement, but to ensure that the verdict remained viable on appeal for potential global enforcement. Chevron appealed the verdict on March 9, 2011, less than a month after the initial decision,[footnoteRef:44] but it was dismissed in January of 2012. It was actually at this moment that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs actually earned the right to seek enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment, as “the trial court decision became readily enforceable once the Provincial Court of Sucombios confirmed it” on appeal.[footnoteRef:45] Chevron then exercised their right for review with the National Justice Court of Ecuador (NJCE), which in November of 2013 did strike the potential punitive damages of $9.5 billion, holding that there was no legal basis to fine Chevron for not apologizing, but allowed the verdict to stand otherwise.[footnoteRef:46] [44: Gomez, supra note 30, at note 79 (citing Chevron’s Memorandum in Support of appeal dated Mar. 9, 2011).] [45: Id. at 443.] [46: Alexandra Valencia, Chevron Appeals to top Ecuador Court in Pollution Case, Reuters, Dec. 23, 2013, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/23/us-chevron-ecuador-idUSBRE9BM0V020131223.]

2. Actions in the United States

To block potential enforcement in the United States, Chevron filed suit against one of the plaintiffs’ key attorneys, Steven Donziger, two weeks prior to the Lago Agrio verdict based on the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[footnoteRef:47] In March of 2011, soon after the release of the Lago Agrio judgment, the court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement.[footnoteRef:48] Chevron’s victory was short lived, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “issued an order denying the Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ attempt to recuse Judge Lewis Kaplan, vacating Judge Kaplan’s preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron, and staying Chevron’s claim for a declaratory judgment that the Ecuadorian judgment is unenforceable.”[footnoteRef:49] [47: See Press Release, Chevron, Chevron Files Fraud and RICO Case Against Lawyers and Consultants Behind Ecuador Litigation (Feb. 1, 2011) available at http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/02012011_chevronfilesfraudandricocaseagainstlawyersandconsultantsbehindecuadorlitigation.news.] [48: See Dan Levine and Braden Reddall, U.S. Judge Halts Damages Enforcement Against Chevron, Reuters, Mar. 7, 2011, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/chevron-ecuador-idUSN0723703920110308.] [49: See Press Release, Chevron, Chevron Statement on United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Order (Sept. 19, 2011) available at http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/09192011_chevronstatementonunitedstatessecondcircuitcourtofappealsorder.news.]

On March 4, 2014, the quest to collect on the Ecuadorian verdict was dealt a serious blow when U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled, in a nearly 500 page opinion, that the award would be unenforceable in the United States due to findings of fraud on the part of the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Steven Donziger.[footnoteRef:50] The court did point out the good initial intentions of Donziger[footnoteRef:51] and that Chevron might even be liable for the pollution in Ecuador, but that the tactics employed by Donziger and the legal team were so egregious that it would be an injustice to allow enforcement in the United States. The court found that Donziger and his associates submitted fraudulent evidence, coerced a judge to select an “impartial” expert that was selected by Donziger’s team, paid a Colorado firm to write the expert’s report, misled U.S. courts to prevent these revelations from coming to light, wrote the final verdict themselves and promised $500,000 to the judge in return for the verdict they wanted.[footnoteRef:52] It is worth noting that the some of the evidence for the allegations was actually gathered from the outtakes of the movie Crude.[footnoteRef:53] Ironically, the movie that was intended to help Donziger’s case turned out to be quite damaging. The decision was appealed to the Second Circuit, but on August 8th, 2016, the panel unanimously ruled that they found “no basis for dismissal or reversal” and affirmed the ruling of the District Court.[footnoteRef:54] [50: Mica Rosenberg, Chevron wins a round in U.S. suit against lawyer in Ecuador case, Reuters, Apr. 25, 2014 available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-chevron-ecuador-appeal-idUSBREA3P00220140426.] [51: Opinion, Chevron v. Donziger 11 Civ. 0691 1, 4 (Mar. 3, 2014).] [52: Id. at 2.] [53: 183-184] [54: ]

2. Chevron on the Offensive

In recent years, Chevron has aggressively pursued those that were involved with the case and/or stood to benefit from it. In May of 2014, Chevron announced a settlement with the major firm of Patton Boggs in which they agreed to release any claims against the firm in exchange for them withdrawing from the case and agreeing pay a $15 million settlement.[footnoteRef:55] Then in February of 2015, they settled with the principal funder of the lawsuit, James Russell DeLeon. In return, he agreed to pay withdraw his support from the lawsuit and assign his 7% stake in the outcome to Chevron.[footnoteRef:56] A few months later in May of 2015, another settlement was reached with Woodford Litigation Funding, Ltd, a U.K. based investment firm, whereby they agreed to withdraw their support of the case and assign any monetary benefits that had been promised from the proceeds of the case to Chevron.[footnoteRef:57] A fourth settlement occurred in September of 2015, when Chevron settled with the H5 firm in return for withdrawing their support and their 1.25% interest in the outcome.[footnoteRef:58] The most recent domino to fall was a company called Amazonia that was started by Donziger to manage the proceeds from the lawsuit. In a default judgement, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar enjoined them from actions relating to the lawsuit and awarded $28 million in damages, largely attorney fees, to Chevron.[footnoteRef:59] [55: https://www.chevron.com/stories/Chevron-Corporation-Reaches-Settlement-Agreement-With-Patton-Boggs-Law-Firm] [56: https://www.chevron.com/stories/Financial-Backer-of-Fraudulent-Ecuador-Litigation-Withdraws-Support-Settles] [57: https://www.chevron.com/stories/Another-Key-Funder-of-Fraudulent-Ecuador-Litigation-Against-Chevron-Withdraws-Support] [58: https://www.chevron.com/stories/h5-settles-with-chevron-over-ecuadorian-lawsuit] [59: https://www.chevron.com/stories/supreme-court-of-gibraltar-rules-against-donziger-offshore-company-awards-chevron-28-million]

3. International Arbitration under the U.S-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (Treaty)

Though not directly related to the Lago Agrio trial suit itself, Chevron and Texaco filed a claim against Ecuador before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2006.[footnoteRef:60] In its final award, nearly five years after the claim was filed, the tribunal held that Ecuador itself was liable in the amount of approximately $96 million plus pre and post award interest.[footnoteRef:61] Ecuador attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the award set aside in the Netherlands.[footnoteRef:62] This award was also unsuccessfully appealed by Ecuador in the U.S. Court system. On June 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which had upheld the award.[footnoteRef:63] Citing the need to “fulfill our international obligations,” the Ecuadorian Central Bank ultimately paid $112 million (award plus interest) just over a month later.[footnoteRef:64] [60: See Press Release, Chevron, Chevron Wins Arbitration Claim Against the Government of Ecuador (Mar. 30, 2010) available at http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2010-03-30.] [61: Final Award, Chevron Corp. v. Repub. of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Arb., PCA Case No. 2007-2, at 141-42 (Aug. 31, 2011).] [62: Gomez, supra note 30, at 447.] [63: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-chevron-idUSKCN0YS1G6] [64: http://www.reuters.com/article/ecuador-chevron-idUSL1N1A908V]

In September of 2009, Chevron filed a second claim against Ecuador in the PCA.[footnoteRef:65] The first notable decision in this second claim was the fourth interim award issued on February 7, 2013,[footnoteRef:66] which stated that Ecuador was “‘to take all measures at its disposal’ and ‘take all measures necessary’ to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement and recognition both within and without Ecuador of that Lago Agrio judgment.”[footnoteRef:67] On September 17, 2013, the panel made its fifth ruling in the case finding unanimously that the relief sought in the judgment against Chevron in Ecuador was extinguished by the Texaco settlement with the Ecuadorian government in 1995, as Chevron was deemed to be a “releasee” under that agreement.[footnoteRef:68] As a result, if the Lago Agrio plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the enforcement of the Ecuadorian award, Ecuador should have to indemnify Chevron for any losses they incur based on the terms of the 1993 Treaty between the United States and Ecuador.[footnoteRef:69] Though this result is still being challenged, the ultimate rulings in the Netherlands, U.S. Courts, and payment by Ecuador in first major arbitration dispute between Chevron and Ecuador should make that indemnification more likely if it this case is ultimately decided in Chevron’s favor and Chevron is forced to pay somewhere. [65: Claimants Notice of Arbitration, Chevron Corp. v. Repub. of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Arb. PCA Case No. 2009-23, (Sept. 23, 2009) available at http://italaw.com/cases/documents/1748.] [66: 4th Interim Award on Interim Measures, Chevron Corp. v. Repub. of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Arb. PCA Case No. 2009-23, (Feb. 7, 2013) available at http://italaw.com/cases/documents/1748.] [67: Id. at 29.] [68: First Partial Award on Track 1, Chevron Corp. v. Repub. of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Arb. PCA Case No. 2009-23 at 45 (Sept. 17, 2013) available at http://italaw.com/cases/documents/1748.] [69: Roger Parloff, Chevron wins major arbitration victory, Fortune (Sept. 18, 2013 5:03 PM), http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/18/chevron-wins-major-arbitration-victory/.]

4. Global Enforcement of the Ecuadorian Decisions

Given that enforcement in the United States looked difficult right after the verdict, and now appears almost impossible, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs have also sought to enforce their awards in at least Argentina, Brazil, and Canada to date. This is no easy task[footnoteRef:70] and, thus far, their level of success can best be described as minimal. In Argentina, the plaintiff’s claimed an early victory in November 2012, when a trial court froze the assets of Chevron’s Argentine subsidiaries.[footnoteRef:71] That victory was short lived though, as on June 4, 2013, Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice vacated the judgment of the trial court with costs.[footnoteRef:72] The prospects do not look good going forward as their Attorney General has recommended non-enforcement in light of the fraud verdict in the U.S.[footnoteRef:73] The plaintiffs also tried to seek enforcement in Brazil when they filed with the Superior Tribunal of Justice in June of 2012.[footnoteRef:74] Data on the proceedings has been seemingly scarce, but in May of 2015, the Brazilian Prosecutor also recommended that enforcement of the verdict not be recognized due to the findings of fraud in the U.S.[footnoteRef:75] [70: See Manual A. Gomez, The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecudaor, Stanford J. of Complex Lit., (Aug. 2013) (discussing the complex legal issues in enforcement of foreign judgements with an emphasis on Brazil and Argentina).] [71: Supra note 1, at 2.] [72: Aguinda Salazar v. Chevron Corp., Sup. Ct. of Arg. 253 XLIX at 5 June 4, 2013 (English Translation) available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/146306585/Argentine-Supreme-Court-Ruling-English-Translation-in-Aguinda-v-Chevron-Lifting-Embargo-that-had-been-obtained-against-Chevron-in-attempted-enforce (last visited May 31, 2014).] [73: Roger Parloff, Fortune, Here’s why Ecuador’s $9.5 Billion Judgement Against Chevron is Headed to Canada (Sept. 11, 2016).] [74: Eduardo Garcia, Ecuador Plaintiffs Target Chevron’s Assets in Brazil, Reuters, June 27, 2012, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-ecuador-chevron-idUSBRE85R01I20120628.] [75: https://lettersblogatory.com/2015/05/21/lago-agrio-update-on-the-brazilian-enforcement-proceeding/]

The one country where plaintiffs have seen some success is Canada, which “has been recognized as a favourable jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.”[footnoteRef:76] The initial enforcement action was filed in May of 2012.[footnoteRef:77] In May of 2013, Superior Court Justice Brown “found that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over the case against Chevron but still granted a stay in the action, concluding that Chevron Canada Ltd.’s assets were not directly owned by San-Ramon, California based Chevron Corp.”[footnoteRef:78] On appeal, a three judge panel unanimously decided in December of 2013 that the action can proceed.[footnoteRef:79] In April of 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) then agreed to hear Chevron’s appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.[footnoteRef:80] As with most cases before the Supreme Court in the United States, the issues before the SCC did not go to the merits of the specific case, but focused on the procedural aspect of jurisdiction.[footnoteRef:81] The court ultimately held that jurisdiction by the Ontario courts was proper, despite Chevron not having assets in the province stating that “in today’s globalised world and electronic age, to require that a judgment creditor wait until a foreign debtor is present and has assets in the province before a court can find that it has jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement proceedings would be to turn a blind eye to current economic reality.”[footnoteRef:82] The case was set to resume in September of 2016 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with motions for dismissal by both Chevron Corporation and Chevron Canada, a subsidiary.[footnoteRef:83] Unfortunately, Chevron Corporation has no assets in Ontario to directly satisfy any judgment enforcement, while Chevron Canada has assets, but it will be tough to make them liable for events as a subsidiary, unless the corporate veil is pierced, which is a tough proposition.[footnoteRef:84] [76: Be-Nazeer Damji, International Association of Defense Counsel Newsletter (May 2014). ] [77: Gomez, supra note 30, at 449 (citing Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim at ¶Yaiguaje v. Chevron, No. CV-12-454778 (Can. Ont. Super. Ct. J. Sept. May 30, 2012)).] [78: Jeff Gray, Ontario Court Revives Chevron Amazon Pollution Case, The Globe and Mail (Dec. 17, 2013), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/latin-american-business/ontario-court-revives-chevron-amazon-pollution-case/article16003269/.] [79: Id.] [80: John Spears, Supreme Court to Hear Chevron Appeal of Ecuador Environmental Case, The Star (Apr, 3, 2014), http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/04/03/supreme_court_to_hear_chevron_appeal_of_ecuador_environmental_case.html.] [81: Supra note 5 at 243. ] [82: Chevron v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42 (Can).] [83: Supra note 76.] [84: Id.]

Conclusion – What We Know and What We Still Don’t

In researching this case, it’s obvious that oil exploration and production operations in Ecuador caused extensive pollution, environmental damage, and possible, if not likely, health effects on the Ecuadorian people. It is also obvious that this dispute is nowhere near done over twenty three years later, as potentially viable enforcement actions continue in Canada and the arbitration proceedings before the PCA remain, plus new forums for enforcement could be brought into the picture.[footnoteRef:85] [85: Gomez, supra note 30, at 430-31.]

What we don’t know yet is if Chevron will, or even should, be liable, as it was not involved in any of the pollution activities and Texaco seemingly had a “get out of jail free” card from the Ecuadorian government. As result, t is also uncertain whether any money will ever be paid to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, as the Lago Agrio verdict stands, but enforceability remains in doubt. Regardless, the case merits further monitoring and discussion in academia and beyond for years to come.

U.S. imports for consumption, duties collected, and ratio of duties to value,

91-

(Table 1)

U.S. imports for consumption under tariff preference programs, 19

-2015 (Tables 2A and 2B)

Office of Analysis and Research Services
Office of Operations

U.S. International Trade Commission
March 2016

Table 1 U.S. Imports for consumption, duties collected, and ratio of duties collected to value, 1891-2015 (thousand $)

Imports for consumption (customs value) Ratio of values (%)

Year1 Duty free
Percent of

total Dutiable
Percent of

total Total Duties collected
Duties collected/
dutiable imports

Duties collected/
total imports

McKinley Law
(Effective Oct. 6, 1890)

1891

79,028

4.8 466,455 55.2 845,483 215,791 46.3 25.5
1892 448,771 55.8 355,527 44.2 804,298 173,098 48.7 21.5
1893 432,450 51.9 400,283 48.1 832,733 198,373 49.6 23.8
1894 372,462 59.1 257,646 40.9 630,108 128,882 50.0 20.5

Annual average 408,178 52.5 369,978 47.5 778,156 179,036 48.4 23.0

Wilson Law

(Effective Aug. 28, 1894)
1895 376,890 51.5 354,272 48.5 731,162 147,901 41.7 20.2
1896 368,898 48.6 390,797 51.4 759,695 156,105 39.9 20.5
1897 381,902 48.4 407,349 51.6 789,251 171,779 42.2 21.8

Annual average 375,897 49.5 384,139 50.5 760,036 158,595 41.3 20.9

Dingley Law

(Effective July 24, 1897)
1898 291,534 49.7 295,620 50.3 587,154 144,259 48.8 24.6
1899 299,669 43.7 385,773 56.3 685,442 200,873 52.1 29.3
1900 366,760 44.2 463,759 55.8 830,519 228,365 49.2 27.5
1901 339,093 42.0 468,670 58.0 807,763 232,641 49.6 28.8
1902 396,542 44.1 503,252 55.9 899,794 250,550 49.8 27.8
1903 437,291 43.4 570,669 56.6 1,007,960 279,780 49.0 27.8
1904 454,153 46.3 527,669 53.7 981,822 257,331 48.8 26.2
1905 517,073 47.6 570,045 52.4 1,087,118 257,898 45.2 23.7
1906 548,696 45.2 664,722 54.8 1,213,418 293,558 44.2 24.2
1907 641,953 45.4 773,449 54.6 1,415,402 329,122 42.6 23.3
1908 525,705 44.4 657,416 55.6 1,183,121 282,273 42.9 23.9
1909 599,376 46.8 682,266 53.2 1,281,642 294,377 43.1 23.0

Annual average 451,487 45.2 546,943 54.8 998,430 254,252 46.5 25.5

Imports for consumption (customs value) Ratio of values (%)
Year1 Duty free
Percent of
total Dutiable
Percent of
total Total Duties collected
Duties collected/
dutiable imports
Duties collected/
total imports

Payne-Aldrich Law
(Effective Aug. 6, 1909)

1910 761,353 49.2 785,756 50.8 1,547,109 326,562 41.6 21.1
1911 776,964 50.9 750,981 49.1 1,527,945 309,966 41.3 20.3
1912 881,513 53.7 759,210 46.3 1,640,723 304,899 40.2 18.6
1913 986,972 55.9 779,717 44.1 1,766,689 312,510 40.1 17.7

Annual average 851,701 52.6 768,916 47.4 1,620,617 313,484 40.8 19.3

Underwood Law

(Effective Oct. 4, 1913)
1914 1,152,393 60.4 754,008 39.6 1,906,401 283,719 37.6 14.9
1915 1,032,863 62.7 615,523 37.3 1,648,386 205,747 33.4 12.5
1916 1,495,881 68.6 683,153 31.4 2,179,034 209,726 30.7 9.6
1917 1,852,531 69.5 814,689 30.5 2,667,220 221,659 27.2 8.3
1918 (Jan. – June) 2,117,555 73.9 747,339 26.1 2,864,894 180,590 24.2 6.3
1918 (July – Dec.) 1,149,882 79.1 303,079 20.9 1,452,961 73,854 24.4 5.1
1919 2,711,462 70.8 1,116,221 29.2 3,827,683 237,457 21.3 6.2
1920 3,115,958 61.1 1,985,865 38.9 5,101,823 325,646 16.4 6.4
1921 1,564,278 61.2 992,591 38.8 2,556,869 292,397 29.5 11.4
1922 1,888,240 61.4 1,185,533 38.6 3,073,773 451,356 38.1 14.7

Annual average 1,903,268 66.3 968,211 33.7 2,871,478 261,279 27.0 9.1

Fordney-McCumber Law

(Effective Sept. 22, 1922)
1923 2,165,148 58.0 1,566,621 42.0 3,731,769 566,664 36.2 15.2
1924 2,118,168 59.2 1,456,943 40.8 3,575,111 532,286 36.5 14.9
1925 2,708,828 64.9 1,467,390 35.1 4,176,218 551,814 37.6 13.2
1926 2,908,107 66.0 1,499,969 34.0 4,408,076 590,045 39.3 13.4
1927 2,680,059 64.4 1,483,031 35.6 4,163,090 574,839 38.8 13.8
1928 2,678,633 65.7 1,399,304 34.3 4,077,937 542,270 38.8 13.3
1929 2,880,128 66.4 1,458,444 33.6 4,338,572 584,837 40.1 13.5
1930 (Jan. – June 17) 1,102,107 64.6 603,891 35.4 1,705,998 269,357 44.6 15.8

Annual average 2,565,490 63.8 1,458,079 36.2 4,023,569 561,615 38.5 14.0

Tariff Act of 1930
1930 (June 18 – Dec. 31) 979,016 69.5 429,063 30.5 1,408,079 192,528 44.9 13.7
1931 1,391,693 66.6 696,762 33.4 2,088,455 370,771 53.2 17.8
1932 885,536 66.8 439,557 33.2 1,325,093 259,600 59.1 19.6
1933 903,547 63.1 529,466 36.9 1,433,013 283,681 53.6 19.8
1934 991,161 60.6 644,842 39.4 1,636,003 301,168 46.7 18.4
1935 1,205,987 59.1 832,918 40.9 2,038,905 357,241 42.9 17.5
1936 1,384,937 57.1 1,039,040 42.9 2,423,977 408,127 39.3 16.8
1937 1,765,248 58.6 1,244,604 41.4 3,009,852 470,509 37.8 15.6
1938 1,182,696 60.7 766,928 39.3 1,949,624 301,375 39.3 15.5
1939 1,397,280 61.4 878,819 38.6 2,276,099 328,034 37.3 14.4

1940 1,648,965 64.9 891,691 35.1 2,540,656 317,711 35.6 12.5
1941 2,030,919 63.0 1,191,035 37.0 3,221,954 437,751 36.8 13.6
1942 1,767,592 63.8 1,001,693 36.2 2,769,285 320,117 32.0 11.6
1943 2,192,702 64.7 1,197,249 35.3 3,389,951 392,294 32.8 11.6
1944 2,708,391 69.8 1,169,504 30.2 3,877,895 382,109 32.7 9.9
1945 2,749,345 67.1 1,348,756 32.9 4,098,101 391,476 29.0 9.6
1946 2,934,955 60.8 1,889,946 39.2 4,824,901 498,001 26.4 10.3
1947 3,454,647 61.0 2,211,674 39.0 5,666,321 445,355 20.1 7.9
1948 4,174,523 58.9 2,917,509 41.1 7,092,032 417,401 14.3 5.9
1949 3,883,186 58.9 2,708,454 41.1 6,591,640 374,291 13.8 5.7

1950 4,766,778 54.5 3,976,304 45.5 8,743,082 529,621 13.3 6.1
1951 5,993,442 55.4 4,823,900 44.6 10,817,342 603,468 12.5 5.6
1952 6,256,950 58.2 4,490,546 41.8 10,747,496 574,733 12.8 5.3
1953 5,919,501 54.9 4,859,403 45.1 10,778,904 597,760 12.3 5.5
1954 5,667,904 55.4 4,571,613 44.6 10,239,517 556,939 12.2 5.4
1955 6,036,634 53.2 5,300,153 46.8 11,336,787 669,579 12.6 5.9
1956 6,234,514 49.8 6,281,233 50.2 12,515,747 739,228 11.8 5.9
1957 6,036,400 46.6 6,914,206 53.4 12,950,606 776,884 11.2 6.0
1958 5,341,561 41.9 7,397,868 58.1 12,739,429 832,155 11.2 6.5
1959 5,821,729 38.8 9,165,346 61.2 14,987,075 1,066,536 11.6 7.1
1960 6,142,076 40.9 8,871,834 59.1 15,013,910 1,086,115 12.2 7.2
1961 5,922,298 40.4 8,734,599 59.6 14,656,897 1,052,702 12.1 7.2

1962 6,224,850 38.3 10,026,213 61.7 16,251,063 1,234,921 12.3 7.6
1963 6,265,096 36.8 10,739,791 63.2 17,004,887 1,262,156 11.8 7.4
1964 7,045,056 37.8 11,568,138 62.2 18,613,194 1,371,265 11.9 7.4
1965 7,434,414 34.9 13,847,409 65.1 21,281,823 1,622,920 11.7 7.6
1966 9,343,899 36.8 16,022,695 63.2 25,366,594 1,920,755 12.0 7.6
1967 10,203,477 38.2 16,528,817 61.8 26,732,294 2,016,421 12.2 7.5
1968 12,266,825 37.2 20,724,900 62.8 32,991,725 2,341,058 11.3 7.1
1969 13,061,617 36.4 22,808,742 63.6 35,870,359 2,551,174 11.2 7.1

1970 13,877,262 34.9 25,890,412 65.1 39,767,674 2,584,092 10.0 6.5
1971 15,309,317 33.6 30,236,575 66.4 45,545,892 2,767,980 9.2 6.1
1972 18,911,798 34.2 36,370,512 65.8 55,282,310 3,123,673 8.6 5.7
1973 27,906,195 40.6 40,749,760 59.4 68,655,955 3,458,437 8.5 5.0
1974 52,025,615 52.0 48,100,185 48.0 100,125,800 3,771,980 7.8 3.8
1975 31,029,574 32.1 65,485,529 67.9 96,515,103 3,779,634 5.8 3.9
1976 37,190,288 30.7 83,930,581 69.3 121,120,869 4,674,707 5.6 3.9
1977 43,632,921 29.7 103,442,419 70.3 147,075,340 5,484,794 5.3 3.7
1978 51,826,807 30.0 121,125,387 70.0 172,952,194 6,880,587 5.7 4.0
1979 103,277,917 50.2 102,644,746 49.8 205,922,663 7,194,908 7.0 3.5

1980 107,092,301 44.6 132,851,167 55.4 239,943,468 7,445,413 5.6 3.1
1981 76,338,336 29.5 182,673,641 70.5 259,011,977 8,905,720 4.9 3.4
1982 64,745,246 26.7 177,594,742 73.3 242,339,988 8,684,110 4.9 3.6
1983 83,397,072 32.5 173,282,452 67.5 256,679,524 9,430,004 5.4 3.7
1984 102,977,469 31.9 220,012,050 68.1 322,989,519 12,042,152 5.5 3.7
1985 106,035,285 30.9 237,517,865 69.1 343,553,150 13,066,970 5.5 3.8
1986 121,741,722 33.0 246,914,872 67.0 368,656,594 13,312,112 5.4 3.6
1987 132,151,774 32.9 269,914,228 67.1 402,066,002 13,911,669 5.2 3.5
1988 151,693,218 34.7 285,446,967 65.3 437,140,185 15,054,304 5.3 3.4
1989 156,364,748 33.4 311,647,273 66.6 468,012,021 16,096,410 5.2 3.4

1990 161,107,871 32.8 330,214,621 67.2 491,322,492 16,360,456 5.0 3.3
1991 167,601,872 34.6 316,135,520 65.4 483,737,392 16,218,683 5.1 3.4
1992 186,753,241 35.6 338,374,001 64.4 525,127,242 17,184,631 5.1 3.3
1993 222,766,462 38.8 352,096,466 61.2 574,862,928 18,333,718 5.2 3.2

1994 281,553,175 42.8 376,331,484 57.2 657,884,659 19,846,448 5.3 3.0
1995 364,608,093 49.3 375,052,326 50.7 739,660,419 18,596,732 5.0 2.5
1996 397,152,503 50.2 393,317,210 49.8 790,469,714 18,005,314 4.6 2.3
1997 447,448,501 51.9 414,977,845 48.1 862,426,346 18,428,489 4.4 2.1
1998 513,803,920 56.6 393,843,085 43.4 907,647,006 18,270,268 4.6 2.0
1999 645,192,649 63.4 372,242,748 36.6 1,017,435,397 18,464,518 5.0 1.8

2000 790,582,073 65.6 414,756,946 34.4 1,205,339,019 19,753,669 4.8 1.6
2001 753,785,395 66.6 378,849,945 33.4 1,132,635,340 18,618,806 4.9 1.6
2002 762,695,831 66.0 392,115,036 34.0 1,154,810,867 19,083,919 4.9 1.7
2003 846,875,960 67.7 403,220,826 32.3 1,250,096,785 19,860,863 4.9 1.6
2004 1,016,330,060 69.6 443,830,400 30.4 1,460,160,460 21,288,649 4.8 1.5
2005 1,155,041,663 69.5 507,338,006 30.5 1,662,379,669 23,223,674 4.6 1.4
2006 1,285,819,405 69.7 559,233,777 30.3 1,845,053,181 25,159,012 4.5 1.4
2007 1,347,994,687 69.4 594,868,251 30.6 1,942,862,938 26,133,995 4.4 1.3
2008 1,444,218,718 69.1 646,264,036 30.9 2,090,482,755 25,788,389 4.0 1.2
2009 1,092,093,746 70.5 457,069,739 29.5 1,549,163,485 21,175,223 4.6 1.4

2010 1,334,850,868 70.2 565,735,800 29.8 1,900,586,668 25,922,789 4.6 1.4
2011 1,509,344,450 69.0 678,649,585 31.0 2,187,994,034 28,637,114 4.2 1.3
2012 1,543,090,573 68.5 708,682,134 31.5 2,251,772,707 29,883,565 4.2 1.3
2013 1,538,691,084 68.6 702,796,028 31.4 2,241,487,113 31,133,870 4.4 1.4
2014 1,597,369,087 69.0 718,844,887 31.0 2,316,213,974 32,469,317 4.5 1.4
2015 1,529,476,397 68.9 689,726,812 31.1 2,219,203,209 33,857,851 4.9 1.5

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, including all current official revisions for 2010-2014 as of June 2015.

Note: The ratio of duties collected to the value of imports (sometimes referred to as the “average ad valorem equivalent”) should be used with great
reservation as a measure of the “height” of a country’s tariff or of the tariff’s restrictiveness of imports. Such a ratio for the schedule of duties as a whole (or
even a ratio for most individual tariff categories) is heavily weighted by imports that enter either free of duty or at low unrestrictive rates; it is weighted less by
imports that enter at high restrictive rates and not at all by imports that are precluded from entry. Moreover, an upward or downward trend in the “ratio” of
duties collected may reflect alterations in the rates of duty applied, changes in the composition of imports from year to year, or changes in the prices of
imported commodities. Also, presented dutiable values and calculated duties prior to 1993 are overstated because they were not adjusted to account for the
nondutiable portion of imports under HTSUS provisions 9802.00.60 and 9802.00.80. Commerce implemented this adjustment beginning with data reported for
June 1992.

1Fiscal years for 1891-1918. Calendar years for 1919 through latest year.

Table 2A U.S. imports for consumption under specified tariff preference programs, 1976-2015 (1,000 $)
Year GSP/GSP-LDBC1 CBERA/CBTPA2 Israel FTA3 NAFTA4 ATPA/ATPDEA5 AGOA6 Jordan FTA7 Chile FTA8 Singapore FTA9
1976 3,167,933

1977 3,886,446
1978 5,204,237
1979 6,316,033

1980 7,350,755
1981 8,428,525
1982 8,473,380
1983 10,784,023
1984 13,020,891 577,704

1985 13,362,167 497,645 131,149
1986 14,883,543 689,776 734,160
1987 16,479,448 906,144 762,533
1988 18,407,854 830,958 717,181
1989 10,026,898 915,281 759,416 18,311,526

1990 11,131,360 1,022,742 852,653 26,103,876

1991 13,681,004 1,120,697 947,403 28,814,831
1992 16,769,195 1,528,690 1,205,756 31,827,541 97,117

1993 19,593,867 1,903,613 1,463,475 38,141,767 401,421
1994 18,385,867 2,050,158 1,924,036 78,864,517 683,817
1995 18,464,932 2,261,407 2,453,933 112,556,277 938,789
1996 16,922,111 2,791,055 2,687,487 139,321,383 1,270,054

1997 15,575,760 3,207,842 2,940,062 151,786,854 1,352,855
1998 16,336,046 3,224,564 3,266,414 180,000,303 1,645,196
1999 13,681,020 2,637,200 2,781,315 187,032,303 1,750,279

2000 16,438,872 2,792,553 2,244,622 207,046,716 1,981,632
2001 15,726,239 8,299,157 2,089,294 194,341,886 1,674,607 7,579,158
2002 17,662,756 9,996,406 2,204,597 200,554,497 1,000,816 8,361,422 12,601
2003 21,277,752 10,427,270 2,113,585 207,166,512 5,836,032 13,189,410 27,910
2004 22,708,764 10,809,873 2,390,626 227,701,396 8,359,258 21,986,472 20,695 2,099,555 558,573
2005 26,747,100 12,194,590 2,823,756 253,457,572 11,463,949 32,743,077 246,462 3,678,725 799,840
2006 32,598,459 9,915,147 2,770,581 286,958,736 13,484,448 36,132,990 309,058 5,508,429 867,837
2007 30,849,774 5,495,177 2,754,960 293,057,045 12,306,843 42,269,649 312,632 5,001,125 934,596
2008 31,662,754 4,724,100 3,208,887 306,592,912 17,242,675 56,373,651 279,761 4,454,295 1,018,330

Year GSP/GSP-LDBC1 CBERA/CBTPA2 Israel FTA3 NAFTA4 ATPA/ATPDEA5 AGOA6 Jordan FTA7 Chile FTA8 Singapore FTA9
2009 20,258,971 2,357,368 2,492,832 219,663,908 9,714,243 28,050,318 239,851 3,453,393 850,293

2010 22,556,591 2,892,869 2,726,474 286,195,504 14,411,441 38,679,804 605,962 4,430,067 1,118,722
2011 18,550,270 3,612,750 2,659,909 326,162,666 4,380,981 52,077,763 870,353 5,708,157 1,141,556
2012 20,042,803 3,137,266 2,953,686 343,669,697 11,183,134 32,538,373 1,012,491 5,666,240 1,066,016
2013 18,504,426 2,368,939 2,976,484 349,618,127 2,575,274 24,853,927 1,076,632 6,164,745 1,746,092
2014 18,704,004 1,972,924 2,950,615 355,757,449 9 11,873,995 1,216,532 4,938,434 1,563,080
2015 17,410,173 1,535,943 2,898,127 315,097,434 0 7,979,510 1,348,544 4,916,885 1,648,097
Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, including all current official revisions for 2010-2014 as of June 2015.

Note: All data are based on customs value.

1 The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) became effective January 1, 1976 (Executive Order 11888, November 24, 1975). This program was expanded
in May 31, 1997 to include additional products for certain least-developed beneficiary countries (GSP-LDBC).
2 The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) became effective January 1, 1984 (Presidential Proclamation 5133, November 30, 1983). This
program was expanded on Oct. 1, 2000 with the implementation of the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA).
3 The U. S. – Israel Free Trade Area Agreement (IFTA) became effective September 1, 1985 (Presidential Proclamation 5365, August 30, 1985).
4 Data for 1989 – 93 were reported under the U. S. – Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), which became effective January 1, 1989 (Presidential
Proclamation 5923, December 14, 1988). The CFTA was suspended when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect on January 1,
1994 (Presidential Proclamation 6641, December 15, 1993).
5 The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) became effective July 22, 1992 (Presidential Proclamation 6455, July 2, 1992). The program was expanded on
October 31, 2002 with the implementation of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The program expired on July 31, 2013.
6 The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) became effective October 1, 2000.
7 The U.S.-Jordon Free Trade Agreement became effective December 17, 2001 (Presidential Proclamation 7512, December 7, 2001).
8 The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement became effective January 1, 2004 (Presidential Proclamation 7746, December 30, 2003).
9 The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement became effective January 1, 2004 (Presidential Proclamation 7747, December 30, 2003).

Table 2B U.S. imports for consumption under specified tariff preference programs, 2005-2015 (1,000 $)
Year Australia FTA1 Morocco FTA2 Bahrain FTA3 DR-CAFTA4 Oman FTA5 Peru FTA6 Korea FTA7 Colombia FTA8 Panama FTA9
2005 2,670,313
2006 3,247,838 115,915 46,688 3,975,537
2007 3,154,736 176,193 199,255 8,288,734
2008 4,356,200 161,241 287,849 9,410,122
2009 2,757,565 114,495 257,761 9,008,582 456,326 980,516

2010 2,752,237 163,184 274,369 10,474,208 350,496 2,225,963
2011 3,035,011 201,987 325,847 11,913,745 1,524,981 3,082,417
2012 3,420,023 165,192 424,649 12,597,927 654,530 2,637,117 11,663,952 7,864,857 3,916
2013 3,521,053 186,272 417,894 12,040,379 582,429 2,875,134 16,416,308 13,175,283 30,262
2014 4,698,476 241,992 540,294 12,853,254 600,220 3,413,788 17,070,453 8,613,683 31,974
2015 5,112,137 255,927 526,144 13,511,099 596,058 2,729,499 17,825,190 5,368,381 40,761
Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, including all current official revisions for 2010-2014 as of June 2015.

Note: All data are based on customs value.

1 The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement became effective January 1, 2005 (Presidential Proclamation 7857, December 20, 2004).
2 The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement became effective January 1, 2006 (Presidential Proclamation 7971, December 22, 2005).
3 The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement became effective August 1, 2006 (Presidential Proclamation 8039, July 27, 2006).
4 The U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) was signed on August 5, 2004, and became effective in 2006 for El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; March 1, 2007 for the Dominican Republic; and January 1, 2009 for Costa Rica.
5 The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement became effective January 1, 2009 (Presidential Proclamation 8332, December 29, 2008).
6 The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement became effective February 1, 2009 (Presidential Proclamation 8341, January 16, 2009).
7 The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement became effective March 15, 2012 (Presidential Proclamation 8783, March 6, 2012).
8 The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement became effective May 15, 2012 (Presidential Proclamation 8818, May 14, 2012).
9 The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement became effective October 31, 2012 (Presidential Proclamation 8894, October 29, 2012).

Blank Page

Cfte as; b69 U. S. _ (2018) I

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This.opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in thepr9lmy-rar{ pnnt ol _the United States Reports. Readeroare requestedio
l9llry rns lepglr€r^ofLlecrsions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash_
llCf”, u u. zUO4J,,of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderrnat correctlons may be made before the prelirninary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 10-1491

ESTHER KIOBEL, INDIVIDUALLYAND oN BEIIALF oF HER
I”ATE HUSBAND, DR. BARINEM KTOBEL, ET AL., PETI-
TIONERS U. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM Co. ET AL.

ONWRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[April 17, 2013]

Cnrnr JusrrcE Roennrs delivered the opinion of the
Court.

Petitioners, a group of Nigerian nationals residing in
the United States, filed suit in federal court against cer-
tain Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations. petition-
ers sued under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U. S. C. $l3bO,
alleging that the corporations aided and abetted the Nige-
rian Government in committing violations of the law of
nations in Nigeria. The question presented is whether
and under what circumstances courts may recognize a
cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute, for violations
of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a
sovereign other than the United States.

I
Petitioners were residents of Ogoniland, an area of 2b0

square miles located in the Niger delta area of Nigeria and
populated by roughly half a million people. When the
complaint was filed, respondents Royal Dutch Petroleum
Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company,
p.l.c., were holding companies incorporated in the Nether-

2 KTOBEL u. ROYALDUTCH PETROLEITM CO.
Opinion of the Court

lands and England, respectively. Their joint subsidiary,
respondent Shell Petroleum Development Company of
Nigeria, Ltd. (SPDC), was incorporated in Nigeria, and
engaged in oil exploration and production in Ogoniland.
According to the complaint, after concerned residents of
Ogoniland began protesting the environmental effects of
SPDC’s practices, respondents enlisted the Nigerian Gov_
ernment to violently suppress the burgeoning demonstra-
tions. Throughout the early 1g90’s, the complaint alleges,
Nigerian military and police forces attacked Ogoni vil-
lages, beating, raping, killing, and arresting residents and
destroying or looting property. Petitioners further allege
that respondents aided and abetted these atrocities by,
among other things, providing the Nigerian forces with
food, transportation, and compensation, as well as by al-
lowing the Nigerian military to use respondents’ property
as a staging ground for attacks.

Following the alleged atrocities, petitioners moved to
the United States where they have been granted political
asylum and now reside as legal residents. See Supp. Brief
for Petitioners 3, and n.2. They filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute
and requesting relief under customary international law.
The ATS provides, in full, that “[t]he district courts shall
have originaljurisdiction ofany civil action by an alien for
a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or
a treaty of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. S1350. Accord-
ing to petitioners, respondents violated the law of nations
by aiding and abetting the Nigerian Government in com-
mitting (1) extrajudicial kitlings; (2) crimes against hu-
manity; (3) torture and cruel treatment; (4) arbitrary
arrest and detention; (5) violations of the rights to life,
liberty, security, and association; (6) forced exile; and (T)
property destruction. The District Court dismissed the
first, fifth, sixth, and seventh claims, reasoning that the

Cite as: b69 U. S. _ (ZO1B) B

Opinion of the Court

facts alleged to support those claims did not give rise to a
violation ofthe law ofnations. The court denied respond_
ents’ motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining
claims, but certified its order for interlocutory upp”u1
pursuant to $1292(b).

The Second Circuit dismissed the entire complaint, rea_
soning that the law of nations does not recognize corpo-
rate liability. 62L F.3d 111 (2010). We granted certiorari
to consider that question. b6b U. S. _ (2011). After oral
argument, we directed the parties to file supplemen-
tal briefs addressing an additional question: ,,Whether
and under what circumstances the [ATS] allows courts
to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of
nations occurring within the tenitory of a sovereign other
than the United States.” b6b U. S. _ (2012). We heard
oral argument again and now affirm the judgment below,
based on our answer to the second question.

II
Passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1289, the ATS was

invoked twice in the late 18th century, but then only once
more over the next 167 years. Act of Sept. 24, 1?89, $9, I
Stat 77; see Moxon v. The Fanny, 1Z F. Cas. g42 (No.
9,895) (DC Pa. 1793); Bolchos v. Darrel, B F. Cas. 810 (No.
1,607) (DC SC 1795); O’ReiIIy d,e Camara v. Broohe,20g
U. S. 45 (1908); Khediuial Line, S.A.E. v. Seafarers’ Int’l
Union,278F.2d 49,5L-52 (CA2 t9G0) Qter curiam). The
statute provides district courbs with jurisdiction to hear
certain claims, but does not expressly provide any causes
of action. We held in Soso v, Aluarez-Machain,542 U. S.
692, 714 (2004), however, that the First Congress did not
intend the provision to be “stillborn.” The grant of juris-
diction is instead “best read as having been enacted on the
understanding that the common law would provide a
cause of action for [a] modest number of international law
violations.” Id., at 724. We thus held that federal courts

4 KIOBEL u. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO.
Opinion of the Court

may “recognize private claims [for such violations] under
federal common law.” Id., at 782. The Court in Soso
rejected the plaintiff’s claim in that case for “arbitrarv
arrest and detention,” on the ground that it failed to state
a violation of the law of nations with the requisite ,,d.efi-
nite content and acceptance among civilized nations.,’ ,Id.,
at 699,732.

The question here is not whether petitioners have stated
a proper claim under the ATS, but whether a claim may
reach conduct occurring in the territory ofa foreign sover-
eign. Respondents contend that claims under the ATS
do not, relying primarily on a canon of statutory interpre-
tation known as the presumption against extraterritorial
application. That canon provides that ,'[w]hen a statute
gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application,
it has none,” Morrison v, National Australia Banh Ltd,.,
561 U. S. _, _ (2010) (slip op., at 6), and reflects the
“presumption that United States law governs domestically
but does not rule the world,” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T
Corp.,550 U. S. 437, 454 (2007).

This presumption “seryes to protect against unintended
clashes between our laws and those of other nations which
could result in international discord.” EEOC v. Arabian
American Oil Co.,499 U. 5.244,248 (Lg9L) (Aramco). As
this Court has explained:

“For us to run interference in . . . a delicate field of
international relations there must be present the af-
firmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed.
It alone has the facilities necessary to make fairly
such an important policy decision where the possibili-
ties of international discord are so evident and retali-
ative action so certain.” Benz v. Compania Nauiera
Hidalgo, S. A., 353 U. S. 138, I47 (1957). The pre-
sumption against extraterritorial application helps
ensure that the Judiciary does not erroneously adopt

Cite as: b69 U. S. _ (2013) b
Opinion of the Court

an interpretation of U. S. law that carries foreign pol-
icy consequences not clearly intended by the political
branches.

We typically apply the presumption to discern whether
an Act of Congress regulating conduct applies abroad.
See, e.9., Aremco, su,pra, at 246 (“These cases present the
issue whether Title VII applies extraterritorially to regu-
late the employment practices of United States employers
who employ United States citizens abroad”); Monison,
supra, at _ (slip op., at 4) (noting that the question of
extraterritorial application was a “merits question,” not a
question of jurisdiction). The ATS, on the other hand, is
“strictly jurisdictional.” Sosa, 542 U. S., at 7LJ. It does
not directly regulate conduct or afford relief. It instead
allows federal courts to recognize certain causes of action
based on sufficiently definite norms of international law.
But we think the principles underlying the canon of inter-
pretation similarly constrain courts considering causes of
action that may be brought under the ATS.

Indeed, the danger of unwarranted judicial interference
in the conduct of foreign policy is magnified in the context
of the ATS, because the question is not what Congress has
done but instead what courts may do. This Court in Soso
repeatedly stressed the need for judicial caution in consid-
ering which claims could be brought under the ATS, in
light of foreign policy concerns. As the Court explained,
“the potential [foreign policy] implications . . . of recog-
nizing .. .. causes [under the ATS] should make courts
particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the
Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign
affairs.” Id., at 727; see also id., at 727-728 (“Since many
attempts by federal courts to craft remedies for the viola-
tion of new norms of international law would raise risks of
adverse foreign policy consequences, they should be under-
taken, if at all, with great caution”); id., at 727 (“[Tlhe

6 KIOBEL u. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO.
Opinion of the Court

possible collateral consequences of making international
rules privately actionable argue for judicial caution’,).
These concerns, which are implicated in any case arising
under the ATS, are all the more pressing when the ques-
tion is whether a cause of action under the ATS

“”u”h”,conduct within the territory of another sovereign.
These concerns are not diminished by the fact that Soso

limited federal courts to recognizing causes of action only
for alleged violations of international law norms that arl
“‘specific, universal, and obligatory.”‘ 1d,., at 7J2 (quoting
In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litigation,2b F. Bd
1467,1475 (CAg 1994). As demonstrated by Congress’s
enactment of the Torture Victim protection Act of lggl.
106 Stat. 73, note following 28rJ. S. C. g13b0, identifring
such a norm is only the beginning of defining a cause of
action. See id., $3 (providing detailed definitions for extra-
judicial killing and torture); id., 52 (specif ing who may be
liable, creating a rule of exhaustion, and establishing a
statute of limitations). Each of these decisions carries
with it significant foreign policy implications.

The principles underlying the presumption against ex-
traterritoriality thus constrain courts exercising their power
under the ATS.

ru
Petitioners contend that even if the presumption ap-

plies, the text, history, and purposes of the ATS rebut
it for causes of action brought under that statute. It is
true that Congress, even in a jurisdictional provision, can
indicate that it intends federal law to apply to conduct
occurring abroad. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. g10gt(e) (2006 ed.,
Supp. V) (providing jurisdiction over the offense of geno-
cide “regardless of where the offense is committed” if
the alleged offender is, among other things, “present in the
United States”). But to rebut the presumption, the ATS
would need to evince a “clear indication of extraterritorial-

Cite as: b69 U. S. _ (2013) 7

Opinion of the Court

ity.” Morrison, 56I U. S., at _ (slip op., at 16). It does
not.

To begin, nothing in the text ofthe statute suggests that
Congress intended causes of action recognized under it
to have extraterritorial reach. The ATS covers actions by
aliens for violations of the law of nations, but that does
not imply extraterritorial reach-such violations affect_
ing aliens can occur either within or outside the United
States. Nor does the fact that the text reaches ,,ony civil
action” suggest application to torts committed abroad: it is
well established that generic terms Iike “any” or,,every” d.o
not rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality. See,
e.9., id., at _ (slip op., at 18-14); Small v. United States,
544U. S. 385, 388 (2005); Aran”tco,499 U. S., at 248-280
Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filard.o,336 U. S. 281, 287 (Ig4g).

Petitioners make much of the fact that the ATS provides
jurisdiction over civil actions for “torts” in violation of the
Iaw of nations. They claim that in using that word, the
First Congress “necessarily meant to provide for jurisdic-
tion over extraterritorial transitory torts that could arise
on foreign soil.” Supp. Brief for Petitioners 18. For sup-
port, they cite the common-law doctrine that allowed
courts to assume jurisdiction over such “transitory torts,”
including actions for personal injury, arising abroad. See
Mostynv. Fabrigas, I Cowp. I6L, L77,98 Eng. Rep. 1021,
1030 (L774) (IVlansfield, L.) (‘[AUl actions of a transitory
nature that arise abroad may be laid as happening in an
English county”); Dennickv. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, 18
(1881) (“Wherever, by either the common law or the stat-
ute law of a State, a right of action has become fixed and a
legal liability incurred, that liability may be enforced and
the right of action pursued in any court which has juris-
diction of such matters and can obtain jurisdiction of the
parties”).

Under the transitory torts doctrine, however, “the only
justification for allowing a party to recover when the cause

8 KIOBEL u. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLELIM CO.
Opinion of the Court

of action arose in another civilized jurisdiction is a well
founded belief that it was a cause of action in that place.”
Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 TJ. S. 4Tg, 479 (IgtZ) (majority
opinion of Holmes, J.). The question under Soso is noi
whether a federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a
cause of action provided by foreign or even international
law. The question is instead whether the court has au-
thority to recognize a cause of action und.er U. S. law to
enforce a norm of international law. The reference to
“tort” does not demonstrate that the First Congress ,,nec-
essarily meant” for those causes of action to reach conduct
in the territory ofa foreign sovereign. In the end, nothing
in the text of the ATS evinces the requisite clear indication
of extraterritoriality.

Nor does the historical background against which the
ATS was enacted overcome the presumption against ap-
plication to conduct in the territory of another sovereign.
See Monison, supra, at _ (slip op., at 16) (noting
that “[a]ssuredly context can be consulted” in determining
whether a cause of action applies abroad). We explained
in Soso that when Congress passed the ATS, “three prin-
cipal offenses against the law of nations” had been identi-
fied by Blackstone: violation of safe conducts, infringement
of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy. 542 IJ. S., at
723, 724; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws
of England 68 (1769). The first two offenses have no
necessary extraterritorial application. Indeed, Blackstone-
in describing them–did so in terms of conduct occur-
ring within the forum nation. See ibid. (describing the
right of safe conducts for those “who are here”); ! id.,
at 25I (1765) (explaining that safe conducts grant a mem-
ber of one society “a right to intrude into anothet”); id., at
245-248 (recognizing the king’s power to “receiv[e] ambas-
sadors at home” and detailing their rights in the state
“wherein they are appointed to reside”); see also E. De
Vattel, Law of Nations 465 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed.

Cite as: b69 U. S. _ (201A) 9

Opinion of the Court

1883) (“[O]n his entering the country to which he is sent,
and making himself known, [the ambassador] is under the
protection ofthe law ofnations . . .”).

T\vo notorious episodes involving violations of the law of
nations occurred in the United States shortly before pas-
sage of the ATS. Each concerned the rights of ambas-
sadors, and each involved conduct within the Union. In
1784, a French adventurer verbally and physically as-
saulted Francis Barbe Marbois-the Secretary of the
French Legion-in Philadelphia. The assault led the
French Minister Plenipotentiary to lodge a formal protest
with the Continental Congress and threaten to leave the
country unless an adequate remedy were provided.
Respublica v. De Longschamps, 1 Dall. 111 (O. T. Phila.
L784); Sosa, supra, at 7I6-7L7, and n. 11. And in 1787,
a New York constable entered the Dutch Ambassador’s
house and arrested one of his domestic servants. See
Casto, The Federal Courts’ Protective Jurisdiction over
Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations, 18
Conn. L. Rev. 467,494 (1986). At the request ofSecretary
of Foreign Affairs John Jay, the Mayor of New York City
arrested the constable in turn, but cautioned that because
“‘neither Congress nor our [State] Legislature have yet
passed any act respecting a breach of the privileges of
Ambassadors,”‘ the extent of any available relief would
depend on the common law. See Bradley, The Alien Tort
Statute and Article III, 42 Ya. J. Int’l L. 587, 641442
(2002) (quoting 3 Dept. of State, The Diplomatic Corre-
spondence of the United States of America 447 (1537)).
The two cases in which the ATS was invoked shortly after
its passage also concerned conduct within the territory of
the United States. See Bolchos, 3 F. Cas. 810 (wrongful
seizure of slaves from a vessel while in port in the United
States); Moxon,17 F. Cas. 942 (wrongful seizure in United
States territorial waters).

These prominent contemporary examples-immediately

10 KIOBEL u. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO.

Opinion of the Court

before and after passage of the ATS-provide no support
for the proposition that Congress expected. causes ofrctio’
to be brought under the statute for violations ofthe law of
nations occurring abroad.

The third example of a violation of the law of nations
familiar to the Congress that enacted the ATS was piracy.
Piracy typically occurs on the high seas, beyond the terri
torial jurisdiction of the united states or any other coun-
try. See 4 Blackstone, su,pra, at 72 (,,Tlne offence of piracy,
by common law, consists of committing those acts of

“of-bery and depredation upon the high seas, which, if com-
mitted upon land, would have amounted to felony there,’).
This Court has generally treated the high seas the same
as foreign soil for purposes of the presumption against
extraterritorial application. See, e.g., Sale v. Haitian
Centers Council, Inc., 509 U. S. lbb, I7B-I74 (lgg3) (de-
clining to apply a provision of the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act to conduct occurring on the high seas); Argen-
tine Republic v. Arnerada Hess Shipping Corp.,4gg U. S.
428,44O (1989) (declining to apply a provision ofthe For-
eign Sovereign Immunities Act of lg76 to the high seas).
Petitioners contend that because Congress surely intended
the ATS to provide jurisdiction for actions against pirates,
it necessarily anticipated the statute would apply to con-
duct occurring abroad.

Applying U. S. law to pirates, however, does not typi-
cally impose the sovereign will of the United States onto
conduct occurring within the tenitorial jurisdiction of
another sovereign, and therefore carries less direct foreign
policy consequences. Pirates were fair game wherever
found, by any nation, because they generally did not oper-
ate within any jurisdiction. See 4 Blackstone, supra, at
71. We do not think that the existence of a cause of action
against them is a sufficient basis for concluding that other
causes of action under the ATS reach conduct that does
occur within the territory of another sovereign; pirates

Cite as: b6g U. S. _ (2018) tl

Opinion of the Court

may well be a category unto themselves. See Monison,
561 U. S., at _ (slip op., at 16) (‘ffihen a statute pro-
vides for some extraterritorial application, the presump-
tion against extraterritoriality operates to limit that
provision to its terms”); see also Microsoft Corp., bbO U. S.,
at 455-456.

Petitioners also point to a L7g5 opinion authored by
Attorney General William Bradford. See Breach of Neu-
trality, 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 57. In L794, in the midst of war
between France and Great Britain, and notwithstanding
the American official policy of neutrality, several U. S.
citizens joined a French privateer fleet and attacked and
plundered the British colony of Sierra Leone. In response
to a protest from the British Ambassador, Attorney Gen-
eral Bradford responded as follows:

So far . . . as the transactions complained of origi-
nated or took place in a foreign country, they are not
within the cognizance of our courts; nor can the actors
be legally prosecuted or punished for them by the
United States. But crimes committed on the high
seas ore within the jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the
United States; and, so far as the offence was commit-
ted thereon, I am inclined to think that it may be le-
gally prosecuted in… those courts…. But some
doubt rests on this point, in consequence of the terms
in which the [applicable criminal law] is expressed.
But there can be no doubt that the company or indi-
viduals who have been injured by these acts of hostil-
ity have a remedy by a civil suit in the courts of the
United States; jurisdiction being expressly given to
these courts in all cases where an alien sues for a tort
only, in violation of the laws of nations, or a treaty of
the United States . . , :’ Id., at 58-59.

Petitioners read the last sentence as confirming that
“the Founding generation understood the ATS to apply to

12 KIOBEL u. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEITM CO.
Opinion of the Court

law of nations violations committed on the territory of a
foreign sovereign.” Srrpp. Brief for petitioners 83. Re-
spondents counter that when Attorney General Bradford
referred to “these acts of hostility,” he meant the acts only
insofar as they took place on the high seas, and even ifhis
conclusion were broader, it was only because the applica-
ble treaty had extraterritorial reach. See Supp. Brief for
Respondents 28-30. The Solicitor General, having once
read the opinion to stand for the proposition that an ,ATS
suit could be brought against American citizens for
breaching neutrality with Britain only if acts did not take
place in a foreign country,” Supp. Brief for United States
as Amicus Curiae 8, n. 1 (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted), now suggests the opinion “could have
been meant to encompass . .. conduct [occurring within
the foreign territory],” id., at 8.

Attorney General Bradford’s opinion defies a definitive
reading and we need not adopt one here. Whatever its pre-
cise meaning, it deals with U. S. citizens who, by partic-
ipating in an attack taking place both on the high seas
and on a foreign shore, violated a treaty between the
United States and Great Britain. The opinion hardly
suffrces to counter the weighty concerns underlying the
presumption against extraterritoriality.

Finally, there is no indication that the ATS was passed
to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for
the enforcement of international norms. As Justice Story
put it, “No nation has ever yet pretended to be the custos
morum of the whole world . . . .” United States v. The La
Jeune Eugenie, 26 F. Cas. 832, 847 (No. 15,551) (CC.
Mass. 1822). It is implausible to suppose that the First
Congress wanted their fledgling Republic-struggling to
receive international recognition-to be the first. Indeed,
the parties offer no evidence that any nation, meek or
mighty, presumed to do such a thing.

The United States was, however, embarrassed by its

Cite as: b69 U. S. _ (2019) 18

Opinion of the Court

potential inability to provide judicial relief to foreign
offrcials injured in the United States. Bradley, 42ya. J.
Int’l L., at 64L. Such offenses against ambassadors vio_
lated the law of nations, “and if not adequately redressed.
could rise to an issue of war.” Sosa, 542 U.S., at 7I5; cf..
The Federalist No. 80, p.bg6 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Ham-
ilton) (As the denial or perversion of justice . . . is with
reason classed among the just causes of war, it will follow
that the federal judiciary ought to have cognizance of all
causes in which the citizens of other countries are con-
cerned”). The ATS ensured that the United States could
provide a forum for adjudicating such incidents. See Soso,
supra, at 715-7L8, and n. 11. Nothing about this histori
cal context suggests that Congress also intended federal
common law under the ATS to provide a cause of action for
conduct occurring in the territory ofanother sovereign.

Indeed, far from avoiding diplomatic strife, providing
such a cause of action could have generated it. Recent
experience bears this out. See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
654 F. 3d 11, 77-78 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissent-
ing in part) (listing recent objections to extraterritorial
applications of the ATS by Canada, Germany, Indonesia,
Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom). Moreover, accepting petitioners’ view
would imply that other nations, also applying the law of
nations, could hale our citizens into their courts for alleged
violations of the law of nations occurring in the United
States, or anywhere else in the world. The presumption
against extraterritoriality guards against our courts trig-
gering such serious foreign policy consequences, and in-
stead defers such decisions, quite appropriately, to the
political branches.

We therefore conclude that the presumption against
extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and
that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.
“[T]here is no clear indication of extraterritoriality here,”

14 KIOBEL u. BOYALDUTCH PETROLEIIM CO.

Opinion of the Court

Morrison, S6l U. S., at _ (slip op., at 16), and petitioners,
case seeking relief for violations of the law of nations
occuring outside the United States is barred.

IV
On these facts, all the relevant conduct took place out-

side the United States. And even where the claims touch
and concern the territory of the United States, they must
do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption
against extratenritorial application. See Morri.son, b61
U. S. _ (slip op. at 17-24). Corporations are often present
in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that
mere cor?orate presence suffices. If Congress were to
determine othemise, a statute more specific than the ATS
would be required.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered,.

United States
International Trade Commission
The Year in Trade 2016
Operation of the Trade Agreements
Program
68th Report

July 2017
Publication Number: 4711

United States International Trade Commission

Commissioners
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Chairman
David S. Johanson, Vice Chairman
Irving A. Williamson
Meredith M. Broadbent
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 2016
Operation of the Trade Agreements
Program
68th Report
July 2017
Publication Number: 4711

This report was prepared principally by:
Project Leaders
Joanne Guth, Office of Economics
Alissa Tafti, Office of Economics
Office of Economics
Nabil Abbyad, Justino De La Cruz, Meryem Demirkaya, Stephanie Fortune-Taylor, Alexander
Hammer, Grace Kenneally, Lin Jones, Caroline Peters, Sandra Rivera, Edward Wilson,
Wen Jin Yuan, and Heather Wickramarachi
Office of General Counsel
William W. Gearhart
Office of Industries
Sarah Oliver and Laura Rodriguez
Office of Investigations
Nathanael Comly
Office of Operations
Yasnanhia Cabral, Linda Linkins
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
Robert Bauchspies, Russell Duncan, Judy Edelhoff, Peg Hausman,
Laura Thayn, and Jeremy Wise
Content Reviewer
Renee Berry
Special Assistance
Phyllis Boone, Austin Drenski, Shala Ewing, and Syr-Ron Williams
Help Desk and Customer Service Division (CIO)

Under the direction of
Arona Butcher, Chief
Country and Regional Analysis Division

U.S. International Trade Commission |1
Preface
This report is the 68th 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 2016. 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 2016 ………………………………………………………………….. 30
U.S. Economic Trends in 2016 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Global Economic Trends in 2016 ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Exchange Rate Trends ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
U.S. Trade in Goods in 2016 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category ……………………………………………………………………….. 37
Exports …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Imports …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
U.S. Merchandise Trade with Selected Leading Partners ………………………………………………………… 38
U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement Partners ……………………………………………………………………. 41
U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs …………………………………………………………………….. 41
U.S. Trade in Services in 2016………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
U.S. Services Trade by Product Category ………………………………………………………………………………. 42
Exports …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
Imports …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43
U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners …………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Timeline of Selected Key Trade Activities………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Chapter 2 Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations …………………….. 55
Import Relief Laws …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Safeguard Actions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Laws against Unfair Trade Practices …………………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Section 301 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 55
Section 301 Investigations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 56
Special 301 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews ………………………………………….. 60
Antidumping Duty Investigations …………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
Countervailing Duty Investigations …………………………………………………………………………………… 62
Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders/Suspension
Agreements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
Section 129 Investigations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 64
Section 337 Investigations …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Trade Adjustment Assistance ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

The Year in Trade 2016
4| www.usitc.gov
Assistance for Workers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
Assistance for Firms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 70
Tariff Preference Programs …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71
Generalized System of Preferences ……………………………………………………………………………………… 71
African Growth and Opportunity Act ……………………………………………………………………………………. 74
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act ………………………………………………………………………………. 78
Haiti Initiatives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 80
Chapter 3 The World Trade Organization …………………………………………………. 83
WTO ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83
General Council …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83
Work Programs, Decisions, Waivers, and Reviews ……………………………………………………………… 84
Accessions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 84
Expansion of the Information Technology Agreement ……………………………………………………………. 86
Agreement on Trade Facilitation ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
Negotiations on an Environmental Goods Agreement ……………………………………………………………. 87
Discussions on Fisheries Subsidies ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 88
Selected Plurilateral Agreements Already in Force …………………………………………………………………. 89
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft ………………………………………………………………………………… 89
Agreement on Government Procurement …………………………………………………………………………. 89
Dispute Settlement Body ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established …………………………………………………. 94
Requests for Consultations Filed during 2016 in Which the United States Was the
Complaining Party or the Responding Party ………………………………………………………………………. 95
Panels Established during 2016 at the Request of the United States ……………………………………. 97
Panels Established during 2016 in Which the United States Was the Named Respondent ………. 98
Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2016 That Involve the United
States ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 98
Reports in Which the United States Was the Complainant ………………………………………………….. 99
Reports in Which the United States Was the Respondent …………………………………………………. 100
Chapter 4 Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities ………………………… 105
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ……………………………………………………… 105
Ministerial Council Meeting ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105
Trade Committee …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 106
Working Party of the Trade Committee ………………………………………………………………………….. 107
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ………………………………………………………………………………………… 107
Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 107
2016 APEC Developments …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 108
The Second-Term Review of the Bogor Goals ………………………………………………………………….. 109
Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) …………………………………………………………………….. 110
Global Value Chain Development and Cooperation ………………………………………………………….. 111
Negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement ………………………………………………………………………. 112
Trade and Investment Framework Agreements ………………………………………………………………………. 113
Developments in TIFA Negotiations during 2016………………………………………………………………….. 115
Developments in Existing TIFAs during 2016 ……………………………………………………………………….. 116

Table of Contents
U.S. International Trade Commission |5
Chapter 5 U.S. Free Trade Agreements …………………………………………………… 121
U.S. Trade with FTA Partners in 2016 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 121
U.S. Total Merchandise Trade with FTA Partners …………………………………………………………………. 121
U.S. Imports Entered under FTAs ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 123
Developments in FTA Negotiations during 2016 ………………………………………………………………………. 125
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 125
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement ……………………………………….. 125
Developments in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ………………………………………. 127
Commission for Labor Cooperation ……………………………………………………………………………………. 128
Commission for Environmental Cooperation ……………………………………………………………………….. 129
Dispute Settlement ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130
Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments ………………………………………………………………… 130
Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews …………………………………………………………………………………. 131
Developments in Other FTAs Already in Force during 2016 ………………………………………………………. 131
U.S.-Australia FTA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 132
CAFTA-DR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 132
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 132
Environment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 133
U.S.-Chile FTA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 133
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 133
U.S.-Colombia TPA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 133
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 134
U.S.-Israel FTA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 134
U.S.-Jordan FTA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 134
U.S.-Korea FTA (KORUS) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 135
U.S.-Morocco FTA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 135
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 135
U.S.-Panama TPA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 136
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 136
Environment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 136
U.S.-Peru TPA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 136
Labor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 137
Environment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 137
Chapter 6 U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners ………………….. 139
European Union …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 139
U.S.-EU Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 139
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 141
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) ……………………………………………………………………………… 141
U.S.-EU Privacy Shield …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 143
Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance ………………………………………………………………………. 144
China ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 144
U.S.-China Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 144
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 146

The Year in Trade 2016
6| www.usitc.gov
Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement ……………………………………………………………………….. 147
China’s Excess Capacity in Steel ……………………………………………………………………………………… 148
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Security Policy ……………………………………. 148
Cybersecurity Law ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 149
Canada ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 150
U.S.-Canada Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 150
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152
Softwood Lumber ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152
Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council …………………………………………………….. 153
Mexico ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 153
U.S.-Mexico Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 153
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 155
High-Level Economic Dialogue ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 155
Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico ………………………………………….. 156
Japan ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 157
U.S.-Japan Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 157
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 159
Agricultural Products ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 159
Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals …………………………………………………………………………….. 160
Insurance Market …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 161
Republic of Korea ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 161
U.S.-Korea Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 161
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 163
U.S.-Korea FTA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 163
Information Technology and Digital Trade ………………………………………………………………………. 163
India 164
U.S.-India Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 164
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 166
India and United States Trade Policy Forum …………………………………………………………………….. 166
Intellectual Property …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 167
Taiwan ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 168
U.S.-Taiwan Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 168
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 170
U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement ………………………………………………. 170
Brazil ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 172
U.S.-Brazil Trade ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 172
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 174
U.S.-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation—Third Meeting ……………………… 174
U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue ……………………………………………………………………………………. 175
Bilateral Trade of Beef and Beef Products ……………………………………………………………………….. 175
Cuba 176
U.S.-Cuba Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 176
Trade Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 177
Amendments to the CACR and EAR ………………………………………………………………………………… 178

Table of Contents
U.S. International Trade Commission |7
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………… 179
Appendix A Data Tables ………………………………………………………………………. 209
Appendix B Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report ………… 287
Figures
Figure ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2002–16 ……………………………………………………….. 16
Figure ES.2 U.S. goods and services trade with selected major bilateral trade partners, 2016 …………….. 23
Figure 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2012–16 ………………………………………. 31
Figure 1.2 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and selected economies,
2014–16 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Figure 1.3 Indexes of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2016 …….. 34
Figure 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2014–16 …………………………………………………………… 36
Figure 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2016 ……………………………………………… 40
Figure 1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2016 ………………………………………………. 40
Figure 1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2014–16 ……………………………………. 42
Figure 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2016 …………………………………….. 45
Figure 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources for private services, by share, 2016 ……………………………………… 45
Figure 2.1 Share of TAA petitions certified by industry sector in FY 2016 …………………………………………. 69
Figure 6.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………… 140
Figure 6.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………. 140
Figure 6.3 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2012–16 ………………………………………………………………. 145
Figure 6.4 U.S. private services trade with China, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………… 145
Figure 6.5 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………. 151
Figure 6.6 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2012–16 ………………………………………………………… 151
Figure 6.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………….. 154
Figure 6.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2012–16 ………………………………………………………… 154
Figure 6.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2012–16 ………………………………………………………………. 158
Figure 6.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………. 158
Figure 6.11 U.S. merchandise trade with South Korea, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………. 162
Figure 6.12 U.S. private services trade with South Korea, 2012–16 ……………………………………………….. 162
Figure 6.13 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………… 165
Figure 6.14 U.S. private services trade with India, 2012–16 ………………………………………………………….. 165
Figure 6.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………… 169
Figure 6.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2012–16……………………………………………………….. 169
Figure 6.17 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………… 173
Figure 6.18 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2012–16 …………………………………………………………. 173
Figure 6.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Cuba, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………… 177
Tables
Table 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–16 (million dollars) …… 37

The Year in Trade 2016
8| www.usitc.gov
Table 1.2 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2016
(million dollars) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
Table 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2015–16
(million dollars) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
Table 1.4 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2016
(million dollars) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
Table 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2016 …………………………………………… 62
Table 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2016 …………………………………………. 63
Table 2.3 TAA certifications, by region, FY 2016 ……………………………………………………………………………. 69
Table 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2014–16 ……………………………………….. 74
Table 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA beneficiaries, 2014–16 …………………………………….. 76
Table 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA/CBTPA beneficiaries, 2014–16 …………………………. 79
Table 2.7 U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti, 2014–16 …………………………………………………………………… 81
Table 3.1 WTO members in 2016 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 85
Table 3.2 WTO observers in 2016 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 85
Table 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2016 …………………………………………………. 91
Table 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated or adopted in
2016 in which the United States was a party ………………………………………………………………………………… 99
Table 4.1 U.S. trade and investment framework agreements in 2016 ……………………………………………. 114
Table 5.1 Total U.S. exports to FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16 ………………………………………….. 122
Table 5.2 Total U.S. imports from FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16 ……………………………………… 122
Table 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade balance with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16 …………………… 123
Table 5.4 U.S. imports for consumption entered under FTAs, by FTA partner, 2014–16 …………………… 123
Table 5.5 Ratio of U.S. imports for consumption under FTAs to U.S. general imports, by partner ……… 124
Table 5.6 Timetable of major TTIP negotiations, 2016 ………………………………………………………………….. 125
Table 5.7 Active files as of yearend 2016 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation ………………………………………………………………………………… 129
Table 5.8 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews through 2016 …………………………………. 131
Table A.1 U.S. total exports to the world, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………………. 211
Table A.2 U.S. general imports from the world, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………. 211
Table A.3 Leading U.S. total exports to the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …………………… 212
Table A.4 Leading U.S. general imports from the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………….. 213
Table A.5 U.S. merchandise trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2016 ………………………. 214
Table A.6 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise export markets, 2016 ………………………………………. 214
Table A.7 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise import sources, 2016 ……………………………………….. 215
Table A.8 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2014–16 (million dollars) …………….. 216
Table A.9 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2014–16 (million dollars) ………… 216
Table A.10 Antidumping cases active in 2016, by USITC investigation number ……………………………….. 217
Table A.11 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2016 .. 219
Table A.12 Countervailing duty cases active in 2016, by USITC investigation number ………………………. 224
Table A.13 Countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of
December 31, 2016 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 226
Table A.14 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspended
investigations completed in 2016, by date of completion …………………………………………………………….. 228
Table A.15 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the Commission
during 2016 and those pending on December 31, 2016 ……………………………………………………………….. 229
Table A.16 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2016 ……………………………… 233
Table A.17 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by source, 2014–16 …………… 237

Table of Contents
U.S. International Trade Commission |9
Table A.18 Value of U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by USITC digest
sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 237
Table A.19 Share of U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by USITC digest
sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 238
Table A.20 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by HTS 6-digit
subheading, 2014–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 239
Table A.21 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under AGOA, by source, 2014–16 ………… 240
Table A.22 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under AGOA, by HTS 6-digit
subheading, 2014–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 241
Table A.23 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under CBERA, by HTS 6-digit
subheading, 2014–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 242
Table A.24 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under CBERA, by source, 2014–16 ……….. 243
Table A.25 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments
in 2016 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 244
Table A.26 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review
determinations of USITC and USDOC, developments in 2016 ………………………………………………………… 256
Table A.27 U.S. total exports to the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………. 257
Table A.28 U.S. general imports from the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………. 257
Table A.29 Leading U.S. total exports to the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………………… 258
Table A.30 Leading U.S. general imports from the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …………….. 259
Table A.31 U.S. total exports to China, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………… 260
Table A.32 U.S. general imports from China, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………….. 260
Table A.33 Leading U.S. total exports to China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………………………. 261
Table A.34 Leading U.S. general imports from China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………………. 262
Table A.35 U.S. total exports to Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………………… 263
Table A.36 U.S. general imports from Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………… 263
Table A.37 Leading U.S. total exports to Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………………. 264
Table A.38 Leading U.S. general imports from Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………. 265
Table A.39 U.S. total exports to Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………………… 266
Table A.40 U.S. general imports from Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………… 266
Table A.41 Leading U.S. total exports to Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …………………….. 267
Table A.42 Leading U.S. general imports from Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………. 268
Table A.43 U.S. total exports to Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………… 269
Table A.44 U.S. general imports from Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………….. 269
Table A.45 Leading U.S. total exports to Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………………………. 270
Table A.46 Leading U.S. general imports from Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………………. 271
Table A.47 U.S. total exports to South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………. 272
Table A.48 U.S. general imports from South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………. 272
Table A.49 Leading U.S. total exports to South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………… 273
Table A.50 Leading U.S. general imports from South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …….. 274
Table A.51 U.S. total exports to India, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 …………………………………………. 275
Table A.52 U.S. general imports from India, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 …………………………………. 275
Table A.53 Leading U.S. total exports to India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………………….. 276
Table A.54 Leading U.S. general imports from India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………….. 277
Table A.55 U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………………… 278
Table A.56 U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ……………………………… 278
Table A.57 Leading U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …………………….. 279
Table A.58 Leading U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16…………….. 280

The Year in Trade 2016
10| www.usitc.gov
Table A.59 U.S. total exports to Brazil, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………………… 281
Table A.60 U.S. general imports from Brazil, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 ………………………………… 281
Table A.61 U.S. total exports to Brazil, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 …………………………………… 282
Table A.62 Leading U.S. general imports from Brazil, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ………………. 283
Table A.63 U.S. total exports to Cuba, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16 …………………………………………. 284
Table A.64 U.S. total exports to Cuba, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16 ……………………………………. 285
Table B.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2002–16 (million dollars) ………………………………… 289
Table B.2 U.S. goods and services trade with selected major bilateral trade partners, 2016 …………….. 289
Table B.3 U.S. real gross domestic product, percent change, 2012–16 …………………………………………… 289
Table B.4 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and selected economies,
2014–16 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 290
Table B.5 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2012–16 ……… 291
Table B.6 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2016 …………… 292
Table B.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with selected major trading partners and the
world, 2012–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 293
Table B.8 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2016 ……………………. 294
Table B.9 TAA petitions certified by industry sector in FY 2016 ……………………………………………………… 294

U.S. International Trade Commission |11
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acronyms Term
AB Appellate Body (WTO)
AD antidumping
AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATPDEA Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
ATAP U.S.-Israel Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products
ATEC Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC)
BIS Bureau of Industry and Security (USDOC)
BNA Bureau of National Affairs
Brexit Britain’s vote to leave the European Union
BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy
CAB Conciliation and Arbitration Board
CACR Cuban Assets Control Regulations
CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement
CAR Central African Republic
CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market
CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act
cc cubic centimeter
CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)
CLC Commission for Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)
CNL competitive need limitation
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
COP21 Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, session 21
CRS Congressional Research Service
CSI Coalition of Services Industries
CTI Committee on Trade and Investment (APEC)
CTPA U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
CVD countervailing duty
DDA Doha Development Agenda (WTO)
DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)
DSB Dispute Settlement Body (WTO)
DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO)
EAC East African Community
EAR Export Administration Regulations
EC European Commission
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
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA)
Fed. Reg. Federal Register
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA)
FTA free trade agreement
FTAAP Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
FTZ Foreign Trade Zone
FTC Free Trade Commission
FY fiscal year
FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
G20 Group of 20
GAIN Global Agricultural Information Network
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

The Year in Trade 2016
12| www.usitc.gov
Acronyms Term
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO)
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GC General Council of the WTO
GCC Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council)
GDP gross domestic product
GE genetically engineered
GPA Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO)
GSP Generalized System of Preferences
GTA Global Trade Atlas database (IHS Markit)
GVC global value chain
HELP Haiti Economic Lift Program
HLED High-Level Economic Dialogue (U.S.-Mexico)
HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act
HS Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (international)
HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
IATA International Air Transport Association
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (part of the World Bank)
ICSID International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICTSD International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
ICT information and communications technology
IIP international investment position
ILAB Bureau of International Labor Affairs (USDOL)
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMPS Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (USDA)
IP intellectual property
IPO initial public offering
IPRs intellectual property rights
IT information technology
ITA Information Technology Agreement (WTO)
ITA International Trade Administration (USDOC)
JCCT Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade
KORUS U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement
LDBC lesser-developed beneficiary countries
LDBDC least-developed beneficiary developing country
LTFV less than fair value
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (Japan)
MFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand)
MFN most favored nation
MOU memorandum of understanding
MSMEs micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises
MRL maximum residue limit
mt metric tons
n.d. not dated
NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)
NAALC North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAFTA)
NADB North American Development Bank (NAFTA)
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NAO National Administrative Office (NAFTA)
n.e.s.o.i. not elsewhere specified or included
NGFA National Grain and Feed Association (U.S.)
NGO nongovernmental organization
n.i.e. not included elsewhere
NTM nontariff measure
NTR normal trade relations
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Control (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties)
OMA ordinary minimum access (tenders)
OOS out-of-service (commercial motor vehicle)
OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel (USDOC)
OTLA Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (NAFTA)
PPD public-private dialogue
PTPA U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Pub. L. Public Law

Abbreviations and Acronyms
U.S. International Trade Commission |13
Acronyms Term
RCC Regulatory Cooperation Council
RTA regional trade agreement
S&ED Strategic and Economic Dialogue (U.S.-China)
SBS simultaneous buy-sell (Japan)
SCM Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Agreement)
SEM Submissions on Environmental Measures (NAFTA)
SLA Softwood Lumber Agreement
SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises
SOM Senior Officials Meeting
SPS sanitary and phytosanitary (standards)
SSA sub-Saharan Africa
STPS Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social [Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare]
STRI Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (OECD)
TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance
TAACs Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers
TAD Trade and Agriculture Directorate (OECD)
TAAF Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms
TAAEA Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act
TAARA Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015
TBTs technical barriers to trade
TC Trade Committee (OECD)
TCWP Working Party of the Trade Committee (OECD)
TEC Transatlantic Economic Council
TFA Agreement on Trade Facilitation
TFDA Taiwan Food and Drug Administration
TICA Trade and Investment Cooperation Agreement
TICF Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum
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
TRIG Trade Reports International Group
TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO)
TRQ tariff-rate quota
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (U.S.-EU)
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
URAA Uruguay Round Agreements Act (U.S.)
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USCBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
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
USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
USITC U.S. International Trade Commission
USPTO U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USTR U.S. Trade Representative
WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union
WHO World Health Organization (UN)
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WTO World Trade Organization

14| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |15
Executive Summary
Global economic growth slowed in 2016, falling from 3.4 percent in 2015 to 3.1 percent in 2016.
Economic growth in the United States also slowed in 2016: U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP)
increased 1.6 percent in 2016, compared to an increase of 2.6 percent in 2015. The economies of most
major U.S. trading partners—e.g., the European Union (EU), Canada, Mexico, and Japan—
underperformed the world average of 3.1 percent; the outstanding exceptions were China and India.
In 2016, the U.S. dollar appreciated 1.1 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. By yearend 2016, the dollar had appreciated 18.8 percent against the Mexican peso and
6.3 percent against the Chinese yuan. The dollar depreciated, however, against the Canadian dollar (by
4.0 percent), the Japanese yen (by 1.8 percent), and the euro (by 1.8 percent).
Both U.S. exports and imports of goods declined in 2016. The value of U.S. merchandise exports totaled
$1,453.7 billion in 2016, down 3.3 percent ($48.9 billion) from $1,502.6 billion in 2015. U.S. merchandise
imports totaled $2,189.2 billion in 2016, down 2.6 percent ($59.0 billion) from $2,248.2 billion in 2015.
The drop in petroleum prices in 2016 contributed to the decline in the value of U.S. merchandise exports
and imports in 2016, although the quantity of U.S. exports and imports of crude petroleum both
increased. Since U.S. imports declined more than U.S. exports in terms of value, the U.S. merchandise
trade deficit fell from $745.7 billion in 2015 to $735.5 billion in 2016 (figure ES.1). Agricultural products
was the only goods sector to experience a trade surplus in 2016, with $9.3 billion more in exports than
imports.
U.S. two-way, or bilateral, private services trade increased 1.4 percent to $1,214.5 billion in 2016. U.S.
exports of private services were virtually unchanged from the previous year at $732.6 billion, while U.S.
imports of private services grew 3.2 percent to reach $482.0 billion in 2016. As a result, the U.S. surplus
in private services fell from $263.4 billion in 2015 to $250.6 billion in 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
16| www.usitc.gov
Figure ES.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2002–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 17, 2017); USDOC, BEA,
U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, table 1.2, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.1.
Key Trade Developments in 2016
Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
Safeguard actions: The U.S. International Trade Commission (the Commission) conducted no new
safeguard investigations during 2016, and no U.S. safeguard measures under these provisions were in
effect during any part of 2016. One petition was filed during 2016, with regard to imports of primary
unwrought aluminum, but the petition was withdrawn and no investigation was conducted.
Section 301: There was one ongoing investigation in 2016 under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
This investigation was instituted in 1987 and concerned various meat hormone directives of the EU,
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
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.
Special 301: The special 301 law was enacted as part of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In the 2016
Special 301 Report, USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR)
protection in 73 countries. The 2016 Special 301 Report listed 11 countries on the priority watch list
(Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela) and
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Services Goods
U.S. goods trade balance
U.S. services trade balance

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |17
23 countries on the watch list. In December 2016, USTR issued the 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of
Notorious Markets Report, which highlighted over 20 Internet-based markets and 10 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 36 new preliminary antidumping
investigations, and made 35 preliminary determinations and 41 final determinations during 2016.
Antidumping duty orders were issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) in 32 of the final
investigations on 8 products from 16 countries.
Countervailing duty investigations: The Commission instituted 16 new preliminary countervailing duty
investigations, and made 14 preliminary determinations and 25 final determinations during 2016.
Countervailing duty orders were issued by the USDOC in 16 of the final investigations on 7 products
from 7 countries.
Sunset reviews: During 2016, the Commission instituted 53 sunset reviews of existing antidumping duty
and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements. The Commission completed 53 reviews,
resulting in 47 antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders being continued 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 March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a section 129 consistency determination rendering its
findings with respect to injury in the underlying countervailing duty proceeding on hot-rolled steel from
India consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in
United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India
(DS436). On April 14, 2016, USDOC issued a section 129 compliance determination with respect to
subsidization and the calculation of countervailing duty rates consistent with the DSB’s
recommendations and rulings in DS436.
In addition, on March 31, 2016, April 26, 2016, and May 19, 2016, USDOC issued its final section 129
determinations to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in another case: United States—
Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (DS437). Finally, on July 18, 2016, USDOC
issued its final section 129 determination to implement certain findings of the WTO dispute settlement
panel in United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Viet Nam
(DS429).
Section 337 investigations: During 2016, there were 122 active investigations and ancillary proceedings
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 80 of which were instituted that year. Of these 80 new
proceedings, 54 were new section 337 investigations and 26 were new ancillary proceedings relating to
previously concluded investigations. The Commission completed a total of 66 investigations and
ancillary proceedings under section 337 in 2016, and issued 3 general exclusion orders, 9 limited
exclusion orders, and 11 cease and desist orders. At the close of 2016, 56 section 337 investigations and
related proceedings were pending at the Commission.
Commission investigations involved a wide variety of products in 2016. As in prior years, technology
products were the single largest category, with about 30 percent of the active proceedings involving
computer and telecommunications equipment and another 7 percent involving consumer electronics. In
addition, 14 percent of active proceedings involved small consumer items; 11 percent involved

The Year in Trade 2016
18| www.usitc.gov
automotive, transportation, and manufacturing products; and 11 percent involved pharmaceuticals and
medical devices.
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL)
received 1,453 petitions for TAA, up 35.4 percent from the 1,073 petitions in FY 2015. The USDOL
certified 1,192 petitions covering 126,844 workers as eligible for TAA, and denied 569 petitions covering
60,871 workers. In FY 2016, USDOC certified 67 petitions as eligible for assistance under the TAA for
Firms program, and approved 78 adjustment proposals. The numbers are both lower than in FY 2015,
when USDOC certified 113 petitions and approved 120 adjustment proposals.
Trade Preference Programs
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): U.S. imports under GSP increased 5.6 percent ($990.4 million)
from $17.7 billion in 2015 to $18.7 billion in 2016, which accounted for 9.3 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 the Philippines) accounted for 75 percent of GSP imports.
Based on the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review directed by USTR, new duty-free status under the GSP
program was extended to 27 travel goods (including luggage, backpacks, handbags, and wallets) for
least-developed beneficiary developing countries and for African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)
countries. Also, on November 13, 2016, Burma’s eligibility for GSP benefits was reinstated after the
conclusion of a review of its compliance with the eligibility criteria under the GSP statute. The United
States had suspended Burma’s GSP benefits in 1989 due to worker rights concerns.
African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): In 2016, 38 sub-Saharan African countries were eligible
for AGOA benefits. Of these countries, 28 were eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits for all or
part of 2016. In 2015, the President terminated the designation of Burundi as an AGOA beneficiary,
effective January 1, 2016, due primarily to concerns about human rights, governance, and rule of law. In
addition, the annual review conducted in 2016 resulted in the reinstatement of AGOA eligibility for the
Central African Republic, effective January 1, 2017, as a result of steps the country’s government has
taken to address rule-of-law issues. Finally, Seychelles was graduated from eligibility for AGOA (as well
as GSP) benefits effective January 1, 2017, because it was determined to be a “high-income” country.
In 2016, imports entering the United States exclusively under AGOA (excluding GSP) were valued at $9.4
billion, a 17.8 percent increase from 2015. This increase mainly reflected an increase in the value and
quantity of imports of crude petroleum. The top two major petroleum-producing AGOA beneficiary
countries, Nigeria and Angola, both experienced increases in the value and quantity of their exports of
crude petroleum to the United States under AGOA despite a decline in the international price of crude
petroleum in 2016. Nigeria experienced a particularly large increase, primarily because of a narrower
price spread between the U.S. domestic crude petroleum price and the corresponding international
price, which makes foreign crude more competitive; decreasing U.S. domestic crude production; and the
similarities between the crude produced in Nigeria and that produced in the United States.
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA): At yearend 2016, 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 2016, U.S. imports under CBERA
(including CBTPA) fell 43.2 percent to $876 million, mainly reflecting a decline in U.S. imports of
methanol, apparel, and crude petroleum, which are major imports from CBERA countries. Trinidad and

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |19
Tobago continued to be the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2016, accounting for 43.8
percent of the total value. Haiti and Jamaica were also leading suppliers, accounting for 36.3 and 8.6
percent of the total, respectively.
Haiti initiatives: The value of U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti fell 5.2 percent, from $895.5 million in
2015 to $848.5 million in 2016. The decline reflected reduced demand for apparel from some major U.S.
retailers experiencing bankruptcies and closures. Despite the overall decline, the value of U.S. imports of
apparel from Haiti entering under the HOPE Acts continued to grow, rising 7.5 percent from $497.6
million in 2015 to $535.0 million in 2016. These imports represented almost two-thirds of total U.S.
apparel imports that entered free of duty from Haiti.
World Trade Organization (WTO)
WTO developments: Following the December 2015 WTO Ministerial Meeting in Nairobi, Kenya,
ministers concluded that no consensus seemed to exist for continuing negotiations under the current
structure of the 2001 Doha Development Agenda. As a consequence, in 2016, WTO members began to
explore various ways to move forward with unresolved trade issues under frameworks other than the
Doha agenda. In 2016, an initial group of 13 members exchanged views on how the subject of fishery
subsidies, which contribute to overfishing and overcapacity, might be advanced through negotiation of a
plurilateral agreement, much as negotiations toward an agreement on trade in services have advanced
in recent years among a group of WTO members. New trade issues also attracted attention, in particular
the needs of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises; the trade-related aspects of electronic
commerce; and services trade facilitation.
Two countries acceded to the WTO in 2016: Liberia joined on July 14 and Afghanistan on July 29,
increasing WTO membership to 164 members.
In other WTO developments, the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA) entered into force in
February 2017 after 110 of the 164 WTO members deposited their formal legal documents accepting
the agreement. The TFA is designed to streamline the customs and related measures of WTO members
in order to lower trade costs and increase world trade. In addition, by yearend 2016, negotiations over a
WTO Environmental Goods Agreement reached a stage where the chair for negotiations considered
there was a likely consensus on roughly 250 of the 300 environmental products under discussion for
reduced tariffs. Lastly, the 24 participants that concluded negotiations in December 2015 on expanded
coverage under the Information Technology Agreement began to implement their commitments in
2016, with a majority of participants implementing their initial commitments to reduce or eliminate
tariffs on the newly covered information and communication technology products by the end of 2016.
WTO dispute settlement: During 2016, WTO members filed 17 requests for WTO dispute settlement
consultations in new disputes, compared with 13 in 2015. The United States was the complainant in 3 of
the 17 requests filed during 2016, and the named respondent in 5. The 3 new requests filed by the
United States during 2016 all concerned Chinese measures, including (1) China’s export duties on certain
raw materials; (2) measures that appear to provide domestic support for agricultural producers; and (3)
tariff-rate quotas for certain agricultural products. The United States was the named respondent in 5
new disputes—2 filed by India, and 1 each filed by Canada, Brazil, and China.
Eight new dispute settlement panels were established during 2016. The United States was the
complaining party in one of these panel proceedings, and the responding party in one.

The Year in Trade 2016
20| www.usitc.gov
OECD, APEC, TiSA, and TIFAs
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): In 2016, OECD membership rose to
35 countries with the accession of Latvia. OECD members held their ministerial council meeting in June
2016, in Paris, France, where ministers focused on how to enhance productivity through policies that
support jobs and skills. Ministers highlighted trade initiatives outside the OECD––such as the WTO TFA
and the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement––and agreed to continue work on Trade
Facilitation Indicators, the Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, and the joint OECD-WTO Trade in Value
Added database. In its meetings during the year, the Trade Committee focused on topics including how
to overcome barriers to trade in services and how to promote trade in environmental goods and
services so as to support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
APEC developments: Under Peru’s leadership in 2016, cooperation among APEC member economies
focused on “quality growth and human development” by pursuing the following four priorities:
“investing in human capital development; modernizing micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises;
fostering the regional food system; and advancing the regional economic integration and growth
agenda.”
APEC highlights in 2016 included the completion of the Collective Strategic Study on Issues Related to
the Realization of the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific; the second-term review of progress toward the
Bogor Goals, a set of targeted goals for creating a free and open trade and investment area in the Asia-
Pacific; and substantial work in APEC global value chain (GVC) development and cooperation. In the GVC
area, work was performed on “APEC GVCs and Trade in Value Added (TiVA) measurement,” with the aim
of developing an APEC TiVA database by 2018.
Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA): In 2016, the 23 participants aimed at concluding negotiations by
yearend, but were unable to finalize an agreement. Although no new rounds were scheduled, the
parties agreed to take stock of areas in need of further technical work in 2017, and the negotiations
continue to evolve. Areas under discussion include delivery services, direct selling services, domestic
regulation, electronic commerce, energy-related services, environmental services, export subsidies,
facilitation of patient mobility, financial services, government procurement, localization requirements,
movement of natural persons, professional services, state-owned enterprises, telecommunications,
transparency, and transport services (air, maritime, and road).
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 the end of 2016, the United States had entered into 55 TIFAs, including new TIFAs
with Argentina and Laos that year. A number of TIFA Council meetings also took place in 2016, including
those with Argentina, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Central Asia, the Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa, the East African Community, the Economic Community of West African
States, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tunisia, Ukraine, and
Uruguay.
U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) in force in 2016: The United States was party to 14 FTAs involving a
total of 20 countries as of December 31, 2016. Starting with the most recent agreement, the FTAs in

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |21
force during 2016 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 2006–2007) 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); the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with Canada and Mexico (1994); and the
U.S.-Israel FTA (1985).
FTA merchandise trade flows with FTA partners: In 2016, total two-way (exports and imports)
merchandise trade between the United States and its 20 FTA partners was $1.4 trillion, which accounted
for 39.1 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S. trade with NAFTA countries
(Canada and Mexico) continued to contribute the most to all U.S. trade with FTA partners, accounting
for $1.1 trillion, or 75.0 percent. U.S. exports to NAFTA countries fell 3.8 percent ($19.4 billion) to $496.9
billion. U.S. imports from NAFTA countries fell 3.4 percent ($20.3 billion) to $572.2 billion from 2015 to
2016. As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its NAFTA partners fell 1.2 percent to $75.3
billion in 2016.
U.S. trade with non-NAFTA FTA partners was valued at $356.2 billion in 2016, down 5.2 percent from
2015. U.S. exports to these partners decreased 7.4 percent ($14.3 billion), from $193.9 billion in 2015 to
$179.7 billion in 2016, while U.S. imports decreased 2.9 percent ($5.2 billion) from $181.8 billion in 2015
to $176.6 billion in 2016. As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade surplus with non-NAFTA FTA partners
fell 74.4 percent to $3.1 billion.
The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs and subject to FTA duty reductions and eliminations
totaled $374.2 billion in 2016, up $1.3 billion, or 0.3 percent from 2015. Imports under FTAs accounted
for half (50.0 percent) of total imports from FTA partners in 2016 and 17.1 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 South Korea, which grew $17.0 billion (95.3 percent), represented the largest
increase. Imports under FTAs from Oman and Panama also increased, by 35.8 percent ($215 million) and
31.9 percent ($13 million), respectively.
FTA negotiations: In 2016, the United States continued to participate in either negotiations or
preparations for two regional FTAs—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 Pacific Rim partners,
and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU.
Following the conclusion of negotiations in October 2015, the United States and 11 partner countries
signed the TPP on February 4, 2016. Over the course of 2016, the U.S. administration worked to prepare
the agreement for Congressional consideration; however, both of the leading Presidential candidates
expressed opposition to the TPP as drafted, and the implementing legislation was not submitted to
Congress by yearend 2016. In January 2017, President Trump instructed USTR to formally withdraw from
TPP discussions.
The United States and EU held four rounds of TTIP negotiations in 2016, with the goal of completing an
agreement by the end of the year. However, the two sides issued a joint report in January 2017 on the
status of the negotiations as of yearend 2016, which stated that significant work was still needed in a

The Year in Trade 2016
22| www.usitc.gov
variety of areas including sensitive tariff lines, market access in services, standards, government
procurement, investor protection, and IPRs.
NAFTA developments: All of NAFTA’s provisions were implemented by the United States, Canada, and
Mexico as of January 1, 2008, with the exception of the NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which
were implemented in 2015 following the completion of a pilot program. At the end of 2016, three
complaints remained active under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation, two of which were submitted in 2016. In 2016, one complaint was
submitted under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation against the United States.
NAFTA dispute settlement: In 2016, there were five active Chapter 11 (investor-state disputes) filed
against the United States, four of them filed by Canadian investors and one filed by Mexican investors;
one filed against Canada by U.S. investors; and one filed against Mexico by U.S. investors. At the end of
2016, 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. Four of the six active cases
challenged the Mexican agency’s determinations on products from the United States, and two
challenged U.S. agencies’ determinations on products from Canada and Mexico.
Trade Activities with Selected Trading Partners
This report reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with 10 selected trading partners. Among these are
some of the United States’ major trading partners in 2016, as well as others that are notable as a result
of recent changes to U.S. bilateral trade relations. This year, the report covers the following trading
partners: the European Union (EU), China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Brazil,
and Cuba (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
(figure ES.2). That description is followed by summaries of the major bilateral trade-related
developments during 2016.

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |23
Figure ES.2 U.S. goods and services trade with selected major bilateral trade partners, 2016
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017); USDOC,
BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, Tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2017.
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 2016.
Two-way (exports plus imports) merchandise trade with the EU fell 1.8 percent to $687.0 billion in 2016,
accounting for 18.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. exports to the EU were $270.3 billion
in 2016, ranking the EU as the top U.S. export market, surpassing Canada, which had ranked as the
largest export market in 2015. U.S. merchandise imports from the EU were $416.7 billion, second to
those from China. Both U.S. exports and imports with the EU declined in 2016, but U.S. imports declined
more, reducing the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU from $155.6 billion in 2015 to $146.3
billion in 2016. Leading U.S. exports to the EU included civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; medicaments
(medicines); blood fractions (e.g., antiserum); refined petroleum products; and hand-executed
paintings, drawings, and pastels. Leading U.S. imports were passenger motor vehicles, medicaments,
blood fractions, refined petroleum products, and parts of turbojets or turbopropellers.
The EU was also the United States’ largest trading partner in terms of private services in 2016,
accounting for 32.8 percent of total U.S. trade in private services. U.S. services exports increased more
than U.S. services imports, resulting in an increase in the U.S. trade surplus in services with the EU from
$60.5 billion in 2015 to $61.4 billion in 2016.
The major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2016 was negotiations to advance the TTIP
agreement. Other notable developments during the year included progress on regulatory cooperation in
the Transatlantic Economic Council, a U.S.-EU agreement on the privacy shield, negotiations on an
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
EU China Canada Mexico Japan South Korea India Taiwan Brazil
Bi
lli
on
$
Goods exports Goods imports Services exports Services imports

The Year in Trade 2016
24| www.usitc.gov
agreement on insurance and reinsurance, and the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union
(“Brexit”).
China
In 2016, for the second year in a row China remained the United States’ largest single-country trading
partner based on two-way merchandise trade, accounting for 15.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise
trade. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with China amounted to $578.6 billion in 2016, a decrease of 3.5
percent from the $599.3 billion recorded in 2015. U.S. merchandise exports to China were $115.8 billion
in 2016, and U.S. imports were $462.8 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $347.0 billion in 2016.
Although the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China decreased $20.1 billion in 2016, it remained
higher than that with any other trading partner. Leading U.S. exports to China in 2016 were civilian
aircraft, engines, and parts; soybeans; passenger motor vehicles; processors and controllers; and
machines for semiconductor or integrated circuit manufacturing. Leading U.S. imports from China were
cellphones; portable computers and tablets; telecommunications equipment; tricycles, scooters, and
related toys; and computer parts and accessories.
In 2016, China was the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way
services trade of $69.0 billion. U.S. services trade with China continued to increase in 2016, with
particularly strong growth in U.S. exports, which resulted in a $4.2 billion increase (to $37.0 billion) in
the U.S. services trade surplus with China.
China’s compliance with its WTO commitments remained a central focus of U.S.-China trade relations in
2016. In that year, top trade issues between the two countries included China’s protection and
enforcement of IPRs; overcapacity in China’s steel industry; and policies that have restricted market
access of U.S. exports, including information and communications technology products and services.
Canada
In 2016, Canada was the United States’ second-largest single-country trading partner after China for the
second consecutive year. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with Canada fell 5.7 percent to $544.0
billion in 2016, which accounted for 14.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. U.S.
exports to Canada were $266.0 billion in 2016, while U.S. merchandise imports from Canada were
$278.1 billion. Declines in U.S. exports and imports with Canada in energy-related products, particularly
imports, contributed to the drop in bilateral trade and the narrowing of the U.S. merchandise trade
deficit with Canada to $3.4 billion in 2016. Leading U.S. exports to Canada in 2016 included passenger
motor vehicles; motor vehicles for goods transport; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; and light
petroleum oils. Top U.S. imports from Canada included crude petroleum, passenger motor vehicles,
natural gas, and coniferous sawn wood.
Canada remained the second-largest single-country U.S. trading partner for services in 2016, after the
United Kingdom. Two-way services trade with Canada fell in 2016 to $83.0 billion, while the U.S. surplus
in services narrowed to $24.4 billion, down 10.9 percent from $27.4 billion the year before.
The October 2015 expiration of the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement continued to be a source
of friction for U.S.-Canada trade relations, although talks continued between the two governments on
how to address differences in 2016. A one-year grace period from litigation on softwood lumber, written
into the agreement that expired, ended in October 2016. In the following month, November 2016, the

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |25
U.S. lumber industry initiated antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings concerning imports of
softwood lumber products from Canada.
Mexico
In 2016, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country two-way merchandise trading
partner. Total two-way merchandise trade declined 1.3 percent to $525.1 billion in 2016, which
accounted for 14.4 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled
$231.0 billion in 2016, and U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico amounted to $294.2 billion, resulting
in a merchandise trade deficit of $63.2 billion, which was up $2.5 billion from 2015. In 2016, leading U.S.
exports to Mexico were computer parts and accessories; refined petroleum products; parts and
accessories for motor vehicles; telecommunications equipment; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; and
corn. Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included passenger motor vehicles; motor vehicles for goods
transport; computers; telecommunications equipment; color TV reception apparatus; and crude
petroleum.
Mexico was the United States’ sixth-largest trading partner in services after Germany. U.S. services
exports to Mexico declined in 2016, while U.S. imports increased, resulting in a narrowing of the U.S.
services trade surplus with Mexico from $9.3 billion in 2015 to $7.2 billion in 2016.
U.S.-Mexico trade relations are governed in large part by NAFTA as well as by the High-Level Economic
Dialogue (HLED) established in 2013. In 2016, U.S. and Mexican officials held the third cabinet-level
meeting of the HLED and agreed to continue work on energy, modern borders, workforce development,
regulatory cooperation, partnering in regional and global leadership, and stakeholder engagement. In
addition, the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Energy Business Council was held to discuss ways to
strengthen U.S.-Mexico trade, investment, and competitiveness in the energy sector. Joint efforts to
modernize the border also continued in 2016 to facilitate trade flows. After the successful conclusion of
a pilot program to address cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico and to meet its
obligations under NAFTA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) started accepting
applications from Mexico-domiciled motor carriers interested in conducting long-haul operations
beyond the U.S. commercial zones. In 2016, reports from the FMCSA showed that Mexican-owned or
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operated relatively safely compared to U.S. carriers.
Japan
In 2016, Japan remained the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner in terms of two-
way merchandise trade, accounting for 5.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. merchandise
trade with Japan increased 0.9 percent to $195.5 billion in 2016. U.S. exports to Japan amounted to
$63.2 billion in 2016 and U.S. imports were $132.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $68.9 billion, up
$16.1 million from 2015. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; corn;
medicaments; liquefied propane; and medical instruments and appliances. Leading U.S. imports from
Japan were passenger motor vehicles, parts for airplanes or helicopters, motor vehicle gearboxes, and
parts for printers.
Japan was also the United States’ third-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way services
trade. In 2016, the U.S. surplus in services trade with Japan narrowed to $16.7 billion, from $17.5 billion
the year before, as the growth in U.S. services imports outpaced the increase in U.S. exports.

The Year in Trade 2016
26| www.usitc.gov
Economic dialogue between the United States and Japan in 2016 focused on a variety of topics,
including agricultural trade issues; transparency in pricing and regulation in Japan’s medical device and
pharmaceutical sectors; and market access issues in Japan’s insurance market. In addition, the United
States and Japan worked on a number of other trade issues of interest, including WTO dispute
settlement matters; expansion of the WTO Information Technology Agreement; the plurilateral Trade in
Services Agreement; an “Intellectual Property and Innovation Education and Diffusion” initiative with
the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council; environmental goods
tariff reductions; and next-generation trade and competitiveness issues, such as digital trade and
regulation.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) was the United States’ sixth-largest single-country merchandise
trading partner in 2016 accounting for 3.1 percent of U.S. trade with the world. Two-way merchandise
trade was valued at $112.2 billion in 2016, declining from $115.2 billion in 2015. U.S. merchandise
exports to South Korea were valued at $42.3 billion in 2016, while U.S. merchandise imports totaled
$69.9 billion, resulting in a $27.7 billion merchandise trade deficit, down 2.3 percent from 2015. Leading
U.S. exports to South Korea were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; processors or controllers; machines
for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated circuits; helicopters; and corn.
Leading U.S. imports from South Korea included passenger motor vehicles, cellphones, blood fractions
(e.g., antiserum), refined petroleum products, and photosensitive semiconductor devices.
In 2016, U.S. exports of services to South Korea increased 5.1 percent, reaching a five-year high of $21.3
billion. At the same time, U.S. imports of services from South Korea remained relatively stable, resulting
in a 9.1 percent increase in the U.S. trade surplus in services with South Korea to $12.5 billion in 2016.
In 2016, 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. Both countries also worked to support the growth of the
digital economy and of the information and communication technology industry in both countries, while
also recognizing the importance of privacy and data protection.
India
In 2016, India became the United States’ 9th-largest single-country trading partner based on two-way
merchandise trade, rising from 10th largest in 2015. U.S. trade with India grew 2.2 percent to $67.7
billion in 2016, which accounted for 1.9 percent of U.S. trade with the world. U.S. merchandise exports
to India were $21.7 billion in 2016 while U.S. merchandise imports from India were $46.0 billion,
resulting in a U.S. merchandise trade deficit with India of $24.3 billion in 2016, up slightly from $23.3
billion in 2015. Top U.S. exports to India in 2016 were nonindustrial diamonds; nonmonetary gold;
civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; almonds; and petroleum coke. Leading U.S. imports from India in
2016 were nonindustrial diamonds, medicaments, jewelry, light oils, and frozen shrimp.
India was the United States’ seventh-largest single-country partner for services and continued to be the
only top U.S. trading partner with which the United States had a services trade deficit in 2016. The
services trade deficit with India dropped 1.6 percent to $6.8 billion in 2016, as the increase in U.S.
exports to $19.9 billion outpaced the increase in U.S. imports to $26.8 billion.

Executive Summary
U.S. International Trade Commission |27
In 2016, the U.S. Trade Representative and the Minister of Commerce and Industry of India met for the
10th meeting of the India and the United States Trade Policy Forum. IPR protection remained one of the
top bilateral trade issues between the two countries.
Taiwan
In 2016, Taiwan was the United States’ 10th-largest single-economy trading partner, accounting for 1.8
percent of total U.S. trade with the world. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with Taiwan amounted to
$65.4 billion in 2016, a decrease of 2.1 percent from $66.8 billion in 2015. U.S. merchandise exports to
Taiwan increased 0.7 percent to $26.0 billion in 2016, and U.S. merchandise imports declined 3.9
percent to $39.3 billion. As a result, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan was $13.3 billion in
2016, down from $15.0 billion in 2015. U.S. trade flows with Taiwan remained heavily dependent upon
consumer electronics—most notably computer components. Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan were
civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; machines for semiconductor or integrated circuit manufacturing;
processors and controllers; memories; and microchips. Leading U.S. imports were microchips,
telecommunications equipment, computer parts and accessories, processors and controllers, and
semiconductor storage devices.
Also in 2016, the U.S. services trade surplus with Taiwan dropped $763 million to $3.5 billion, as U.S.
services exports to Taiwan declined while U.S. services imports increased.
The U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) has served as a key mechanism for
U.S.-Taiwan dialogue on trade issues in the absence of official diplomatic ties. In 2016, U.S.-Taiwan trade
relations focused on IPR-related issues, access to Taiwan’s agricultural market, certain technical barriers
to trade, and issues associated with Taiwan’s investment review procedures.
Brazil
Brazil was the United States’ 14th-largest single country merchandise trading partner in 2016, down
from the 12th largest in 2015 and the 9th largest in 2014. Merchandise trade between the United States
and Brazil decreased 4.5 percent to $56.5 billion in 2016, representing 1.6 percent of total U.S.
merchandise trade with the world. A recession in Brazil, political uncertainty, and low international
crude oil prices dampened trade in both directions. In 2016, U.S. exports to Brazil were $30.3 billion,
while U.S. imports from Brazil were $26.2 billion. As a result, the United States recorded a merchandise
trade surplus with Brazil of $4.1 billion, slightly less than in 2015. Leading U.S. exports to Brazil were
civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; refined petroleum products; light oils; medicaments; and bituminous
coal. Leading U.S. imports from Brazil included airplanes and other aircraft, crude petroleum, unroasted
coffee, chemicals, and semifinished iron or non-alloy steel products.
In 2016, the U.S. trade surplus in services with Brazil declined 10.7 percent, from $20.2 billion in 2015 to
$18.0 billion in 2016, as U.S. services exports declined more than U.S. services imports.
In 2016, the United States and Brazil held the first ministerial-level meeting under the United States-
Brazil Agreement on Trade and Cooperation and the 14th meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commercial
Dialogue. At these meetings, officials discussed issues such as economic cooperation, trade facilitation,
and standards and conformity assessment. Also, in August 2016 Brazil lifted a ban on imports of U.S.
beef and beef products, which had been imposed in 2003 because of concerns about bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.

The Year in Trade 2016
28| www.usitc.gov
Cuba
Cuba continues to be a small export market for the United States, with total exports reaching $247.2
million in 2016. Before a 2014 policy change, exports to Cuba were limited to medicine and medical
goods and those products allowed under the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, the vast majority of which were agricultural commodities.
As a result of amendments to U.S. regulations, exports of some manufactured goods have increased.
While U.S. exports to Cuba had declined consistently during 2012–15, they increased 37.2 percent in
2016, although they still remained below 2014 levels. A significant portion (nearly 90 percent) of U.S.
exports to Cuba consisted of agricultural products, with much of the remaining U.S. exports consisting of
crop protection chemicals and medical supplies. As in recent years, frozen chicken was the top U.S.
export to Cuba, accounting for 42.9 percent of all U.S. exports to Cuba in 2016, followed by corn,
soybean oilcake, soybeans, and soybean oil.
Amendments were made to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and the Export Administration
Regulations in both 2015 and 2016. As a result, the first U.S. cruise ship docked in Cuba in May 2016, a
U.S.-branded hotel opened in Havana in June 2016, and commercial air travel from the United States to
Cuba resumed for the first time in over 50 years in August 2016.

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 2016. 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 identified 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 2016. It also provides a timeline of selected key trade activities.
Chapter 2 covers the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations in 2016, including tariff
preference programs such as the Generalized System of Preferences. Chapter 3 focuses on U.S.
participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO), including developments in major WTO dispute
settlement cases during 2016. Chapter 4 covers 2016 developments at the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation, as well as negotiations
on an agreement on trade in services and developments with trade and investment framework
1 Executive Order 11846 of Mar. 27, 1975, Administration of the Trade Agreements Program, 40 FR 14291, 3 CFR,
1971–1975 Comp., 971.
2 Section 163(a)(2) of that act states that the President’s report is to include 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 2016
30| www.usitc.gov
agreements. Chapter 5 describes U.S. negotiation of and participation in free trade agreements (FTAs),
and chapter 6 covers trade data and trade relations in 2016 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 2016 relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC or Commerce) 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, except for data on U.S. imports entered with a
claim of eligibility under trade preference programs and free trade agreements. 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.3 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 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 services. The
source of these data is the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the USDOC.
Overview of the U.S. and Global Economies in
2016
U.S. Economic Trends in 2016
The level of U.S. imports and exports of goods and services depends on the strength of the U.S. and
global economies. The United States had an $18.6 trillion economy in 2016, of which the services sector
accounted for 73.1 percent.4 The growth of the U.S. economy slowed in 2016 relative to 2015: U.S. real
gross domestic product (GDP) increased 1.6 percent in 2016, compared to an increase of 2.6 percent in
3 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.
4 USDOC, BEA, “Value Added by Industry,” April 21, 2017.

https://dataweb.usitc.gov/

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |31
2015 (figure 1.1).5 The deceleration in real GDP growth from 2015 to 2016 largely reflected a downturn
in private domestic investment and slowing expenditures on personal consumption. 6
Figure 1.1 U.S. real gross domestic product, percentage change, 2012–16
Source: USDOC, BEA, National Data, “Table 1.1.1 Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product,” April 28, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.3.
Global Economic Trends in 2016
Global economic growth slowed from 2015 to 2016, declining to 3.1 percent in 2016 from 3.4 percent in
2015 (figure 1.2).7 Many factors affected global economic growth during 2016, most notably lower
world prices for crude petroleum, natural gas, and some other commodities, such as aluminum and
copper. Also important was a gradual slowdown and rebalancing of China’s economy away from
investment and export-oriented manufacturing toward domestic consumption and services.8

5 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. USDOC, BEA, “Gross Domestic Product:
Fourth Quarter and Annual 2016 (Third Estimate),” March 30, 2017, table 1.
6 USDOC, BEA, “Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2016 (Third Estimate),” March 30, 2017.
7 IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2017, 3.
8 World Bank, “World Bank Commodities Price Data,” updated April 3, 2017; EcoNote, “China: Assessing the Global
Impact of a Chinese Slowdown,” July 2016; OECD, Global Interim Economic Outlook, March 2017.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
P
er
ce
nt

The Year in Trade 2016
32| www.usitc.gov
Figure 1.2 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and selected economies, 2014–16
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2017, 3; IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2016, 3; EIU, “Country Report: South Korea,” April
2017.
Note: Japan had no growth in 2014. Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.4.
Growth performance by specific major U.S. trading partners diverged widely during 2014–16, affecting
both their bilateral trade with the United States and their exchange rates against the U.S. dollar. For
instance, Canada and Mexico—both energy exporters with economies heavily linked to that of the
United States—experienced differing growth trends during 2015–16. Canada’s growth rebounded
somewhat from 2015 to 2016, with the real GDP growth rate increasing from 0.9 percent in 2015 to 1.4
percent in 2016.9 This growth was primarily due to increased consumer spending.10 Mexico, by contrast,
experienced a small decline in its rate of real GDP growth in 2016, down from 2.6 percent in 2015 to 2.3
percent in 2016.11 The lower growth rate was partly due to the decline in oil prices as well as the
negative impact on investment resulting from the uncertainty caused by both the UK vote to leave the
European Union (EU) and the U.S. presidential election.12
Several other important U.S. trading partners, including Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and the EU,
experienced economic growth at or below the world average during 2014–16. Brazil’s economy
continued to contract in 2016, mainly due to the economic repercussions of a lengthy domestic political
and fiscal crisis, which continued in 2016, and the ensuing declining investment, weak domestic
consumption, and rising unemployment.13 Japan remained in a protracted period of low economic
growth, with real GDP growth of 1.0 percent in 2016. The low growth rate was mainly due to
longstanding economic problems, such as an aging population and the resulting labor shortages; low
9 IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2017, 2.
10 EIU, Country Report: Canada, April 2017, 7.
11 OECD, “Country Statistical Profile: Mexico, 2017,” n.d. (accessed April 11, 2017); EIU, Country Report: Mexico,
April 2017, 7.
12 EIU, Country Report: Mexico, April 2017, 30.
13 EIU, Country Report: Brazil, April 2017, 7.
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
World United
States
European
Union
China Canada Mexico Japan South
Korea
India Brazil
Pe
rc
en
t
2014 2015 2016

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |33
labor productivity compared to other OECD countries; weak domestic demand; and the government’s
shortage of fiscal and monetary policy tools to boost economic growth. 14 While there were differences
in economic performance among EU countries, slow growth in the EU as a whole in 2016 was the result
of structural economic problems in several countries, such as high levels of public and private debt and
high unemployment.15 Although economic forecasts suggested that the UK’s economy would weaken
following the Brexit vote, the UK’s economy was “resilient,” posting an average quarterly 0.6 percent
real GDP growth in the second half of 2016, compared to an average 0.4 percent in the first half.16 South
Korea’s economic growth largely tracked the world average, reflecting that country’s reliance on export-
oriented manufacturing and foreign demand to power its growth.17 Meanwhile, the burden of private
debt repayment on households in South Korea continued to limit the country’s private consumption
growth.18
Economic growth in China and India continued to significantly outperform the world average in 2016,
but the growth rates in both countries slowed in 2016 compared to 2015. China’s economic growth
slowed slightly from 6.9 percent in 2015 to 6.7 percent in 2016, as the country continued to rebalance
its economy away from export-oriented manufacturing and investment to a more domestic
consumption and service-based economy.19 In addition, outstanding domestic credit, which stood at the
equivalent of around 210 percent of GDP by the end of 2016, has caused mounting strains in China’s
banking system.20 Given China’s extensive linkages to international supply chains, the effects of China’s
economic slowdown were transmitted globally. For example, China accounts for 54 percent of global
aluminum demand, and roughly 50 percent of world nickel and copper demand.21 Hence, export-
oriented economies in Asia and commodity-exporting countries were the most affected by the Chinese
slowdown through reduced two-way trade, as well as lower commodity prices.22
India’s economic growth also slowed, decreasing from 7.9 percent in 2015 to 6.8 percent in 2016.23
Although it still had one of the highest growth rates in the world in 2016, India has notably fewer
linkages to the global economy than China does. India’s services sector accounts for the majority of its
growth, and it has a relatively small manufacturing sector and a per capita income of $6,590 in 2016. As
a result, India’s economy does not spur strong demand for imports.24
Weak economic growth, particularly in Europe and China, as well as a trend toward more local sourcing
in global supply chains and slow trade liberalization initiatives worldwide, has led to sluggish growth in
world trade during 2012–16.25 From 1990 until the economic crisis in 2007–08, the average annual rate
of growth in the volume of trade was 6.9 percent. This was roughly double the 3.7 percent annual
growth of global real GDP over the same period. However, following an 11 percent decline in the volume

14 EIU, Country Report: Japan, April, 2017, 6–7; OECD, “OECD Economic Surveys: Japan,” April 13, 2017.
15 OECD, Global Interim Economic Outlook, March 2017.
16 EIU, Country Report: United Kingdom, May 2017, 8.
17 EIU, Country Report: South Korea, April 2017, 7.
18 Ibid.
19 EIU, Country Report: China, April 2017, 2, 7; Zhang, “Rebalancing in China––Progress and Prospects,” September
2016.
20 EIU, Country Report: China, April, 2017, 6.
21 EcoNote, China: Assessing the Global Impact of a Chinese Slowdown, July 2016.
22 Ibid.
23 IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2017, 3.
24 EIU, Country Report: India, April 2017, 7, 10.
25 Wickramarachi, “The Slowdown in Global Trade in Goods and Services, 2012–2015,” March 2017.

The Year in Trade 2016
34| www.usitc.gov
of world trade that occurred after the global financial crisis in 2008 and subsequent recession in 2009,
global trade growth modestly rebounded to only 2.2 percent in 2016, averaging only 3 percent during
the period 2012–16. This pace is slower than world GDP growth, which averaged 3.4 percent over the
same period.26
Exchange Rate Trends
In 2016, the U.S. dollar appreciated against the broad dollar index, rising 1.1 percent from January 4,
2016, to December 30, 2016.27 The appreciation is mainly driven by the U.S. dollar’s appreciation against
some major emerging market currencies, including the Chinese yuan and the Mexican peso. By yearend
2016, the dollar had appreciated 18.8 percent against the Mexican peso and 6.3 percent against the
Chinese yuan (figure 1.3). The dollar also appreciated 19.0 percent against the UK pound.
Figure 1.3 Indexes of U.S. dollar exchange rates for selected major foreign currencies, daily, 2016a
Source: U.S. Federal Reserve Board, “Foreign Exchange Rates,” n.d. https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H10
(accessed April 11, 2017).
a Units of the foreign currency per unit of the U.S. dollar. A decrease in the index represents a depreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to the
foreign currency, and an increase in the index represents an appreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to the foreign currency.
The U.S. dollar’s appreciation against the Chinese yuan was mainly due to China’s economic slowdown
and accompanying large capital outflows in 2016. It is estimated that China’s capital outflows totaled
more than $900 billion in 2016, despite new restrictions in China on capital movements.28 The large

26 IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2017 Edition (accessed May 15, 2017).
27 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 4, 2016, to December 30, 2016. U.S. Federal Reserve, “Foreign
Exchange Rates,” n.d. (accessed April 12, 2017).
28 Balding, “Why China Can’t Stop Capital Outflows,” December 5, 2016.
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
U
S
$
D
ep
re
ci
at
io
n
U
S
$
A
pp
re
ci
at
io
n
Euro Pound Canadian dollar Yuan Yen Peso

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |35
capital outflow put persistent downward pressure on the yuan against the dollar.29 At the same time,
however, the People’s Bank of China is widely believed to have sold Chinese foreign reserves in 2016 in
order to keep the yuan from depreciating further against the dollar.30 The value of Chinese foreign
reserves declined from $3.2 trillion in January 2016 to $3.0 trillion in December 2016.31
Concerns about trade policy appear to have been major factors in the two other major currency
depreciations against the dollar. Given Mexico’s strong economic ties to the United States, the U.S.
dollar’s appreciation against the peso in the last half of 2016 was mainly due to the uncertainty of the
new U.S. administration’s trade policy towards Mexico, including the possibility of terminating or
renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).32 The U.S. dollar’s appreciation
against the UK pound, which happened chiefly in the second half of 2016, was primarily due to Britain’s
vote to leave the EU (a process known as Brexit) and ensuing investor concerns that trade barriers
would likely rise between Britain and its major trading partners in the EU.33
On the other hand, by yearend 2016 the U.S. dollar had depreciated slightly against the Canadian dollar
(by 4.0 percent), Japanese yen (by 1.8 percent), and the euro (by 1.8 percent). The dollar depreciated
against both the Canadian dollar and the yen in the first three quarters of 2016 before gradually
appreciating against them in the last quarter (figure 1.3). The U.S. dollar’s appreciation against these
two currencies in the last quarter of 2016 was primarily due to the growing expectations that the U.S.
Federal Reserve would raise interest rates in December 2016. Another factor was a market expectation
that the new U.S. administration would boost infrastructure spending, which would stimulate economic
growth and make the dollar stronger.34
U.S. Trade in Goods in 2016
The value of U.S. merchandise exports totaled $1,453.7 billion in 2016, down 3.3 percent ($48.9 billion)
from $1,502.6 billion in 2015 (figure 1.4 and appendix table A.1).35 U.S. merchandise imports totaled
$2,189.2 billion in 2016, down 2.6 percent ($59.0 billion) from $2,248.2 billion in 2015 (figure 1.4 and
appendix table A.2). While the decline in imports was concentrated in energy-related products, the
decline in exports was more evenly distributed across sectors. Since U.S. imports declined more than
U.S. exports in terms of value, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit fell to $735.5 billion in 2016 from
$745.7 billion in 2015. Agricultural products was the only sector to experience a trade surplus in 2016,
with $9.3 billion more in exports than imports.
29 Reuters, “China’s Foreign Reserves Just Plunged,” November 7, 2016.
30 Ibid.
31 Chinese State Administration of Foreign Reserve, “Monthly data on the value of Chinese foreign reserves,
January 2016 to December 2016,” May 7, 2017.
32 E.g., Cheng, “Mexican Peso Plunges More than 12%,” November 9, 2016.
33 E.g., Ward and Mnyanda, “Brexit Pains: The Pound Takes a Serious Pounding,” October 28, 2016.
34 Reuters, “China’s Foreign Reserves Just Plunged,” November 7, 2016; Fortune, “U.S. Dollar Soars on Bets That
Donald Trump Could Spur Inflation,” November 14, 2016.
35 The U.S. merchandise trade data in this report use total exports and general imports as reported by U.S. Census,
except for imports entered under FTA and trade preference program provisions, which use U.S. imports for
consumption. For further information about the terms “total exports,” “general imports,” and “imports for
consumption,” see “Trade Measure Definitions” section of USITC, Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade, 2015,
September 2016; USDOC, ITA, “Trade Data Basics” (accessed April 12, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
36| www.usitc.gov
Figure 1.4 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, 2014–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
U.S. imports of crude petroleum and exports of refined petroleum products have traditionally been
some of the highest-value components of U.S. trade. However, international price benchmarks for crude
petroleum and refined petroleum products fell significantly in 2015 and declined further in 2016.36 At
the same time, several factors increased the volume of U.S. imports and exports of crude petroleum.
U.S. annual production of crude petroleum fell 5.5 percent from 2015–16, after seven consecutive years
of growth.37 Also, the U.S. government lifted a ban on most exports of U.S. crude to countries other than
Canada in December 2015.38 These shifts prompted a 7.3 percent increase in import volumes and a 12.1
percent increase in export volumes of crude petroleum from 2015 to 2016, but the expanded volumes
were more than offset in value terms by the drop in prices.39 These developments in the energy sector
were reflected in overall U.S. trade with certain trading partners, such as U.S. trade with Canada, as well
as imports under certain trade preference programs—for example, U.S. imports under the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA).
36 The Brent benchmark fell from an average of $52 per barrel in 2015 to an average of about $43 per barrel in the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2016 Spot Prices database,
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm.
37 EIA, Crude Oil Production database (accessed May 11, 2017). U.S. production of crude petroleum decreased
from 3.437 billion barrels in 2015 to 3.248 billion barrels in 2016.
38 U.S. crude oil exports to Canada for consumption in Canada have been authorized since the 1980s.
39 EIA, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin database (accessed May 11, 2017); EIA, U.S. Exports database (accessed
May 11, 2017). U.S. crude imports increased from 2.687 billion barrels in 2015 to 2.883 billion barrels in 2016; U.S.
exports, from 169.7 to 190.3 million barrels.
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |37
U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category
Exports
As in 2015, the largest U.S. export sectors in 2016 were transportation equipment (22.0 percent of total
U.S. exports), electronic products (17.9 percent of exports), and chemicals and related products (15.0
percent of exports) (table 1.1 and appendix table A.1). The top export products were civilian aircraft,
engines, and parts; refined petroleum products; soybeans; and passenger motor vehicles (table 1.1 and
appendix table A.3).
Table 1.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the world, by USITC digest sector, 2015–16 (million dollars)
Sector 2015 2016
change
2015–16
% change
2015–16 2015 2016
change
2015–16
% change
2015–16
Exports Imports
Agricultural products 146,630 148,772 2,142 1.5 136,959 139,465 2,506 1.8
Forest products 39,061 37,962 -1,099 -2.8 42,378 43,147 769 1.8
Chemicals and related products 227,882 218,143 -9,739 -4.3 260,278 259,908 -370 -0.1
Energy-related products 109,703 99,414 -10,289 -9.4 194,068 158,045 -36,023 -18.6
Textiles and apparel 23,274 21,615 -1,659 -7.1 126,548 120,312 -6,236 -4.9
Footwear 1,464 1,366 -98 -6.7 27,650 25,634 -2,016 -7.3
Minerals and metals 135,659 128,621 -7,038 -5.2 189,255 183,618 -5,637 -3.0
Machinery 138,719 128,005 -10,714 -7.7 185,858 179,627 -6,231 -3.4
Transportation equipment 327,286 319,379 -7,907 -2.4 426,207 418,355 -7,852 -1.8
Electronic products 264,079 260,535 -3,544 -1.3 449,865 450,110 245 0.1
Miscellaneous manufactures 47,377 47,760 383 0.8 124,842 125,058 216 0.2
Special provisions 41,439 42,149 710 1.7 84,326 85,904 1,578 1.9
Total 1,502,572 1,453,721 -48,851 -3.3 2,248,232 2,189,183 -59,049 -2.6
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce (accessed April 17, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Exports in all but 2 of the 11 merchandise sectors declined in 2016.40 The largest declines, by value,
occurred in the machinery sector (down $10.7 billion to $128.0 billion), energy-related products (down
$10.3 billion to $99.4 billion), and chemicals and related products (down $9.7 billion to $218.1 billion).
At the product level, exports of some refined petroleum products experienced the biggest drops in
value, declining $8.6 billion in 2016. Other notable declines included medicaments, which fell $2.1 billion
to $18.8 billion; nonmonetary gold, which fell $1.6 billion to $17.5 billion; and parts and accessories for
motor vehicles, which fell $1.3 billion to $10.5 billion. Although certain types of passenger motor
vehicles experienced large declines in export value, overall passenger vehicle exports fell by a smaller
amount, $485.5 million.41
The only sector that experienced a significant increase in exports was agricultural products, which grew
$2.1 billion in 2016 to reach $148.8 billion. Exports of miscellaneous manufactures also increased $383
million to reach $47.8 billion in 2016. At the product level, U.S. exports of soybeans increased $4.0
billion in 2016 to $22.9 billion, while exports of corn increased $1.7 billion to $10.0 billion. Other notable
40 These merchandise sectors are defined by the Commission. “Special provisions” is not considered a merchandise
sector. 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, 2015, September 2016.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2015/d3/digest_hts8_dir_-final .
41 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed April 12, 2017). “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.

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2015/d3/digest_hts8_dir_-final

The Year in Trade 2016
38| www.usitc.gov
increases in exports included blood fractions (e.g., antiserum),42 which increased $2.8 billion to $16.1
billion; liquefied propane, which increased $1.9 billion to $7.5 billion; and processors and controllers for
electronic integrated circuits, which increased $1.7 billion to $19.9 billion.
Imports
Electronic products and transportation equipment remained the top import sectors in 2016, accounting
for 20.5 percent and 19.1 percent, respectively, of total U.S. imports in 2016 (table 1.1 and appendix
table A.2). Passenger motor vehicles were the top U.S. import product, followed by crude petroleum,
medicaments, cellphones, and telecommunications equipment (table 1.1 and appendix table A.4).
The value of U.S. imports in the majority of sectors (7 of 11) declined in 2016 (appendix table A.2). Much
of the overall decline was the result of a decline in the value of imports of energy-related products,
which fell $36.0 billion from $194.1 billion in 2015 to $158.0 billion in 2016, reflecting primarily a $24.2
billion decline in imports of crude petroleum. This change in value is a result of declines in the price of
imported crude petroleum, as the quantity of crude oil imports increased 0.2 billion barrels to reach 2.8
billion barrels in 2016.43 Imports of refined petroleum products also declined, but did so both by value
and by quantity. As a result of these declines, imports of energy-related products accounted for 7.2
percent of the value of merchandise imports in 2016, down from 8.6 percent in 2015. Imports of
transportation equipment also declined in value, falling $7.9 billion to $418.4 billion in 2016. Other
notable decreases by value included imports of textiles and apparel (down $6.2 billion to $120.3 billion),
machinery (down $6.2 billion to $179.6 billion), and minerals and metals (down $5.6 billion to $183.6
billion).
The value of imports increased in 4 of the 11 merchandise sectors in 2016. Agricultural products were
the only sector with a notable increase in value, growing $2.5 billion to $139.5 billion in 2016. Products
with notable increases by value included passenger motor vehicles, which increased $6.6 billion from
2015 to $189.1 billion, telecommunications equipment (up $5.2 billion to $45.3 billion), nonmonetary
gold (up $5.1 billion to $15.2 billion), and antisera (up $4.5 billion to $13.5 billion). 44
U.S. Merchandise Trade with Selected Leading
Partners
Table 1.2 shows U.S. trade with selected major trading partners, ranked by total trade (exports plus
imports) in 2016. In 2016, the EU remained the United States’ top trading partner in terms of two-way
merchandise trade, followed by China, Canada, and Mexico. The EU was also the leading market for U.S.
exports that year, with $270.3 billion or 19.0 percent of total exports, surpassing Canada, which had
previously ranked as the largest export market for the United States. China was again the leading source
of U.S. imports, accounting for $462.8 billion, or 21.1 percent of the value of general U.S. imports. (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.)

42 Antiserum is a blood serum that is injected to give passive immunity to certain diseases.
43 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed April 9, 2017).
44 USDOC, DataWeb (accessed April 12, 2017). “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.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |39
Table 1.2 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2016 (million
dollars)
Trading partner U.S. total exports U.S. general imports Trade balance
Two-way trade
(exports plus imports)
EU 270,325 416,665 -146,340 686,991
China 115,775 462,813 -347,038 578,588
Canada 265,961 278,067 -12,106 544,027
Mexico 230,959 294,151 -63,192 525,110
Japan 63,264 132,202 -68,938 195,466
South Korea 42,266 69,932 -27,666 112,199
India 21,689 45,998 -24,309 67,687
Taiwan 26,045 39,313 -13,268 65,358
Brazil 30,297 26,176 4,121 56,473
All others 387,139 423,866 -36,727 811,004
Total 1,453,721 2,189,183 -735,462 3,642,904
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.
U.S. merchandise exports with most of the selected leading trading partners fell in 2016 from 2015
(table 1.3). Among the largest declines in value were a $14.6 billion decline in exports to Canada (down
5.2 percent), a $1.7 billion decline in exports to the EU (down 0.6 percent), and a $1.4 billion decline in
exports to Brazil (down 4.3 percent). The EU, Canada, and Mexico remained the largest markets in 2016,
accounting for 18.6 percent, 18.3 percent, and 15.9 percent of U.S. exports, respectively (figure 1.5).
Table 1.3 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2015–16 (million
dollars)
Major trading
partner 2015 2016
change
2015–16
% change
2015–16 2015 2016
change
2015–16
% change
2015–16
Exports Imports
EU 271,988 270,325 -1,663 -0.6 427,562 416,665 -10,896 -2.5
China 116,072 115,775 -297 -0.3 483,245 462,813 -20,432 -4.2
Canada 280,609 265,961 -14,648 -5.2 296,156 278,067 -18,089 -6.1
Mexico 235,745 230,959 -4,786 -2.0 296,408 294,151 -2,257 -0.8
Japan 62,443 63,264 822 1.3 131,364 132,202 838 0.6
South Korea 43,446 42,266 -1,179 -2.7 71,759 69,932 -1,826 -2.5
India 21,452 21,689 237 1.1 44,792 45,998 1,207 2.7
Taiwan 25,860 26,045 185 0.7 40,908 39,313 -1,595 -3.9
Brazil 31,651 30,297 -1,354 -4.3 27,468 26,176 -1,293 -4.7
All others 413,307 387,139 -26,168 -6.3 428,572 423,866 -4,707 -1.1
Total 1,502,572 1,453,721 -48,852 -3.3 2,248,232 2,189,183 -59,050 -2.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.
U.S. merchandise imports from most of the selected leading partners also fell in 2016. Among the
largest declines in value were a $20.4 billion decline in imports from China (down 4.2 percent), an $18.1
billion decline in imports from Canada (down 6.1 percent), and a $10.9 billion decline in imports from
the EU (down 2.5 percent). India and Japan were the only two major sources of U.S. imports that grew,
with imports increasing in value 2.7 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively. China and the EU remained
the largest sources of imports in 2016, accounting for 21.1 percent and 19.0 percent of U.S. general
imports, respectively. Mexico and Canada accounted in 2016 for 13.4 percent and 12.7 percent of U.S.
imports, respectively (figure 1.6).

The Year in Trade 2016
40| www.usitc.gov
Figure 1.5 Leading U.S. merchandise export markets, by share, 2016
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed April 12, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.6.
Figure 1.6 Leading U.S. merchandise import sources, by share, 2016
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed April 12, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.6.
EU 19%
Canada 18%
Mexico 16%China 8%
Japan 4%
South Korea 3%
Brazil 2%
Taiwan 2%
India 1%
All others 27%
China 21%
EU 19%
Mexico 14%
Canada 13%
Japan 6%
South Korea 3%
India 2%
Taiwan 2%
Brazil 1%
All others 19%

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |41
U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement Partners
In 2016, two-way total merchandise trade (total exports plus general imports) between the United
States and its 20 FTA partners amounted to $1,425.4 billion, accounting for 39.1 percent of total U.S.
merchandise trade with the world.45 This was slightly lower than in 2015, when two-way merchandise
trade between the United States and its FTA partners totaled $1,484.6 billion, or 39.6 percent of total
U.S. merchandise trade.
U.S. imports entered under FTAs increased 0.3 percent to $374.2 billion in 2016, accounting for 50.0
percent of total imports from FTA partners in 2016 and 17.1 percent of total U.S. imports from the
world.
U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs
The value of U.S. imports for which eligibility was claimed under trade preference programs with
developing countries was much smaller than that for U.S. imports claiming eligibility under FTAs. U.S.
imports under trade preference programs increased from $27.7 billion in 2015 to $29.5 billion in 2016;
they accounted for 1.3 percent of total U.S. imports during 2016, whereas in 2015 they accounted for
1.2 percent of imports. Imports that claimed eligibility under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP) program totaled $18.7 billion in 2016; imports under AGOA totaled $9.4 billion; imports under
CBERA and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act totaled $0.9 billion; and imports under the Haiti
initiatives totaled $0.5 billion.46
U.S. Trade in Services in 201647
The U.S. surplus in cross-border trade of private services (hereafter “services”) decreased 4.9 percent in
2016 to $250.6 billion (figure 1.7).48 U.S. exports of services increased slightly from $730.6 billion in 2015
to $732.6 billion in 2016, while U.S. imports grew 3.2 percent ($14.8 billion) to reach $482.0 billion.49
Five of the top 10 services export categories grew in 2016, with the largest growth in professional and
management consulting services (13.9 percent, or $9.1 billion) and maintenance and repair services
(10.2 percent, or $2.4 billion).50 Other export categories that grew included research and development
services (4.7 percent) and insurance services (3.5 percent). U.S. imports of services grew in 8 of the top
10 categories, with declines in sea transport (which decreased 5.9 percent, or $2.2 billion) and technical,
45 U.S. trade with its FTA partners is discussed in chapter 5.
46 U.S. imports under preferential trade programs are discussed in chapter 2.
47 This section uses BEA data on U.S. cross-border trade in private services. It excludes BEA data on imports and
exports of government goods and services.
48 In July 2016, the trade surplus in services for 2013, 2014, and 2015 was revised upwards, primarily due to
revisions in source data, which include the 2014 Benchmark Survey of Financial Services Transactions between U.S.
Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons, changes in methodology for estimating the average expenditures
of foreign travels, and newly available and revised data on travel services and air passenger transport. USDOC,
BEA, “Annual Revision of the U.S. International Transactions Accounts,” July 2016.
49 USDOC, BEA, International Transactions data, “Table 3.1. U.S. International Trade in Services,” March 21, 2017.
50 The top ten export categories were travel; charges for the use of intellectual property not included elsewhere
(n.i.e.); financial services; professional and management consulting services; air passenger fares; research and
development services; technical, trade-related, and other business services; maintenance and repair services,
n.i.e.; air transport; and sea transport.

The Year in Trade 2016
42| www.usitc.gov
trade-related, and other business services (which decreased 9.0 percent, or $2.4 billion).51 Appendix
tables A.8 and A.9 provide data on U.S. trade in private services by product category.
Figure 1.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with the world, 2014–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, “Table 1.2: U.S. International
Trade in Services,” March 17, 2016.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
U.S. Services Trade by Product Category
Exports
Travel services exports, valued at $206.8 billion in 2016, were the largest share of services exports in
2016, accounting for 28.2 percent of total U.S. exports of services (appendix table A.8). 52 Other major
categories of services exports included charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. ($122.2 billion,
or 16.7 percent of total exports) and financial services ($96.8 billion, or 13.2 percent of total exports).53
51 The top 10 import categories were travel; insurance services; charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e.;
professional and management consulting services; air passenger fares; sea transport; research and development
services; computer services; financial services; and technical, trade-related, and other business services. Technical,
trade-related, and other business services include construction, architectural and engineering services, waste
treatment, operational leasing, trade-related, and other business services.
52 Travel services comprise purchases of goods and services made by U.S. residents traveling abroad (U.S. imports
of travel services) and by foreign travelers in the United States (U.S. exports of travel services). These goods and
services include food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, local transportation in the country of travel, and
other items incidental to a foreign visit.
53 U.S. exports of charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e., which the BEA previously labeled as “royalties
and license fees,” include payments by foreigners to U.S. owners of intellectual property, such as trademarks and
franchise fees, computer software, industrial processes, and audiovisual products.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Trade balance

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |43
Although overall services exports experienced slow growth in 2016, individual segments of services
exports grew at higher rates than in the previous year, including maintenance and repair services (10.2
percent in 2016, compared to 8.6 percent in 2015). The fastest-growing category of services exports was
professional and management consulting services, which grew 13.9 percent in 2016, compared to 8.9
percent growth in 2015. Insurance services experienced negative export growth in 2015, but increased
exports in 2016 by 3.5 percent. In contrast, some segments that had seen declining exports in 2015
continued to decrease in 2016, including air passenger fares (down 6.1 percent in 2016, compared to a
decline of 5.4 percent in 2015); financial services (down 5.6 percent in 2016, compared to a decline of
4.9 percent in 2015); and technical, trade-related, and other business services (down 13.4 percent in
2016, compared to a decline of 2.9 percent in 2015). The decline in air passenger fares is mostly driven
by a decrease in the price of air fares, rather than a decrease in the number of air passengers in 2016.54
Imports
Travel services (25.2 percent), insurance services (10.0 percent), and charges for the use of intellectual
property not included elsewhere (n.i.e.) (8.9 percent) represented the three largest segments of cross-
border services imports in 2016 (appendix table A.9). Research and development services was the
fastest-growing segment of services imports at a rate of 9.2 percent. Charges for use of intellectual
property n.i.e., travel services, and computer services also had high growth rates (8.2 percent, 7.7
percent, and 6.9 percent, respectively). Two of the top 10 categories returned to positive growth in
2016, including insurance services imports (up 1.3 percent in 2016, following a decline of 7.8 percent in
2015) and charges for the use of intellectual property (up 8.2 percent, following a decline of 6.4 percent
in 2015). U.S. imports of sea transport services fell 5.9 percent after increasing 2.9 percent in 2015.
U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners
The EU was the largest export market for U.S. services in 2016, as well as the largest foreign supplier of
services (table 1.4).55 The EU accounted for $229.6 billion (31.3 percent) of total exports and $168.2
billion (34.9 percent) of total imports in 2016 (figures 1.8 and 1.9). As in previous years, Canada and
Japan were the second- and third-largest U.S. services trading partners, respectively, in 2016. After the
EU, Canada, China, and Japan were the main destinations for exports, while Canada, Japan, and India
were the main sources of imports. The United States maintained a surplus in trade in services with every
major services trading partner except for India, where the trade deficit was $6.8 billion, largely due to
imports of computer services. In 2015, the United States exported $18.1 billion of services to India in
total, while computer services imports from India alone were $13.2 billion in the same year.56
54 IATA, “Air Passenger Market Analysis,” January 2017, 2.
55 The United Kingdom (an EU member for all of 2016) was the largest single-country market for both services
exports and imports in 2016.
56 USDOC, BEA, International Services Data, “Table 2.3, U.S. Trade In Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type
of Service, India,” December 19, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
44| www.usitc.gov
Table 1.4 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2016 (million dollars)
Major trading partner U.S. exports U.S. imports Trade balance
Two-way trade
(exports plus imports)
EU 229,573 168,182 61,391 397,755
Canada 53,726 29,320 24,406 83,046
Japan 44,023 27,357 16,666 71,380
China 53,044 16,000 37,044 69,044
Mexico 30,567 23,347 7,220 53,914
India 19,949 26,776 -6,827 46,725
Brazil 24,760 6,742 18,018 31,502
South Korea 21,261 8,768 12,493 30,029
Australia 21,756 7,398 14,358 29,154
Singapore 16,440 6,891 9,549 23,331
Taiwan 11,136 7,601 3,535 18,737
All others 206,317 153,569 52,748 359,886
Total 732,552 481,951 250,601 1,214,503
Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, Tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21,
2017.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |45
Figure 1.8 Leading U.S. export markets for private services, by share, 2016a
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, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.8.
aData are preliminary.
Figure 1.9 Leading U.S. import sources for private services, by share, 2016a
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, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.8.
aData are preliminary.
EU 31%
Canada 7%
China 7%
Japan 6%Mexico 4%
Brazil 4%
Australia 3%
South Korea 3%
India 3%
All others 32%
EU 35%
Canada 6%
Japan 6%
India 5%Mexico 5%
China 3%
All others 40%

The Year in Trade 2016
46| www.usitc.gov
Timeline of Selected Key Trade Activities
A timeline of selected key trade activities in the United States and its trading partners follows. Some of
these activities are discussed further in chapters 2 through 6.
January
11: The President announces the suspension of
duty-free treatment for South African
agricultural products in an effort to lift
restrictions on U.S. poultry exports. The
suspension is effective March 15.
12: A second cargo pre-inspection pilot project
was inaugurated at the Mesa de Otay port of
entry, Baja California. Under the program,
certain cargo is to be pre-inspected in Mexico
before crossing the border into the United
States. The program is designed to improve the
flow of trade by reducing the number of
inspections, shorten wait times, and lower
transaction costs.
20–23: The World Economic Forum annual
meeting is held in Davos, Switzerland. U.S. and
EU officials discuss updating the Safe Harbor
framework, which addresses how EU personal
data flows to the United States are handled.
22: The USTR hosts an informal meeting among
Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) participants
in Davos, Switzerland.
25: USTR Froman travels to Warsaw, Poland, for
TTIP meetings with the Polish president, deputy
prime minister, and minister of development.
26: The United States and Colombia agree to
reduce burdensome certification requirements
on U.S. exports of beef and beef products to
Colombia.
27: The U.S. Department of the Treasury
(Treasury Department) and the USDOC amend
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and
Export Administration Regulations to remove
restrictions on payment and financing for
authorized exports and re-exports to Cuba of
items other than agricultural items or
commodities, and authorize additional exports.
28: USTR convenes a public hearing on policy
recommendations for deepening the U.S.-Africa
trade and investment relationship. It draws
representatives from think tanks, private
industry, and academia as well as officials from
the U.S. Departments of State, Agriculture,
Commerce, Treasury, and Labor; the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation; and U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID).
31–Feb. 5: The 16th round of TiSA negotiations
is held in Geneva, Switzerland.
February
4: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is signed
in Auckland, New Zealand, by ministers
representing the 12 TPP partners: Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.
4: U.S. and Mexican government officials open
the Tornillo-Guadalupe Port of entry and
International Bridge in Tornillo, Texas. The
Tornillo-Guadalupe project is intended to
improve international trade and environmental
conditions, as well as to reduce congestion in
the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez metropolitan area.
4: The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
composes the dispute settlement panel
established in September 2015 in response to
the complaint by Indonesia regarding U.S.
antidumping and countervailing measures on
coated paper from Indonesia (DS491).
8: Officials from the United States and the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa (COMESA) meet in Lusaka, Zambia, under

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |47
the Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement (TIFA) to discuss issues including
trade and investment under AGOA, agricultural
productivity, and investment policies.
15–16: USTR Froman, Secretary of Commerce
Pritzker, and President Obama meet with
leaders from Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in Palm Springs, California, to
discuss the strengthening of trade and
commercial relationships, among other issues.
17: U.S. and ASEAN officials meet in San
Francisco under the TIFA to discuss investment,
the environment, and trade facilitation, among
other topics.
17: The United States and Laos sign a bilateral
TIFA, creating a forum for engagement on
intellectual property, labor, environment,
capacity-building, and multilateral and regional
trade issues.
24: President Obama signs the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act into law,
which boosts enforcement mechanisms to
detect and address evasion of duty and trade
laws and regulations, and improves and
modernizes customs processes.
24: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute panel
report in the complaint brought by the United
States on India’s localization rules regarding
imported solar cells (DS456).
25: U.S. and Mexican officials hold the third
cabinet-level meeting of the High Level
Economic Dialogue in Mexico City, where they
agree to continue work in the areas of energy,
modern borders, workforce development,
regulatory cooperation, partnering in regional
and global leadership, and stakeholder
engagement.
22–26: The 12th round of U.S.-EU negotiations
on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) takes place in Brussels,
Belgium.
March
2: Honduras commits to strengthen
implementation of its CAFTA-DR commitments
relating to protecting and enforcing intellectual
property rights.
2–4: The 12th round of negotiations on the
Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) takes
place in Geneva, Switzerland, with officials from
Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, New
Zealand, and the United States, among others,
in attendance.
3: India requests WTO dispute settlement
consultations with the United States regarding
U.S. measures concerning non-immigrant visas
for persons supplying cross-border services
(DS503).
7: USTR announces reallocation of unused WTO
tariff-rate quota volume for raw cane sugar for
fiscal year (FY) 2016.
10: U.S. and Canadian leaders meet in
Washington, DC, and discuss a new softwood
lumber agreement as part of a state visit.
11: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute
settlement panel report in the complaint by
South Korea concerning U.S. antidumping and
countervailing measures relating to large
residential washers from South Korea (DS464).
14: The United States and Peru agree to remove
certain certification requirements on U.S.
exports of beef and beef products to Peru.
16: The U.S. Treasury Department and the
USDOC amend the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations and Export Administration
Regulations to ease restrictions for exports to
the Cuban private sector, people-to-people
educational travel, payments through the U.S.
financial system, and U.S. entities permitted to
have a “business presence” in Cuba.
18: Representatives of the United States and
the Philippines meet in Washington, DC, under

The Year in Trade 2016
48| www.usitc.gov
the TIFA to discuss issues including investment,
customs, intellectual property rights, and
agricultural trade issues.
20–22: President Obama visits Cuba, becoming
the first sitting U.S. president to do so since
1928.
22: The U.S.-Tunisia TIFA Council holds its sixth
session in Washington, DC, to discuss how to
increase bilateral trade and investment.
23: The United States and Argentina sign a TIFA
to provide a platform for discussing a range of
economic issues, including market access,
intellectual property rights protection, and
cooperation in multilateral forums.
30: The United States and Brazil hold the third
meeting of the Commission on Economic and
Trade Relations established under the U.S.-
Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic
Cooperation in Washington, DC.
30: Canada requests WTO dispute settlement
consultations with the United States concerning
certain U.S. countervailing measures regarding
supercalendared paper from Canada (DS505).
April
5: The 10th anniversary council meeting of the
U.S.-Central Asia TIFA is held in Bishkek,
Kyrgyzstan, with senior trade officials from the
United States, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
attending.
10–15: The 17th round of TiSA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
11: Following a change in U.S. regulation, the
United States requests a WTO DSB compliance
panel in the case brought by Mexico regarding
U.S. measures concerning the importation,
marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna products
from Mexico (DS381).
11–12: The United States and Indonesia meet in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, under the bilateral TIFA
to discuss investment, intellectual property, and
environmental issues.
14: The United States and China reach a
mutually agreed-on settlement in the case
brought by the United States concerning China’s
export subsidies to certain Chinese enterprises
in various industries under the “Demonstration
Bases-Common Service Platform” program
(DS489).
18–22: The 13th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland, with
discussions focusing on final product lists and
tariff phaseouts.
20: The United States and Thailand meet in
Washington, DC, under the bilateral TIFA to
discuss issues involving intellectual property,
customs, agriculture, labor, the environment,
and financial services.
25: USTR Froman and EU Trade Commissioner
Malmström meet in Hannover, Germany, to
discuss progress on TTIP negotiations.
25–29: The 13th round of U.S.-EU negotiations
on TTIP takes place in New York, NY.
27: USTR releases its 2016 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.
28: The 12th annual U.S.-Sri Lanka TIFA Council
meeting is held in Washington, DC, with both
sides adopting a Joint Action Plan to boost trade
and investment.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |49
May
3: The U.S.-Australia FTA Joint Committee
convenes in Washington, DC, to review
implementation of the agreement.
6: USTR announces allocation of the FY 2017
WTO tariff-rate quota volume for raw cane
sugar, refined specialty sugar, and sugar-
containing products.
13: Mexico requests establishment of a
compliance panel in the case brought by Mexico
regarding U.S. measures concerning the
importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and
tuna products from Mexico (DS381).
11: The seventh Trade and Investment Council
meeting under the U.S.-Uruguay TIFA is held in
Montevideo, Uruguay.
11–14: USTR Froman travels to Kigali, Rwanda,
for the World Economic Forum Africa to discuss
U.S. trade priorities in the African market.
17: TPP ministers meet on the margins of the
meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for
Trade in Arequipa, Peru, to review progress on
their respective internal processes to approve
the TPP agreement.
18: USTR announces a revised allocation of the
FY 2016 WTO tariff-rate quota volume for raw
cane sugar.
23: The United States blocks the reappointment
of South Korean Appellate Body member Seung
Wha Chang to the WTO Appellate Body.
26–June 3: The 18th round of TiSA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
June
1–2: The Ministerial Council Meeting of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) is held in Paris, France.
6–7: U.S. Treasury Secretary Lew and Chinese
Vice Premier Yang lead the eighth meeting of
the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
in Beijing, China, announcing measures to
support global growth, promote open trade and
investment, and foster financial market
stability.
10: The second meeting of the U.S.-Nepal TIFA
Council is convened in Washington, DC, to
discuss intellectual property rights, standards
and conformity assessment, technical
cooperation, labor, manufacturing,
phytosanitary measures, and capacity-building
issues.
17: USTR releases its annual report on the
Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through
Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008, which
gives preferential treatment for imports of
apparel, textiles, and other goods from Haiti.
20–24: The 14th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
22: The WTO DSB establishes the compliance
panel requested by the United States regarding
China’s antidumping and countervailing duty
measures on broiler (chicken) products from
the United States, which the DSB refers to the
original panel (DS427).
23: The United Kingdom votes to leave the EU
in “Brexit” referendum vote.
28: USTR Froman and Secretary of Agriculture
Vilsack announce reopening of the Saudi
Arabian market to U.S. beef exports following a
four-year ban.
29: U.S. and Brazilian officials attend the 14th
plenary meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Commercial
Dialogue in Washington, DC; this meeting
marked the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-Brazil
Commercial Dialogue.

The Year in Trade 2016
50| www.usitc.gov
29: USTR releases a report to Congress on the
impact of U.S. trade preference programs on
poverty and hunger. Programs addressed
include the Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act
(AGOA), and the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (CBERA).
29: USTR releases its biennial report to
Congress on AGOA implementation.
30: USTR announces new duty-free status for
travel goods for least-developed beneficiary
developing countries (LDBDCs) and AGOA
countries as part of the Annual Product Review
under the GSP program.
July
1: Latvia accedes to the OECD, becoming its
35th member.
8–18: The 19th round of TiSA negotiations takes
place in Geneva, Switzerland.
9–10: The G20 Trade Ministers meet in
Shanghai, China, to discuss ongoing WTO
negotiations and global excess capacity in key
sectors.
11–15: The 14th round of U.S.-EU negotiations
on TTIP takes place in Brussels, Belgium.
12: The European Commission adopts adequacy
determination on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, an
agreement that ensures protections of EU
personal data by U.S. companies in keeping
with EU laws and regulations.
13: The United States requests WTO dispute
settlement consultations with China concerning
China’s export duties on various forms of
antimony, cobalt, copper, graphite, lead,
magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin (DS508).
14: Liberia accedes to the WTO, becoming the
163rd member.
18: The United States and Vietnam reach a
mutually agreed settlement in two WTO dispute
cases brought by Vietnam concerning U.S.
antidumping measures on certain frozen
warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (DS404,
DS429).
19: The United States requests supplementary
WTO dispute settlement consultations with
China regarding China’s alleged restrictions on
the export of various forms of antimony,
chromium, indium, magnesia, talc, and tin
(DS508).
21: WTO DSB establishes a dispute settlement
panel requested by Canada to examine U.S.
countervailing measures on imports of
Canadian supercalendared paper (DS505).
22: The President issues Executive Order 13733
requiring the Treasury Department to seek
views of USTR and the Department of State
before undertaking analysis or bilateral
engagements with countries engaged in
currency manipulation under the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
24–29: The 15th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
25–26: The United States and EU meet in
Brussels, Belgium, to discuss agreement
involving access of U.S. insurance and
reinsurance industries to EU markets under the
EU’s Solvency II prudential regulations.
29: Afghanistan accedes to the WTO, becoming
the 164th member.
30: The President issues Presidential
Proclamation 9466, implementing decisions
regarding GSP product eligibility issues arising
out of the 2015/2016 Annual GSP Review.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |51
August
4: The ASEAN Economic Ministers-U.S. Trade
Representative Consultation is held in
Vientiane, Laos, reaffirming member country
commitments to transparency, good regulatory
practices, and support for international
investment.
30: The Chambers of Commerce of the United
States, South Korea, and Japan hold the first
meeting of the Trilateral Digital Economy
Steering Committee in Washington, DC. Led by
the private sector, the committee works to
build on existing global efforts focusing on the
digital economy.
30–31: The second U.S.-India Strategic and
Commercial Dialogue is held in New Delhi,
India.
31: The first U.S. commercial flight to Cuba in 55
years lands in Santa Clara.
31–Sep. 4: USTR Froman travels to Beijing and
Hangzhou, China, for official meetings before
President Obama’s visit to Hangzhou on
September 4 for the G20 Summit.
September
4–5: The G20 Summit takes place in Hangzhou,
China. President Obama and Chinese President
Xi Jinping attend to discuss excess capacity in
steel and other industries, currency policy, the
environmental goods agreement, international
cooperation on taxation and corruption, and
promoting innovation and the digital economy.
9: India requests WTO dispute settlement
consultations with the United States regarding
domestic content requirements and subsidies
to the energy sector instituted by the U.S. state
governments of Washington, California,
Montana, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Michigan, Delaware, and Minnesota (DS510).
12: The first Economic Bilateral Dialogue takes
places between Cuban and U.S. officials in
Washington, DC.
13: The United States requests WTO dispute
settlement consultations with China regarding
the Chinese government’s market-price support
for the production of wheat, indica rice,
japonica rice, and corn (DS511).
14: USTR Froman and Canadian Minister of
International Trade Freeland meet in
Washington, DC, to discuss softwood lumber
agreement negotiations.
19–23: The 16th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
19–25: The 20th round of TiSA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
22: The WTO DSB circulates the report of the
Compliance Panel established in April 2012 at
the request of the United States in its complaint
regarding the EU and certain member states’
measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft
(DS316).
26: USTR Froman participates in the AGOA
Ministerial in Washington, DC, presenting
findings from the report Beyond AGOA: Looking
to the Future of U.S.-Africa Trade and
Investment, released September 21, 2016.
26: The United States holds the 15th AGOA
Forum in Washington, DC, with government
officials, civil society leaders, and business
representatives in attendance.
26: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body
report and the panel report in the complaint by
South Korea regarding U.S. antidumping and
countervailing measures on large residential
washers from South Korea (DS464).
27: U.S. and East African Community (EAC)
officials hold a meeting of the U.S.-EAC TIFA,
focusing on strategies to increase bilateral trade
and investment.

The Year in Trade 2016
52| www.usitc.gov
27: Officials from the United States and the
Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) meet in Washington, DC, for the
second meeting of the U.S.-ECOWAS TIFA
council.
30: USTR issues the 2016/2017 GSP Annual
Review.
October
3–7: The 15th round of U.S.-EU negotiations on
TTIP takes place in New York, NY.
4: The 10th meeting of the U.S.-Taiwan TIFA
council is held in Washington, DC, to discuss
intellectual property protection, technical
barriers to trade, and transparency in trade and
investment.
5: USTR Froman attends the sixth meeting of
U.S.-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council in
Washington, DC, discussing intellectual
property rights and Ukraine’s export potential.
5–8: USTR Froman travels to Havana, Cuba, for
bilateral meetings with the Cuban Ministers of
Foreign Affairs and of Foreign Trade and
Investment.
12: A one-year moratorium on litigation related
to U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade expires.
14: The WTO DSB adopts the Appellate Body
and dispute settlement panel reports in the
complaint brought by the United States
regarding India’s measures relating to solar cells
and solar modules (DS456).
16–20: The 17th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
17: The U.S. Treasury Department and the
USDOC further amend the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations and Export Administration
Regulations to ease restrictions on the export
and import of certain goods to and from Cuba,
as well as on the entry of foreign vessels to U.S.
ports after calling at a Cuban port, and to
remove monetary limitations on travelers’
imports from Cuba.
18: USTR Froman travels to Islamabad, Pakistan,
for the eighth U.S.-Pakistan TIFA Council
meeting.
19: The WTO DSB panel circulates its report in
the complaint by China regarding the U.S. use of
certain methodologies in antidumping
investigations involving Chinese products
(DS471).
20: USTR Froman participates in the 10th U.S.-
India Trade Policy Forum in Delhi, India,
discussing possibilities for bilateral engagement
in the areas of agriculture, trade in goods and
services, intellectual property, and investment
in manufacturing.
November
2–10: The 21st round of TiSA negotiations takes
place in Geneva, Switzerland.
4: The United States and Peru convene the sixth
meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council
and the Environmental Cooperation
Commission, along with the eighth meeting of
the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector
Governance, in Lima, Peru.
7: USTR Froman travels to Buenos Aires,
Argentina, for the inaugural U.S.-Argentina TIFA
Council Meeting and other bilateral meetings.
8: The WTO DSB establishes a panel to review
the U.S. challenge to China’s export restrictions
on various forms of antimony, chromium,
cobalt, copper, graphite, indium, lead,
magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin (DS508).
8: The United States and Mozambique hold the
fifth meeting of the U.S.-Mozambique TIFA in
Maputo, Mozambique.
11: Brazil requests WTO dispute settlement
consultations with the United States regarding
U.S. countervailing measures imposed on cold-

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
U.S. International Trade Commission |53
and hot-rolled steel products from Brazil
(DS514).
13: The United States reinstates Burma’s trade
preference benefits under the GSP program as a
result of Burma’s compliance with eligibility
criteria.
18: China notifies the WTO DSB of its appeal of
certain legal interpretations in the panel report
regarding the United States’ use of certain
methodologies in U.S. antidumping
investigations involving Chinese products
(DS471).
19: President Obama holds bilateral meetings
with Chinese President Xi in Lima, Peru, to
discuss reform of China’s state-owned
enterprises and its overcapacity in steel and
aluminum.
19–20: The APEC leaders’ and ministerial
meetings convene in Lima, Peru, with
discussions focusing on strengthening economic
integration and best practices for trade secret
protection.
21–23: USTR and the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce host the Chinese delegation for the
27th session of the U.S.-China Joint Commission
on Commerce and Trade in Washington, DC,
announcing outcomes on intellectual property
protection, pharmaceutical and medical
devices, and information security policies.
22: The second meeting of the U.S.-Panama
Free Trade Commission is convened in
Washington, DC.
26–Dec. 2: The 18th round of EGA negotiations
takes place in Geneva, Switzerland.
28: The WTO DSB circulates the panel report in
the complaint by the EU regarding the United
States’ conditional tax incentives for large civil
aircraft (DS487).
December
3–4: USTR Froman participates in the EGA
Ministerial Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland.
6–8: The 22nd round of TiSA negotiations takes
place in Geneva, Switzerland.
12: China requests WTO dispute settlement
consultations with the United States regarding
U.S. measures related to certain price
comparison methodologies used to determine
“normal value” for imports from nonmarket
economies (DS515).
15: The United States requests WTO dispute
settlement consultations with China regarding
Chinese administration of tariff-rate quotas for
agricultural products including wheat, short-
and medium-grain rice, long-grain rice, and corn
(DS517).
16: The United States notifies the WTO DSB of
its appeal of certain legal interpretations in the
panel report regarding the complaint by the EU
against the United States’ conditional tax
incentives for large civil aircraft (DS487).
17: USTR Froman and U.S. Secretary of
Commerce Pritzker attend the launch of the
Global Forum on Excess Steel Capacity in Berlin,
Germany.
21: The EU notifies the WTO DSB of its appeal of
certain legal interpretations in the compliance
panel report regarding the complaint by the
United States against the EU concerning certain
EU measures affecting trade in large civil
aircraft (DS316).
22: The WTO DSB circulates the dispute
settlement panel report in the complaint
brought by the United States concerning certain
measures Indonesia imposes on the
importation of U.S. horticultural products,
animals, and animal products (DS478).

The Year in Trade 2016
54| www.usitc.gov
22: USTR schedules a public hearing and seeks
comments on the EU ban on most U.S. beef
products, exploring the possibility of reinstating
industry-supported tariffs on EU products.
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.

U.S. International Trade Commission |55
Chapter 2
Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and
Regulations
This chapter surveys activities related to the administration of U.S. trade laws during 2016, covering
import relief laws, laws against unfair trade practices, trade adjustment assistance programs, and tariff
preference programs. Tariff preference programs encompass the U.S. Generalized System of
Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act,
including initiatives aiding Haiti.57
Import Relief Laws
Safeguard Actions
This section covers safeguard actions under provisions administered by the Commission, including the
global safeguards provided for in sections 201–204 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the safeguards
provided for in various bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving the United States.
The Commission conducted no new safeguard investigations during 2016, and no U.S. safeguard
measures under these provisions were in effect during any part of 2016. One petition was filed during
2016, with regard to imports of primary unwrought aluminum, but the petition was withdrawn and no
investigation was conducted or determination made.
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.58 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 United States 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 subject agreement. 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
57 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 May
2017.
58 Section 301 refers to sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420).

The Year in Trade 2016
56| www.usitc.gov
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.59 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.60 The time period for making these determinations
varies according to the type of practices alleged.
Section 301 Investigations
USTR received no petitions under section 301 during 2016 and had only one ongoing investigation
during the year, relating to European Union (EU) measures concerning meat and meat products.61 The
case 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 duties 62 of 100
percent on about $117 million in imports from the EU in retaliation.63
After a series of consultations aimed at resolving the dispute, on May 13, 2009, the United States and
the EU signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU).64 Under the MOU, the EU agreed to open 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
59 Section 301(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)).
60 Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411(b)).
61 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 175.
62 Ad valorem duties or tariffs are taxes that are levied as a fraction of the value of the imported goods.
63 64 Fed. Reg. 40638 (July 27, 1999); WTO, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat
Products (DS26, DS48) (accessed March 6, 2017).
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 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. For more background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 2-2 to 2-3.
70 Regulation (EU) No. 464/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149, June 8, 2012, 1.

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |57
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 the 301 statute that authorized USTR to reinstate any additional
duties that had been previously imposed under section 301 and then subsequently terminated. 73 The
2016 amendment provides that USTR may reinstate a 301 action following a written request from a
petitioner or any representative of the domestic industry. Following the receipt of such a request, USTR
must consult with the petitioner and representatives of the domestic industry and provide an
opportunity for public comments. In addition, USTR must review the effectiveness of the reimposition of
additional duties. This amendment would allow USTR to suspend concessions in the meat hormone
dispute with the EU.
On December 9, 2016, representatives of the U.S. beef industry filed a request with USTR asking that the
additional duties be reinstated.74 On December 28, 2016, USTR issued a public notice of the request and
announced a public hearing and an opportunity for public comment.75
Special 301
The Special 301 law76 requires that the USTR annually identify and issue a list of foreign countries that
deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), or deny fair and equitable
market access to U.S. persons who rely on IPR protection.77 Under the statute, a country denies
adequate and effective IPR protection if the country does not allow foreign persons “to secure, exercise,
and enforce rights related to patents, process patents, registered trademarks, copyrights and mask
works.”78
Under the statute, a country denies fair and equitable market access if it denies access to a market for a
product that is protected by a copyright or related right, patent, trademark, mask work, trade secret, or
plant breeder’s right through the use of laws and practices that violate international agreements or that
71 USTR, “U.S. Trade Representative Froman, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack Announce,” 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).
75 81 Fed. Reg. 95724 (December 28, 2016). The public hearing was held on February 15–16, 2017, in Washington,
DC.
76 The Special 301 law is set forth in section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242).
77 “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)).
78 Section 182(d)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(2)). Section 901(a)(2) of the
Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (17 U.S.C. § 901(a)(2)) defines “mask work” as a “series of related images,
however fixed or encoded—(A) having or representing the predetermined, three-dimensional pattern of metallic,
insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip product; and (B)
in which series the relation of the images to one another is that each image has the pattern of the surface of one
form of the semiconductor chip product.”

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-20152016

The Year in Trade 2016
58| www.usitc.gov
constitute discriminatory nontariff trade barriers.79 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).80
In addition, the Special 301 law directs the USTR to identify and list so-called “priority foreign
countries.” 81 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.82 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.83 The identification of a country as a priority foreign
country triggers a section 301 investigation,84 unless the USTR determines that the investigation would
be detrimental to U.S. economic interests.85
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.86 The priority watch list identifies countries with
significant IPR problems that warrant close monitoring and bilateral consultation. If a country on the
priority watch list makes progress, it may be moved to the watch list or removed from 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.87 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 2016 Special 301 review, the USTR examined the adequacy and effectiveness of IPR protection in
73 countries.88 In conducting the review, the USTR focused on a wide range of issues and policy
objectives, including:
• The deterioration in IPR protection and enforcement in a number of trading partners;
• Reported inadequate trade secret protection in China, India, and elsewhere;

79 Section 182(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(3)).
80 Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(d)(4)).
81 Section 182(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(a)(2)).
82 Section 182(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)).
83 Ibid.
84 Section 182(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2242(f)(2)).
85 Section 302(b)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2)(B)).
86 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, Annex 1.
87 Section 610(b) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-125) (19 U.S.C. 2442(g)), as
amended).
88 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 1, 7, 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 45; USTR, “USTR Releases Special 301
Report,” April 27, 2016.

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |59
• Troubling “indigenous innovation” policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders in
markets abroad;
• Compulsory technology licensing and transfer;
• Online copyright piracy;
• Market access barriers that appear to impede access for U.S. entities that rely on IPR protection,
including the pharmaceutical and medical device industries;
• The unauthorized use of unlicensed software by foreign governments;
• Digital, Internet, and broadcast piracy;
• Counterfeiting, trademark counterfeiting, and trademark rights; and
• Geographical indications’ impact on trademark protection. 89
No country was identified as a priority foreign country in the 2016 Special 301 Report. The report
identified 11 countries on the priority watch list: Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia,
Kuwait, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela.90 In addition, the report identified 23 countries on the
watch list.91
In keeping China on the priority watch list, the report highlighted longstanding concerns relating to trade
secret theft, market access barriers for information and communications technology products, piracy
and counterfeiting online and in physical markets, and compulsory technology transfer and licensing
requirements.92 India remained on the priority watch list in 2016 due to a lack of measurable
improvement to its IPR regime.93
As part of the annual Special 301 process, USTR also issues a separate report on so-called notorious
markets. The report, entitled 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, was issued in December
2016. 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 highlights those
markets where the scale of this activity is such that it can cause significant harm to U.S. intellectual
property rights holders.94 The 2016 report listed over 20 online markets and over 20 physical markets in
10 countries, including markets in China and India that reportedly engage in or facilitate commercial-
scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.
89 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016; USTR, “USTR Releases Special 301 Report,” April 27, 2016.
90 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 3.
91 The countries on the 2016 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, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 3.
92 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 29–36.
93 Ibid., 38–45. For more information on IPR in China and India, see chapter 6.
94 USTR, 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 2016, 1.

The Year in Trade 2016
60| www.usitc.gov
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.95 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 a special 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. 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.96 Generally, normal value is
the price the foreign firm charges for a comparable product sold in its home market. 97 Under certain
circumstances, the foreign firm’s U.S. sales price may also be compared with the price the foreign firm
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.”98 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).99 A nonmarket economy country
means 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.100
In all three instances, 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.101
This rate of duty (in addition to any ordinary customs duty owed) will be applied to subsequent imports

95 19 U.S.C. § 1673 et seq.
96 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) (defining export price), § 1677a(b) (defining constructed
export price).
97 19 U.S.C. § 1677b.
98 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(4), § 1677b(e).
99 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c).
100 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A).
101 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(B); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c).

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |61
from the specified producers/exporters in the subject country, but it may be adjusted if the USDOC
receives a request for an annual review.102
The Commission instituted 36 new antidumping investigations, and made 35 preliminary determinations
and 41 final determinations in 2016.103 As a result of affirmative final USDOC and Commission
determinations, in 2016, the USDOC issued 32 antidumping duty orders on 8 products from 16 countries
(table 2.1). The status of all antidumping investigations active at the Commission during 2016—
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)104 in effect
as of the end of 2016 appears in appendix table A.11.
102 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a).
103 Data reported here and in the following two sections (“Countervailing Duty Investigations” and “Reviews of
Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders/Suspension Agreements”) reflect the total number of
investigations. In other Commission reports, these data are grouped by product because the same investigative
team and all of the parties participate in a single grouped proceeding, and the Commission generally produces one
report and issues one opinion containing its separate determinations for each investigation.
104 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.

The Year in Trade 2016
62| www.usitc.gov
Table 2.1 Antidumping duty orders that became effective during 2016 a
Trade partner Product
Range of dumping margins
(percent)
Australia Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 29.58
Australia Uncoated paper 138.87–222.46
Brazil Cold-rolled steel flat products 19.58–35.43
Brazil Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 33.14–34.28
Brazil Uncoated paper 22.37–41.39
Canada Polyethylene terephthalate resin 13.6
China Cold-rolled steel flat products 265.79
China Corrosion-resistant steel products 209.97
China Hydrofluorocarbon blends 101.82–216.37
China Polyethylene terephthalate resin 104.98–126.58
China Uncoated paper 84.05–149.00
India Cold-rolled steel flat products 7.6
India Corrosion-resistant steel products 3.05–4.44
India Polyethylene terephthalate resin 8.03–19.41
India Welded stainless pressure pipe 12.66
Indonesia Uncoated paper 2.10–17.46
Italy Corrosion-resistant steel products 12.63–92.12
Japan Cold-rolled steel flat products 71.35
Japan Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 4.99–7.51
Mexico Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 3.83–5.21
Netherlands Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 3.73
Oman Polyethylene terephthalate resin 7.62
Portugal Uncoated paper 7.8
South Korea Cold-rolled steel flat products 6.32–34.33
South Korea Corrosion-resistant steel products 8.75–47.80
South Korea Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 2.34–3.82
South Korea Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 4.61–9.49
Taiwan Corrosion-resistant steel products 3.77
Turkey Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 17.83–35.66
Turkey Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 4.15–6.77
U.K. Cold-rolled steel flat products 5.40–25.17
U.K. Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 33.06
Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.
a 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.
Countervailing Duty Investigations
The U.S. countervailing duty law is also set forth in Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. It
provides for the imposition of special additional duties to offset (“countervail”) foreign subsidies on
products imported into the United States.105 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.

105 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).

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |63
The Commission instituted 16 new countervailing duty investigations, and made 14 preliminary
determinations and 25 final determinations during 2016. USDOC issued 16 countervailing duty orders on
7 products from 7 countries in 2016 as a result of affirmative USDOC and Commission determinations
(table 2.2). The status of all countervailing duty investigations active at the Commission during 2016,
and, if applicable, the date of final action, is presented in appendix table A.12. A list of all countervailing
duty orders and suspension agreements106 in effect at the end of 2016 appears in appendix table A.13.
Table 2.2 Countervailing duty orders that became effective during 2016a
Trade partner Product
Range of countervailable subsidy rates
(percent)
Brazil Cold-rolled steel flat products 11.09–11.31
Brazil Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 11.09–11.30
China Cold-rolled steel flat products 254.44
China Corrosion-resistant steel products 39.05–241.07
China Polyethylene terephthalate resin 7.53–47.56
China Uncoated paper 7.23–176.75
India Cold-rolled steel flat products 10
India Corrosion-resistant steel products 8.00–29.49
India Polyethylene terephthalate resin 5.12–153.80
India Welded stainless pressure pipe 3.13–6.22
Indonesia Uncoated paper 21.21–109.14
Italy Corrosion-resistant steel products 0.07–38.51
South Korea Cold-rolled steel flat products 3.89–59.72
South Korea Corrosion-resistant steel products 0.72–1.19
South Korea Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 3.89–58.68
Turkey Heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 9.87–15.08
Source: Compiled by USITC from Federal Register notices.
a 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.107 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.108 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.109 On the basis of either the USDOC’s or the Commission’s
106 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.
107 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a).
108 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b).
109 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b)(3).

The Year in Trade 2016
64| www.usitc.gov
review, the USDOC may revoke an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order in whole or in part, or
may either terminate or resume a suspended investigation. No changed-circumstances investigations
were conducted by the Commission during 2016.
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 to material injury.110 If either the USDOC or the
Commission reach negative determinations, the order will be revoked or the suspension agreement
terminated. During 2016, the USDOC and the Commission instituted 53 sunset reviews of existing
antidumping and countervailing duty orders or suspended investigations,111 and the Commission
completed 53 reviews. As a result of affirmative determinations by the USDOC and the Commission, 47
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 2016.112
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.113
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India. On December 8, 2014, the WTO Appellate Body
issued its report on the dispute entitled United States—Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (DS436), and on December 19, 2014, the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB) adopted that report. At the request of USTR, on September 23, 2015, USDOC commenced
section 129 proceedings to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in DS436114 and on
November 6, 2015, the Commission instituted a section 129 proceeding to issue a consistency
determination under section 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act that would render the
Commission’s countervailing duty determination regarding subject imports from India in investigation
number 701-TA-405 not inconsistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.115
110 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c).
111 Four of these instituted reviews (granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy, ammonium nitrate from
Russia, solid urea from Russia, and solid urea from Ukraine) were subsequently terminated and the outstanding
antidumping duty order revoked because a domestic industry did not request that it be continued. The other
revoked antidumping duty orders were stainless steel wire rod from Italy and stainless steel wire rod from Spain.
112 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/.
113 19 U.S.C. § 3538; see also Statement of Administrative Action submitted to the Congress in connection with the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 353.
114 80 Fed. Reg. 57336 (September 23, 2015).
115 80 Fed. Reg. 75132 (December 1, 2015).

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/gsp-program-inf

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |65
On March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a section 129 Consistency Determination rendering its
findings with respect to injury in the underlying countervailing duty proceeding on hot-rolled steel from
India consistent with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in DS436.116 On April 14, 2016, USDOC
issued a section 129 compliance determination with respect to subsidization and the calculation of
countervailing duty rates consistent with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in DS436.117
Certain Products from China. On December 18, 2014, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report on
another dispute entitled United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China
(DS437), and on January 16, 2015, the WTO DSB adopted that report. At the request of USTR, on April
27, 2015, USDOC commenced section 129 proceedings to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and
rulings in DS437.118 On March 31, 2016, April 26, 2016, and May 19, 2016, USDOC issued its final section
129 determinations to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in DS437.119
Warmwater Shrimp from Viet Nam. On November 17, 2014, the WTO dispute settlement panel issued
its report on the dispute entitled United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS429). At the request of USTR, on May 20, 2016, USDOC commenced section
129 proceedings to implement certain findings of the WTO dispute settlement panel in DS429.120 On July
18, 2016, USDOC issued its final section 129 determination to implement certain findings in the DS429
panel report.121
Section 337 Investigations
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,122 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.123 Similar requirements govern investigations
involving infringement of registered trademarks, registered 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
116 USITC, Hot-Rolled Steel Products from India, March 2016.
117 81 Fed. Reg. 27412 (May 6, 2016).
118 80 Fed. Reg. 23254 (April 27, 2015).
119 81 Fed. Reg. 37180 (June 9, 2016). DS437 involved 15 CVD investigations. Given the number of investigations
and the complexity of the issues involved, USDOC addressed the issues and conclusions of the panel and Appellate
Body in a series of final determinations.
120 81 Fed. Reg. 47756 (July 22, 2016).
121 Ibid.
122 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
123 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).

The Year in Trade 2016
66| www.usitc.gov
restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States.124 The Commission may institute an
investigation on the basis of a complaint or on its own initiative.125
If the Commission determines that a violation exists, it can issue an exclusion order directing U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to block the subject imports from entry into the United States, and it can
hand down 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 USTR 126 within 60
days of issuance.127
During calendar year 2016, there were 122 active section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings,
80 of which were instituted that year. Of these 80 new proceedings, 54 were new section 337
investigations and 26 were new ancillary (secondary) proceedings relating to previously concluded
investigations. In 46 of the new section 337 investigations instituted in 2016, patent infringement was
the only type of unfair act alleged. Of the remaining 8 investigations, 2 involved allegations of patent
infringement and trademark infringement; 2 involved allegations of trademark infringement; 1 involved
allegations of patent infringement, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trade dress
infringement; 1 involved allegations of false advertising and unfair competition; 1 involved allegations of
trademark infringement and dilution; and 1 involved allegations of price-fixing, trade secret
misappropriation, and false designation of origin.
The Commission completed a total of 66 investigations and ancillary proceedings under section 337 in
2016, including 1 remand proceeding, 1 remand enforcement proceeding, 1 modification proceeding, 2
advisory opinion proceedings, 1 bond forfeiture proceeding, 1 sanctions proceeding, and 12 rescission
(cancellation) proceedings. In addition, 3 general exclusion orders, 9 limited exclusion orders, and 11
cease and desist orders were issued during 2016. The Commission terminated 31 investigations without
determining whether there had been a violation. Twenty-three of these investigations were terminated
on the basis of settlement agreements and/or consent orders. Commission activities involving section
337 proceedings in 2016 are presented in appendix table A.15.
The section 337 investigations active in 2016 continued to involve a broad spectrum of products. As in
prior years, technology products were the single largest category, with approximately 30 percent of the
active proceedings involving computer and telecommunications equipment and another 7 percent
involving consumer electronics. In addition, small consumer items, including lip balm, resealable plastic
bags, coffee pods, and mobile device holders, were at issue in approximately 14 percent of the active
proceedings; automotive, transportation, and manufacturing products were at issue in about 11 percent
124 Other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts have included common-law trademark infringement, trade
dress infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising, and false designation of origin. (“Trade dress,” in general
terms, is a product’s total appearance and image, including features such as size, texture, shape, color or color
combinations, and graphics.) Unfair practices that involve the importation of dumped or subsidized merchandise
must be pursued under antidumping or countervailing duty provisions, not under section 337.
125 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1).
126 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).
127 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.

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |67
of the active proceedings; and pharmaceuticals and medical devices were also at issue in about 11
percent of the proceedings. The remaining 27 percent of active proceedings involved a wide variety of
other types of articles, including air mattresses, hospital beds, quartz slabs, bathtub assemblies, hand
dryers, aerogel insulation, athletic footwear, and coatings for optical fibers.
At the close of 2016, 56 section 337 investigations and related proceedings were pending at the
Commission. As of December 31, 2016, there were 101 exclusion orders based on violations of section
337 in effect. Appendix table A.16 lists the investigations in which these exclusion orders were issued.
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.
Trade Adjustment Assistance
The United States provides trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to aid U.S. workers and firms adversely
affected by import competition.128 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,
2021.129 The main TAA programs in effect in fiscal year (FY) 2016 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 2015.130 However, the U.S.
Congress did not appropriate funding for new participants in this program for FY 2016. As a result, USDA
did not accept any new petitions or applications for benefits in FY 2016.131
Selected developments in the TAA programs for workers and firms during FY 2016 are summarized
below.132
Assistance for Workers
The TAA for Workers program gives 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, assistance with healthcare premium costs, trade readjustment allowances,
reemployment trade adjustment assistance, and employment and case management services.133

128 TAA was first established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-793) and subsequently expanded and
reauthorized numerous times. In 2011, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 (Pub. L.
112-40), which was signed into law on October 21, 2011, extended most TAA provisions through December 31,
2013. CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role, August 5, 2013, 14–16. On January 1, 2014, the 2011
Amendments to the Trade Act expired and the TAA program began operating under the sunset provisions, referred
to as “Reversion 2014.” The TAA program was operated under sunset provisions throughout calendar year 2014.
USDOL, “TAA Program Benefits and Services under the 2015 Amendments” (accessed March 1, 2017).
129 Pub. L. 114-27, sect. 403.
130 The TPEA of 2015 reauthorized the TAA for Farmers Program for fiscal years 2015 through 2021.
131 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 183.
132 FY 2016 ran from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016.
133 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

https://pubapps2.usitc.gov/337external

The Year in Trade 2016
68| www.usitc.gov
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/.
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.134
(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.135
TAARA 2015, which was in effect throughout FY 2016, has the same worker group eligibility provisions
and program benefits and services as the 2011 program.136 The differences between the TAARA 2015
program and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) 2011 program are in the funding
level for “training and other activities,” and in performance and reporting requirements.137 The cap on
training funds (funds given to states to pay for TAA training and other activities) was reduced from $575
million in the TAAEA 2011 program to $450 million in the TAARA 2015 program.138
In FY 2016, $626.8 million was allocated to state governments to fund the TAA for Workers program.
This funding included $391.5 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; $209.4 million for trade readjustment allowance benefits; and $26.0 million for
reemployment trade adjustment assistance benefits.139
Groups of workers submitted 1,453 petitions for TAA in FY 2016, up 35.4 percent from the 1,073
petitions filed in FY 2015 (table 2.3).140 The increase was likely due to the fact that certain service sector
workers, and worker groups whose jobs are adversely affected by trade from countries that are not
parties to FTAs with the United States (such as China and India), became eligible for TAA under the
TAARA 2015 program, and therefore filed their applications in FY 2016. The USDOL certified 1,192
petitions covering 126,844 workers as eligible for TAA, and denied 569 petitions covering 60,871
workers.141 The largest number of petitions certified in FY 2016 was in the Midwest census region,
employment at a lower wage. USDOL, “TAA Program Benefits and Services under the 2015 Amendments”
(accessed March 1, 2017).
134 See 19 U.S.C. § 2272.
135 Ibid.
136 The Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) 2011 was in effect before the current 2015 program,
except for a short period when it expired and “Reversion 2014” was in effect. For major differences between the
TAARA 2015 program and the Reversion 2014 program, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, 74–75.
137 USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program—Fiscal Year 2015, 9 (accessed March 15, 2017).
138 Ibid.
139 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 182.
140 In ETA’s TAA for Workers Program FY 2015 report, the number of petitions submitted in FY 2015 was 1,024.
USDOL, ETA, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program–Fiscal Year 2015, 14. 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 2015 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 2015 increased to 1,073 petitions overall, which is the adjusted number.
USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, March 15, 2017.
141 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

https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |69
followed by the South, the Northeast, and the West. 142 By state, California had the most workers
certified (11,455 workers), followed by Pennsylvania (10,667 workers), Texas (9,908 workers), Illinois
(7,266 workers), and Indiana (6,981 workers).
Table 2.3 TAA certifications, by region, FY 2016
Census region No. of petitions certified No. of workers covered
Midwest 342 38,923
South 311 35,567
Northeast 269 23,015
West 266 28,887
Other 4 452
Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, February 28, 2017.
The majority (56.5 percent, 673 petitions) of the TAA petitions certified during FY 2016 were in the
manufacturing sector, covering 83,664 workers, followed by the professional, scientific, and technical
services sector (12.3 percent, 147 petitions) and the information sector (6.5 percent, 77 petitions)
(figure 2.1). The share of TAA petitions certified during FY 2016 for the professional, scientific, and
technical services, as well as for the information sector, are both higher than those during FY 2015,
which is likely due to the fact that the TAARA 2015 program reinstated the eligibility of service sector
workers to apply for TAA benefits.
Figure 2.1 Share of TAA petitions certified by industry sector in FY 2016
Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, February 28, 2017.
Note: “Other” includes all industry sectors where less than 15 petitions were certified in FY 2016. Underlying data can be found in appendix
table B.9.
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 2015, 14 (accessed March 15, 2017).
142 The regional classification is based on definitions from the U.S. Census Bureau. See U.S. Census website,
http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv (accessed March 15, 2017).
Manufacturing 57%
Professional, scientific, and
technical services 12%
Information 7%
Finance and insurance 6%
Administrative support and
waste management and
remediation services 5%
Wholesale trade 4%
Transportation and warehousing 3%
Retail trade 1% Other 5%

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-20152016

The Year in Trade 2016
70| www.usitc.gov
Assistance for Firms
The TAA for Firms program provides technical assistance to help U.S. firms experiencing a decline in
sales and employment to become more competitive in the global marketplace.143 The program provides
cost-sharing technical assistance to help eligible businesses create and implement targeted business
recovery plans called Adjustment Proposals. The program pays up to 75 percent of the costs of
developing the recovery plans, and firms also contribute a share of the cost of creating and
implementing their recovery plans.144 TAARA 2015 authorizes this program through FY 2021.145 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.146 The program supports
a nationwide network of 11 nonprofit or university-affiliated Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers to
help U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms.147 Firms work with these centers in a public-
private framework to apply for certification of eligibility for assistance from the TAA for Firms program,
and to prepare and carry out strategies to guide their economic recovery.148 In particular, technical
assistance in the form of matching funds is provided through the centers to help U.S. firms develop
recovery strategies.149 Matching funds can be applied toward the cost of hiring third-party consultants
to help firms and toward the cost of developing and carrying out adjustment proposals to improve a
firm’s market position and competitiveness.150 Firms generally have up to five years to implement an
approved adjustment proposal.151
In FY 2016, the TAA for Firms program budget authorization from Congress was $16 million, while FY
2016 actual funding appropriated for the program was $13 million.152 During FY 2016, EDA certified 67
143 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 183.
144 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,” n.d. (accessed March 2, 2017).
145 Pub. L. 114-27, sect. 403. If Congress does not reauthorize the TAA for Firms program, on July 1, 2021, the
program will revert to the more limited program as in 2011, under which services firms will no longer be eligible
for the program. The entire program will expire on June 30, 2022. CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,
September 1, 2016, 3.
146 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 183.
147 USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, n.d.
(accessed March 13, 2017).
148 Ibid.
149 USDOC, EDA, “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,” n.d. (accessed March 13, 2017).
150 Ibid.
151 Ibid.
152 CRS, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, September 1, 2016, 4. In March 16, a bipartisan group of 40
members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee leadership
supporting “at least sustained funding for the [TAA for Firms] program in FY 2017.” CRS, Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms, September 1, 2016, 4.

http://www.taacenters.org/

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |71
petitions for eligibility and approved 78 adjustment proposals.153 The numbers are both lower than in FY
2015, when EDA certified 113 petitions and approved 120 adjustment proposals.154
Tariff Preference Programs
Three major U.S. programs that offer tariff preferences to developing countries were operative during
2016: the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP); the African Growth and Opportunity Act
(AGOA); and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), as amended by the Caribbean Basin
Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), the Haitian Hemisphere Opportunity through Partnership
Encouragement Acts of 2006 and of 2008 (the HOPE Acts), and the Haitian Economic Lift Program of
2010 (HELP Act).155 The value of U.S. imports for which eligibility was claimed under these trade
preference programs increased 6.5 percent from $27.7 billion in 2015 to $29.5 billion in 2016,
accounting for 1.3 percent of total U.S. imports in 2016.156
Generalized System of Preferences
The U.S. GSP program authorizes the President to grant duty-free access to the U.S. market for certain
products that are imported from designated developing countries and territories.157 Certain additional
products are allowed duty-free treatment only when imported from countries designated as least-
developed beneficiary developing countries (LDBDCs). Although the President’s authority to provide
duty-free treatment under the GSP program expired on July 31, 2013, President Obama signed into law
a bill on June 29, 2015, that reauthorized GSP retroactively to its date of expiration (July 31, 2013) and
extended coverage through December 31, 2017.158
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. 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. The GSP program also
allows U.S. companies access to products from beneficiary countries on generally the same terms that
are available to competitors in other developed countries that grant similar trade preferences.159
153 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 183.
154 Petitions are certified on a rolling basis throughout the year. USDOC, EDA, Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report to
Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, n.d., 5, 14 (accessed March 13, 2017).
155 This report does not analyze U.S. tariff preferences provided to goods entered into the customs territory of the
United States from U.S. insular possessions (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Johnston Atoll, Midway Islands, and Wake
Island) and to products of the Freely Associated States (the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,
and Palau). See USITC, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 2017, February 2017, gen. note 3a(iv) and
gen. note 10. U.S. insular possessions are defined in 19 C.F.R. § 7.2(a).
156 See tables 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7. If U.S. importers do not claim this status or some other special status, then
duties are charged on their goods using the rates found in the “general rates of duty” column of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).
157 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/trade-
development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/gsp-program-inf.
158 Pub. L. 114-27, Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. Retroactivity did not apply to those countries that
were not covered as of the date of renewal (Russia and Bangladesh).
159 USTR, 2015 Trade Policy Agenda and 2014 Annual Report, March 2015, 44.

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/gsp-program-inf

The Year in Trade 2016
72| www.usitc.gov
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 IPR or internationally recognized worker rights.160
Country practice allegations are usually brought to the attention of the interagency GSP subcommittee
by a petition process. Some beneficiary developing countries are also designated 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., footwear, textiles, and apparel) are designated by statute as “import-sensitive” and thus not
eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP program. The statute also provides that countries
“graduate” from the program when they become “high income,” as defined by the World Bank’s per
capita income tables.161 The statute also 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.162 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 ($175 million in 2016).163 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.164
The following developments with respect to the U.S. GSP program occurred in 2016:165
• Based on the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review process conducted under USTR’s direction, new
duty-free status under the GSP program was extended to 27 travel goods (including luggage,
backpacks, handbags, and wallets) for LDBDCs and AGOA countries. A decision to extend GSP
eligibility for these products for all GSP beneficiaries was deferred.
• Additional results of the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Review included denial of one petition to add a
product (effervescent wine) to GSP eligibility for all countries, and deferral of action on petitions

160 There were 11 active GSP country practice reviews in the GSP 2015/2016 annual review. See
https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-
20152016.
161 Venezuela, Uruguay, and Seychelles were determined to be “high income” countries and were graduated from
eligibility for GSP trade benefits effective January 1, 2017. Presidential Proclamation 9333 (September 30,
2015).
162 CNLs do not apply to LDBDCs or to developing countries that are beneficiaries of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act.
163 USTR, U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, September 2016, 12.
164 19 U.S.C. § 2463(d)(4)(B)(ii).
165 A complete list of actions taken in this review may be found at https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/preference-
programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-20152016.

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/current-reviews/gsp-20152016

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |73
involving two other products (essential oils of lemon and ferromanganese); granting of CNL
waivers for three products, each from a specific country as requested by petition (pitted dates
from Tunisia, single-cell micro-organisms from Brazil, and certain non-alcoholic beverages from
Thailand); and denial of one such petition (certain motor vehicle parts from India). Three
products were newly excluded for exceeding CNL thresholds (a fortified fruit juice product from
Philippines, certain iron/steel products, and certain motor vehicle parts, both from India);
brightening agents and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resins were removed from GSP for
India; de minimis CNL waivers were granted for 111 eligible products;166 and a decision was
made not to redesignate any 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.
• On November 13, 2016, Burma’s eligibility for GSP benefits was reinstated after the conclusion
of a review of its compliance with the eligibility criteria under the GSP statute. The United States
suspended Burma’s GSP benefits in 1989 due to worker rights concerns. Burma requested
reinstatement in 2013. The Office of the United States Trade Representative led an extensive
review of Burma’s compliance with all of the GSP eligibility criteria, and in particular of Burma’s
recent record of labor reforms and strengthened worker protections. Since the new
democratically elected government took office in March 2016, senior Burmese government
officials have engaged closely with the United States on labor issues to demonstrate Burma’s
eligibility under the GSP criteria. Designation of eligibility for GSP acknowledges the progress
made to date by Burma and encourages additional progress, which the United States will
continue to monitor closely, in order to address the labor concerns and challenges that
remain. 167
U.S. imports under GSP preferences increased 5.6 percent ($990.4 million) from $17.7 billion in 2015 to
$18.7 billion in 2016, which accounted for 9.3 percent of total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary
countries and 0.9 percent of total U.S. imports (tables 2.4 and A.2). India was the leading source of
imports entered under the GSP program in 2016, followed by Thailand and Brazil, continuing a pattern
established in 2011 (appendix table A.17). These three countries together accounted for 57.7 percent of
all U.S. imports under GSP, while the top five countries (including Indonesia and the Philippines)
accounted for 75.0 percent of GSP imports. All five countries saw an increase in the value of their 2016
GSP imports over the previous year.
In 2016, the chemicals sector accounted for the largest increase in imports claiming eligibility under GSP
(up $422.0 million), making it the top import sector. The minerals and metals sector ranked second in
2016, declining $192.6 million from 2015, when it was the top sector. Agricultural products made up the
third-largest sector and also saw imports claiming eligibility increase $241.5 million over 2015. Energy-
related products accounted for less than 1 percent of GSP eligible claims in 2015 and 2016, down from
4.5 percent in 2014. Crude petroleum, formerly the top U.S. import under GSP, dropped from
substantial levels in previous years to zero in 2015 and 2016.168
166 As defined by the GSP statute, a waiver may be provided when total U.S. imports from all countries of a product
are “de minimis.” Like the dollar-value CNLs, the de minimis level is adjusted each year, in increments of $500,000.
The de minimis level in 2016 was $23 million.
167 USTR, “United States Reinstates Trade Preference Benefits for Burma,” September 14, 2016.
168 Such imports are eligible for GSP benefits only when received from LDBDCs, and historically these imports have
been primarily from countries that were also AGOA beneficiaries. Thus, U.S. imports of crude petroleum could

The Year in Trade 2016
74| www.usitc.gov
Table 2.4 U.S. imports for consumption from GSP beneficiaries, 2014–16
Item 2014 2015 2016
Total imports from GSP beneficiaries (million $) 261,123 206,579 201,705
Total imports under GSP (million $) 18,799 17,694 18,684
Imports under LDBDC provisions (million $)a 871 25 55
Imports under non-LDBDC provisions (million $)b 17,929 17,669 18,629
Imports under GSP (as share of all imports from GSP countries) 7.2 8.6 9.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed March 25, 2017).
Note: LDBDC = least-developed beneficiary developing country. The President’s authority to provide duty-free treatment under the GSP
program expired on July 31, 2013, but was renewed retroactively effective July 29, 2015.
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.
On a product basis, gold jewelry was the top GSP import in 2016, sourced primarily from Turkey,
Indonesia, South Africa, Bolivia, and Pakistan. These countries accounted for 84.6 percent of U.S.
imports of gold jewelry under GSP. The second-largest GSP import was certain nonalcoholic beverages
(with over 90 percent of imports sourced from Thailand, the Philippines, and Brazil), followed by
ferrochromium (primarily from South Africa and Turkey), parts of air conditioning machines (primarily
from Thailand), and rubber gloves (primarily from Thailand and Indonesia). Among the top 25 U.S.
imports under GSP, almost all increased in 2016. These included gold jewelry (up $216 million, or 64.1
percent, from 2015 levels, with Turkey accounting for the majority of the increase), compression-
ignition internal combustion piston engines for vehicles other than rail and trams (up $117 million, or
358.5 percent, with Thailand primarily responsible for the increase), and polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) in primary forms (up $100 million, or 112.8 percent, with Brazil responsible for the increase).
Appendix tables A.18 and A.19 show the overall sectoral distribution of GSP benefits, and appendix table
A.20 shows the top 25 products imported under the GSP in 2016.
African Growth and Opportunity Act
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA or Act) was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2000 to
promote stable and sustainable economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In a
statement of policy in the Act, Congress expressed support for, among other things, “encouraging
increased trade and investment between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa,” “reducing tariff and
nontariff barriers and other obstacles to sub-Saharan African and United States trade,” and “expanding
United States assistance to sub-Saharan Africa’s regional integration efforts.”169 By providing unilateral
preferential trade benefits to eligible beneficiary SSA countries, AGOA aims to promote political and
economic reform in SSA, encourage regional economic integration, strengthen private sectors, and
enhance commercial and political ties between the United States and SSA, as well as facilitate the
development of civil society, rule of law, and political freedom in SSA countries. 170 On June 29, 2015,
have been switched to entering under AGOA rather than GSP. For more information on the trend in U.S. petroleum
imports in 2016, see chapter 1.
169 Trade and Development Act of 2000, 19 U.S.C. § 3701, Title I, sec. 103 (Pub. L. 106-200), 19 U.S.C. § 3702;
USDOC, ITA, “Trade and Development Act of 2000,” n.d. (accessed March 21, 2017).
170 Ibid.

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |75
President Obama signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA), which extended
AGOA for 10 years through September 30, 2025.171
AGOA expands on the U.S. GSP program by offering duty-free access to the U.S. market for all GSP-
eligible products172 and for qualifying tariff line-item products from designated SSA countries beyond
those eligible under the GSP program.173 In addition, AGOA authorizes duty-free treatment for certain
textile and apparel articles made in qualifying beneficiary SSA countries.174 In 2016, approximately 5,098
tariff lines were designated as covering products eligible for duty-free treatment under AGOA.175
AGOA authorizes the President to designate an SSA country as an AGOA beneficiary country if the
President determines the country meets the eligibility requirements set forth in section 104(a) of the
Act.176 The Act also requires the President to review annually whether SSA countries are, or remain,
eligible for AGOA benefits based on the eligibility criteria.177 Moreover, compared to the Act, the 2015
TPEA offers additional tools for the President to use to promote compliance with AGOA eligibility
criteria. One of the most notable changes is that TPEA expands the annual review process and
authorizes the President to initiate an “out-of-cycle review” process at any time concerning an SSA
country’s AGOA eligibility.178
In 2016, 38 SSA countries out of a total 48 SSA countries were eligible for AGOA benefits.179 Of these
countries, 28 were eligible for AGOA textile and apparel benefits for all or part of 2016.180 Of the
countries in the latter group, all but one (South Africa) were also eligible for additional textile and
apparel benefits for lesser-developed beneficiary countries (LDBCs) for all or part of 2016.181 Notable
171 Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 19 U.S.C. § 3721(g), sec. 103; U.S. Government Publishing Office,
“Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,” n.d. (accessed March 21, 2017).
172 The eligibility criteria for GSP and AGOA designation substantially overlap, and countries must be GSP eligible in
order to receive AGOA’s trade benefits. Although GSP eligibility does not imply AGOA eligibility, 47 of the 48 SSA
countries are currently GSP eligible. USDOC, ITA, “AGOA: General Country Eligibility Provisions,” n.d. (accessed
March 21, 2017). Countries are designated separately for the two programs (see HTS, general notes 4 and 16).
173 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
174 This benefit is also extended through September 30, 2025, by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.
175 In 2017, approximately 5,241 tariff lines were designated as covering products eligible for duty-free treatment
under AGOA. This number, however, only includes tariff lines that (1) are not MFN [or Normal Trade Relations
(NTR)/] duty free; (2) that are marked “D”; and (3) are in chapters 01–97 in the HTS. AGOA beneficiaries receive
additional eligibility on tariff lines in chapters 61 and 62 (apparel) if they meet the rule of origin requirements. The
rule of origin places additional requirements on the fabric and upstream materials used. Those tariff lines are not
marked “D” in the HTS.
176 19 U.S.C. § 3703(a). 19 U.S.C. § 3706 lists a total of 49 SSA countries, or their successor political entities, as
potential AGOA beneficiaries. Thirty-one of these are LDBDCs under the GSP. See general note 4(b) to the HTS.
177 19 U.S.C. § 2466a(a)(2).
178 See section 105(c) of Pub. L. 114-27, Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 506A of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2466a). For more information about TPEA, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, 2016,
82.
179 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
180 Twenty-eight countries were listed in the HTS as eligible to receive AGOA apparel benefits as of January 1, 2016.
They included Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. USITC, HTS 2016, January 2016,
chapter 98, subchapter XIX, U.S. note 1.
181 USDOC, ITA, “AGOA Preferences: Country Eligibility,” December 20, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
76| www.usitc.gov
among these extra benefits is the third-country fabric provision for LDBCs, which allows beneficiary
countries to use non-U.S., non-AGOA fabrics in apparel exports under AGOA. 182
In 2015, the President terminated the designation of Burundi as an AGOA beneficiary, effective January
1, 2016, due primarily to concerns related to human rights, governance, and rule of law.183 In addition,
the annual review conducted in 2016 resulted in the reinstatement of the Central African Republic’s
AGOA eligibility, effective January 1, 2017, as a result of steps the government of that country has taken
to address rule of law issues.184 Finally, Seychelles was graduated from eligibility for AGOA (as well as
GSP) benefits effective January 1, 2017, because it was determined to be a “high-income” country.185
In July 2015, an out-of-cycle review of South Africa’s AGOA eligibility was initiated.186 On November 5,
2015, the President determined that South Africa had not made continual progress toward the
elimination of several longstanding barriers to U.S. trade and investment, including barriers to U.S.
poultry, pork, and beef exports to South Africa.187 On January 11, 2016, the President issued a
proclamation announcing that the United States would suspend the application of duty-free treatment
for all AGOA-eligible goods in the agricultural sector from South Africa.188 The effective date for the
suspension was set at March 15, 2016, to allow South Africa time to implement actions to resolve the
outstanding barriers to U.S. trade.189 South Africa subsequently came into compliance with the relevant
AGOA criteria, leading to a revocation on March 14, 2016, of the earlier proclamation.190
In 2016, the value of U.S. imports that entered free of duty from beneficiary countries under AGOA
(including GSP) was $10.6 billion, a 14.1 percent increase from 2015. These imports accounted for 52.7
percent of total imports from AGOA countries in 2016. In 2016, imports entering the United States
exclusively under AGOA (excluding GSP) were valued at $9.4 billion, accounting for 46.9 percent of U.S.
imports from AGOA countries (table 2.5).
Table 2.5 U.S. imports for consumption from AGOA beneficiaries, 2014–16
Item 2014 2015 2016
Total imports from AGOA countries (million $) 25,487 19,131 20,060
Imports under AGOA, including GSP (million $)a 14,245 9,267 10,577
Imports under AGOA, excluding GSP (million $) 11,874 7,984 9,404
Imports under AGOA (as a share of all imports from AGOA countries) 55.9 48.4 52.7
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed March 25, 2017)
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” or “A+.”
182 USITC, HTS 2016, January 2016, chapter 98, subchapter XIX, U.S. note 2(a) through 2(e).
183 USTR, 2016 Trade Policy Agenda and 2015 Annual Report, March 2016, 193–94; Proclamation No. 9383
(December 21, 2015).
184 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
185 Proclamation No. 9333 (September 30, 2015). “High income” is defined based on the World Bank’s definition of
a “high-income” country in its per capita income tables. 19 U.S.C. § 2462(e).
186 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
187 Ibid.
188 Proclamation No. 9388 (January 14, 2016).
189 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
190 Ibid.; Proclamation No. 9406 (March 14, 2016).

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |77
The increase in U.S. imports under AGOA in 2016 compared to 2015 mainly reflected an increase in the
value and quantity of imports of crude petroleum.191 The value of U.S. crude petroleum imports under
AGOA increased 27.9 percent ($1.3 billion) from 2015 to 2016, and the quantity increased 67.2 percent
(57.3 million barrels) over the same period.192 The top two petroleum-producing countries in SSA,
Nigeria and Angola, both experienced significant increases in the value and quantity of their exports of
crude petroleum to the United States under AGOA (appendix tables A.21 and A.22).193
The major suppliers of duty-free U.S. imports under AGOA in 2016 were Nigeria (37.0 percent of total
AGOA imports), Angola (20.8 percent), South Africa (19.8 percent), Chad (8.2 percent), Kenya (4.1
percent), and Lesotho (3.1 percent). These six countries accounted for 93.1 percent of total imports by
value under AGOA, an increase of 3.3 percentage points from 2015, mainly driven by a rapid increase of
U.S. imports under AGOA from Nigeria (appendix table A.21).
Crude petroleum continued to be the leading import under AGOA. It accounted for 65.5 percent of the
total value of AGOA imports in 2016, a 5.2 percentage point increase from 60.3 percent in 2015. The
value of U.S. imports of crude petroleum under AGOA increased 27.9 percent, from $4.8 billion in 2015
to $6.2 billion in 2016 (appendix table A.22). The increase of almost 28 percent from 2015 to 2016 was
mainly due to the increase of U.S. imports of such products from Nigeria, and was driven primarily by (1)
a narrower price spread between the U.S. domestic crude petroleum price and the corresponding
international price, which makes foreign crude more competitive;194 (2) decreasing U.S. domestic
production;195 and (3) the similarities between the types of crude petroleum (sweet and light crude)
produced in Nigeria and the United States’ own crude petroleum produced from North Dakota’s Bakken
formation and Eagle Ford in Texas.196
Passenger motor vehicles and textile and apparel products were two other major U.S. imports under
AGOA. They accounted for 15.9 percent and 9.0 percent of the value of total AGOA imports in 2016,
respectively (appendix table A.22). U.S. passenger motor vehicle imports under AGOA came exclusively
from South Africa, and they increased in value from $1.3 billion in 2015 to $1.5 billion in 2016.
Section 105 of AGOA required the President to establish the U.S.-SSA 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.197 The 15th AGOA Forum was held in September
2016 in Washington, DC.198 Before the meeting, the Office of the USTR had issued a report entitled
191 Crude petroleum refers to products classified under HTS 2709.00.
192 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 6, 2017).
193 The quantity of U.S. imports under AGOA of crude petroleum increased from 85.3 million barrels in 2015 to
142.5 million barrels in 2016. Crude imports under AGOA from Nigeria increased from 20.2 million barrels in 2015
to 70.0 million barrels in 2016, and from Angola increased from 32.2 million barrels in 2015 to 47.9 million barrels
in 2016. USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 6, 2017).
194 For more information on the trends of crude petroleum prices, please refer to Chapter 1 of the report.
Meanwhile, though the value of total U.S. imports of crude petroleum from the world declined from 2015 to 2016,
the quantity of U.S. imports of crude petroleum from the world increased from 2.7 billion barrels in 2015 to 2.8
billion barrels in 2016.
195 EIA, “Despite Growth Late in the Year,” March 20, 2017.
196 Since light, sweet crude petroleum produced in Nigeria is the most similar to U.S. domestic production, imports
of this type of crude petroleum were the first to replace declines in U.S. domestic production, as the two are easily
substitutable with each other. Foreso, Yuan, and Yang, “Africa’s Crude Petroleum Exports Declined,” July 2015.
197 19 U.S.C. § 3704.
198 U.S. Department of State, “AGOA Forum 2016,” n.d. (accessed March 31, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
78| www.usitc.gov
“Beyond AGOA—Looking to the Future of U.S.-Africa Trade and Investment.” The report presented the
case for deepening the U.S.-Africa trade and investment relationship beyond AGOA.199 At the forum,
USTR Michael Froman and officials from other U.S. government agencies pursued these goals by
meeting with African trade ministers, leaders of African regional economic organizations, and
representatives of the American and African countries’ private sectors and civil society to discuss issues
and strategies for advancing trade, investment, and economic development in Africa, as well as ways to
increase two-way U.S.-African trade.200
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.201
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.202 The CBTPA also extended “NAFTA-
equivalent 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.203 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.204 In the section that follows, the term CBERA refers to CBERA as amended by the
CBTPA.
199 USTR, “Beyond AGOA—Looking to the Future of U.S.-Africa Trade and Investment,” September 2016; USTR,
2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187–88.
200 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 187.
201 For a more detailed description of CBERA, including country and product eligibility, see USITC, Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act, 22nd Report, September 2015.
202 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 now-
expired Multifibre Arrangement.
203 Normal trade relations (NTR) rates of duty, known as most-favored-nation rates outside the United States, are
accorded to countries having NTR status in the United States and are non-discriminatory between trading partners.
204 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.

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |79
At the end of 2016, 17 countries and dependent territories were designated eligible for CBERA
preferences205 and 8 of those countries were designated eligible for CBTPA preferences.206 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;207 and Sint
Maarten and Suriname, under both CBERA and CBTPA.208
In 2016, the value of U.S. imports under CBERA fell 43.2 percent, from $1.5 billion in 2015 to $876
million in 2016 (table 2.6). The top five imports under CBERA in 2016—methanol, T-shirts, crude
petroleum, sweaters, and polystyrene—comprised over 80 percent of imports under the program and
accounted for the vast majority of the total decline in 2016 (appendix table A.23). The largest decline in
the value of U.S. imports under CBERA was in methanol, which fell 60.4 percent ($393 million) because
both price and quantity declined 31.3 percent and 41.8 percent, respectively. Imports of crude
petroleum declined mostly because of a decline in the price. In addition, the decline in U.S. imports of
apparel products under CBERA, primarily from Haiti, can be attributed to a shift from such imports
entering under CBTPA provisions to entering under the HOPE Acts, the Hemisphere Opportunity through
Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (HOPE) and of 2008 (HOPE II Act).209
Table 2.6 U.S. imports for consumption from CBERA/CBTPA beneficiaries, 2014–16
Item 2014 2015 2016
Total imports from CBERA/CBTPA countries (million $) 8,496 7,061 5,342
Total imports under CBERA (million $) 1,973 1,542 876
Imports under CBTPA (million $)a 589 564 392
Imports under CBERA excluding CBTPA (million $)b 1,384 978 484
Imports under CBERA (as a share of all imports from CBERA countries) 23.2 21.8 16.4
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
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, 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.
The top five products accounted for most CBERA imports in 2016. However, a large number of
agricultural products were also imported under CBERA, including yams, guavas, orange juice, papayas,
spices, 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 2016.
Trinidad and Tobago continued to be the leading supplier of U.S. imports under CBERA in 2016,
accounting for 43.8 percent of the total value. Haiti and Jamaica were also leading suppliers, accounting
for 36.3 and 8.6 percent of the total, respectively (appendix table A.24).
205 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.
206 Barbados, Belize, Curaçao, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago.
207 77 Fed. Reg. 61816 (October 11, 2012).
208 Ibid. 75 Fed. Reg. 17198 (April 5, 2010). Until 2010, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were members of the now-
dissolved Netherlands Antilles.
209 For more information, see the section on Haiti initiatives later in this chapter.

The Year in Trade 2016
80| www.usitc.gov
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.210 The HOPE Act of
2006211 and of 2008 (HOPE II Act)212 (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.213 The HOPE Acts also provided additional trade
preferences to attract new jobs to Haiti while offering incentives to encourage the use of U.S. inputs.214
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 inputs) for Haiti
that were established under the CBTPA and HOPE Acts and extended them through September 30,
2020.215 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, 2025.216
The extension of trade preferences for Haiti under the HOPE Acts, Haiti’s inexpensive labor costs, and its
proximity to the United States have all motivated U.S. apparel firms to increase their sourcing of apparel
from Haiti in recent years.217 During 2011–15, U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti rose steadily, and such
imports were expected to surpass the billion dollar mark in 2016.218 Instead, however, U.S. imports of
apparel fell 5.2 percent, from $895.5 million in 2015 to $848.5 million in 2016 (table 2.7). This decline
reportedly reflected reduced demand for apparel from major U.S. retailers such as the Limited,
American Apparel, Macy’s, and the Gap, which experienced bankruptcies, store closures, or job losses in
2016.219
210 Apparel manufacturing continues to provide a leading source of exports and employment for Haiti’s economy—
accounting for 90 percent of Haiti’s total exports and 40,000 jobs in 2016. USDOS, WHA, “U.S. Relations with
Haiti,” March 23, 2017.
211 Pub. L. 109-432, sect. 5001 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement
Act of 2006. 19 U.S.C. sect. 2703a.
212 Pub. L. 110-234, sect. 15401 et seq., the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement
Act of 2008.
213 There were no U.S. imports of wire harness automotive components from Haiti during 2007–16.
214 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.
215 Pub. L. 111-171, sect. 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.
216 Pub. L. 114-27, sect. 301, Extension of Preferential Duty Treatment Program for Haiti.
217 Although the government of Haiti announced a 25 percent increase in Haiti’s minimum wage rates in June 2016,
a devaluation of the Haitian gourde in 2016 reportedly offset the rise in wages so that Haiti’s wages remained
competitive. U.S. and Haitian apparel industry representatives, email messages to USITC staff, January 18, 2017,
and March 6, 2017.
218 U.S. apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017; U.S. apparel industry
consultant, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017; Castano Freeman, “Bright Outlook for Haiti’s Apparel
Industry in 2016,” February 16, 2016.
219 U.S. apparel industry consultant, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017, and U.S. government
representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, March 7, 2017. Although Hurricane Matthew inflicted much
damage on Haiti in October 2016, it did not significantly impact or disrupt Haiti’s apparel production. U.S. apparel
industry consultant, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017; Castano Freeman, “Haiti Garment Exports Set to
Rise despite Hurricane,” October 13, 2016; Castano Freeman, “Hong Kong’s Winds Group to Open Haiti Factory.”

Chapter 2: Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
U.S. International Trade Commission |81
Table 2.7 U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti, 2014–16a
Item 2014 2015 2016
Total apparel imports from Haiti (million $) 854.3 895.5 848.5
Apparel imports under a trade preference program (million $) 850.5 892.5 842.9
CBERA/CBTPA (million $) 397.1 394.9 307.9
HOPE and HELP Acts (million $) 453.4 497.6 535.0
Share of total apparel imports from Haiti: (Percent)
Apparel imports under a trade preference program 99.6 99.7 99.3
CBERA/CBTPA 46.7 44.3 36.6
HOPE and HELP Acts 53.3 55.8 63.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce.
a 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 February 15 and March 9, 2017).
Haitian apparel production has been concentrated in high-volume, commodity cotton garments that
have relatively predictable consumer demand and few styling changes. In 2016, cotton knit shirts and
blouses, cotton trousers and pants, and cotton underwear continued to dominate U.S. imports of
apparel from Haiti, accounting for 42.0 percent, 12.8 percent, and 9.4 percent, respectively, of the total
value of U.S. apparel imports from Haiti.220 However, the total value and respective shares of U.S.
imports of these cotton products from Haiti fell from 2015 levels as the total value of U.S. imports of
manmade-fiber garments (largely knit shirts and blouses and trousers and slacks) from Haiti rose 25
percent in 2016 compared with 2015. As a result, the share of U.S. imports of manmade-fiber apparel of
total U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti also rose, growing from 26 percent in 2015 to 34 percent in
2016. The growth in U.S. imports of manmade-fiber apparel from Haiti reflects a general shift in demand
toward these manmade-fiber products by U.S. retailers and U.S. apparel customers, such as Under
Armour, Levi’s, the Gap, and Polo Ralph Lauren.221
The decline in U.S. apparel imports from Haiti in 2016 is not expected to continue. Although economic
difficulties prompted some major U.S. retailers and brands to reduce their apparel orders from Haiti in
2016, other U.S. apparel firms continued to increase their orders.222 Moreover, in 2016, investors from
Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Bangladesh introduced or began implementing plans to
expand apparel manufacturing in Haiti.223 In June 2016, MAS Holdings, a major Sri Lankan conglomerate
and intimate apparel manufacturer, announced the opening of a new plant in the Caracol Industrial
Park.224 In October 2016, Hong Kong athletic-wear supplier Winds Group stated it would open a new,
80,000 square-foot activewear factory in northwest Haiti to produce garments for U.S. apparel brands
and take advantage of the HOPE/HELP trade preferences. 225 The planned expansion of Haiti’s apparel
manufacturing by foreign investors is expected to add 5,000 new jobs in the next few years and
encourage additional investments in the future.226
220 Calculations were made from import data published by USDOC, OTEXA, “U.S. General Imports by Country:
Major Shippers Report” (accessed March 6, 2017).
221 U.S. apparel industry consultant, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017; Haitian apparel industry
representative, email message to USITC staff, February 15, 2017; and Castano Freeman, “Haiti Garment Exports Set
to Rise despite Hurricane,” October 13, 2016.
222 U.S. apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, January 19, 2017.
223 Haitian apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, February 15, 2017.
224 Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol, 2016 Year End Report, 6 (accessed March 2, 2017).
225 Castano Freeman, “Hong Kong’s Winds Group to Open Haiti Factory,” October 26, 2017.
226 Haitian apparel industry representative, email message to USITC staff, February 15, 2017, and U.S. apparel
industry consultant, email message to USITC staff, March 1, 2017.

The Year in Trade 2016
82| www.usitc.gov
Virtually all (99.3 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered duty free under trade
preference programs in 2016. 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 (1,887 jobs
were added in the Caracol Industrial Park alone in 2016).227
In 2016, Haiti accounted for nearly all (99.9 percent) of U.S. imports of apparel entering under the
CBTPA. Over a third (36.6 percent) of total U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti ($307.9 million) entered
under CBTPA provisions in 2016. This share was down, however, from previous years, 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 7.5 percent, from $497.6 million in 2015 to
$535.0 million in 2016, and represented almost two-thirds (63.5 percent) of total U.S. apparel imports
that entered free of duty from Haiti, up from 55.8 percent in 2015. Of the apparel imported from Haiti
under the HOPE Acts in 2016, $475.7 million, or 88.9 percent, entered under TPLs.228 Almost 30 percent
($140.4 million) of these U.S. imports of apparel from Haiti entered under the woven apparel TPL in
2016 and 70 percent ($335.2 million) entered under the knit apparel and value-added TPLs the same
year.229
Most of the remaining U.S. imports ($59.1 million) under the HOPE Acts in 2016 entered under the
Earned Import Allowance Program, a special trade program created under HOPE II in 2008 that allows
the duty-free entry into the United States of certain apparel manufactured in Haiti.230 In 2016, U.S.
imports of apparel from Haiti under the program rose 3.0 percent to $59.1 million, up from $57.4 million
in 2015. As in previous years, no U.S. imports of apparel entered under HTS 9820.61.45 in 2016, one of
the HELP provisions added in 2010 that allows for unlimited duty-free imports of certain knit apparel.
However, for the first time since 2010, when HTS 9820.63.05, a provision for home goods was also
added under HELP, a small amount ($5,000) of U.S. imports of home goods from Haiti entered under the
HELP Act in 2016.
227 The Caracol Industrial Park is a major manufacturing hub (primarily of apparel) in northern Haiti, established in
the years following Haiti’s devastating earthquake of 2010. Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol, 2016 Year End
Report, 6 (accessed March 2, 2017).
228 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.
229 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 45.3 percent, 30.9
percent, and 7.7 percent, respectively, for the preferential period October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. USDOC,
Office of Textiles and Apparel, Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership for Encouragement Act (Haiti
HOPE), Preferential Period October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016.
230 The Earned Import Allowance Program 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 program
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 exchange ratio from 3-for-1 to 2-for-1 in an effort to encourage the program’s use.

U.S. International Trade Commission |83
Chapter 3
The World Trade Organization
This chapter covers developments in 2016 in the World Trade Organization (WTO). These include work
programs and related items under the WTO General Council, as well as plurilateral agreements hosted
under the WTO’s auspices.231 The chapter also summarizes developments in major WTO dispute
settlement cases during the year.
WTO
During 2016, members of the WTO continued efforts to move forward with the multilateral trade
negotiations that started in 2001 under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), but made little progress.
A number of delegates suggested moving to subjects not directly covered under the DDA, such as
fisheries and fishery subsidies.232 In his informal consultations with delegates during the year, the WTO
Director-General Roberto Azevêdo, chairman of the DDA Trade Negotiating Committee, found that
certain issues seemed to be gaining members’ attention. These included agricultural topics such as
programs to hold food security stocks (“public stockholding”) and domestic support measures, as well as
domestic regulation of services. During these consultations, the Director-General also found other
subjects attracting members’ interest, including small and medium-sized enterprises, electronic
commerce, and services trade facilitation.233
General Council
The WTO General Council held five meetings in 2016. 234 At the yearend council meeting on December 7,
2016, members agreed that the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference would be held in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, December 11–14, 2017.235
231 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.
232 WTO, “Ministerial Conferences––Ministers Support Call for Increased Efforts to Find Possible Areas of
Agreement for MC11,” June 2, 2016; Inside U.S. Trade, “WTO Members Stalled over Future Negotiations,” May 20,
2016.
233 WTO, GC, “Minutes of the Meeting––Held in the Centre William Rappard on 3 October 2016: Annex 2––The
Director-General’s Report at the Informal Heads of Delegation Meeting Held on 30 September 2016,” November
10, 2016; WTO, General Council, “Agenda Items 2––Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations
Committee—Monday, 27 February 2017––Director-General’s Report at the Informal Heads of Delegation Meeting
on 23 February 2017,” March 1, 2017, 2–4.
234 February 24, May 12, July 27, October 3, and December 7, 2016.
235 WTO, “Ministerial Conferences––Dates Fixed for 2017 Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires,” December 8,
2016. In addition, WTO members agreed on February 28, 2017, to appoint the current Director-General, Roberto
Azevêdo, to a second term of four years, to begin on September 1, 2017. WTO, “Roberto Azevêdo Reappointed
WTO Director-General,” February 28, 2017.

The Year in Trade 2016
84| www.usitc.gov
Work Programs, Decisions, Waivers, and Reviews
In 2016, the General Council continued discussions on items under the DDA Work Program regarding
small economies, least-developed developing countries, the development assistance aspects of cotton,
and electronic commerce. During the year, the General Council adopted decisions on nomenclature
changes in WTO tariff schedules for the 2002, 2007, and 2012 versions of the global Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System (HS). The Council also reviewed waivers agreed on
previously, including the U.S. waivers related to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA)
and trade preferences for the Pacific Islands and Nepal.236
Accessions
WTO membership rose to 164 members in 2016: Liberia joined on July 14, 2016, and Afghanistan joined
on July 29, 2016 (table 3.1). Another 21 countries were in various stages of applying for membership in
2016.237 There were 22 country observers to the WTO at yearend 2016 (table 3.2).238 In addition, the
following 8 international organizations attend WTO General Council meetings as observers: the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, International Trade
Centre, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, World Bank, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
236 WTO, GC, World Trade Organization Annual Report 2016, December 21, 2016; USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda
and 2016 Annual Report, March 1, 2017, 14.
237 WTO, “Accessions: DG Azevêdo Welcomes Liberia as 163rd WTO Member,” July 14, 2016; WTO, “Accessions:
DG Azevêdo Welcomes Afghanistan as 164th WTO Member,” July 29, 2016.
238 Countries negotiating membership are WTO “observers” with the exception of the Holy See (the Vatican).

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |85
Table 3.1 WTO members in 2016
Country
Afghanistan Costa Rica Iceland Montenegro Slovakia
Albania Côte d’Ivoire India Morocco Slovenia
Angola Croatia Indonesia Mozambique Solomon Islands
Antigua and Barbuda Cuba Ireland Namibia South Africa
Argentina Cyprus Israel Nepal South Korea
Armenia Czech Republic Italy Netherlands Spain
Australia Denmark Jamaica New Zealand Sri Lanka
Austria Djibouti Japan Nicaragua Suriname
Bahrain Dominica Jordan Niger Swaziland
Bangladesh Dominican Republic Kazakhstan Nigeria Sweden
Barbados Ecuador Kenya Norway Switzerland
Belgium Egypt Kuwait Oman Taiwanc
Belize El Salvador Kyrgyzstan Pakistan Tajikistan
Benin Estonia Laos Panama Tanzania
Bolivia European Union Latvia Papua New Guinea Thailand
Botswana Fiji Lesotho Paraguay Togo
Brazil Finland Liberia Peru Tonga
Brunei Darussalam France Liechtenstein Philippines Trinidad and Tobago
Bulgaria Gabon Lithuania Poland Tunisia
Burkina Faso Gambia Luxembourg Portugal Turkey
Burmaa Georgia Macau, China Qatar Uganda
Burundi Germany Macedonia (FYROM)b Romania Ukraine
Cabo Verde Ghana Madagascar Russia United Arab Emirates
Cambodia Greece Malawi Rwanda United Kingdom
Cameroon Grenada Malaysia Saint Kitts and Nevis United States of America
Canada Guatemala Maldives Saint Lucia Uruguay
Central African Republic Guinea Mali Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
Vanuatu
Chad Guinea-Bissau Malta Samoa Venezuela
Chile Guyana Mauritania Saudi Arabia Vietnam
China Haiti Mauritius Senegal Yemen
Colombia Honduras Mexico Seychelles Zambia
Congo, Republic Hong Kong, China Moldova Sierra Leone Zimbabwe
Congo, Democratic
Republic
Hungary Mongolia Singapore
Source: WTO, “Understanding the WTO: The Organization; Members and Observers,” July 29, 2016.
aIn the WTO, Burma is known as Myanmar.
bIn the WTO, Macedonia is known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, abbreviated FYROM.
cIn the WTO, Taiwan is known as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, or less formally as “Chinese Taipei.”
Table 3.2 WTO observers in 2016
Country
Algeria Equatorial Guinea Somalia
Andorra Ethiopia Sudan
Azerbaijan Iran Syria
Bahamas Iraq Timor-Leste
Belarus Lebanon Uzbekistan
Bhutan Libya Vatican (The Holy See)
Bosnia and Herzegovina São Tomé and Príncipe
Comoros Serbia
Source: WTO, “Understanding the WTO: The Organization; Members and Observers,” July 29, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
86| www.usitc.gov
Expansion of the Information Technology
Agreement
The Information Technology Agreement (ITA),239 concluded in December 1996, is aimed at the
elimination of import duties on information and communications technology (ICT) products such as
computers, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors and their manufacturing and testing
equipment, software, and scientific instruments, as well as parts and accessories for such products. 240
Eighty-two WTO members are currently participants in the ITA. 241
From 2012 to 2015, a subset of 24 ITA participants242 held additional negotiations to expand the
products covered under the ITA. On July 24, 2015, nearly all of these participants agreed to eliminate
tariffs on goods from the newly agreed-on list.243 The parties to this expansion (often called “the ITA
Expansion”) agreed to phase out tariffs on an additional 201 ICT products, such as advanced
semiconductors, software media, high-tech medical devices, global positioning systems, and high-tech
testing instruments. 244 Because the most-favored-nation principle applies to WTO agreements, all WTO
members will benefit from duty-free access to the markets of the parties to the ITA Expansion.245
In 2016, the parties to the ITA Expansion agreement began to implement the agreement’s expanded
provisions. By yearend, a majority of participants had implemented their initial tariff commitments, with
full implementation on track according to the agreement’s schedule.246
Agreement on Trade Facilitation
In December 2013, at the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia, WTO members
concluded an Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA). The TFA seeks to expedite the movement, release,
and clearance of traded goods across national borders to help increase trade flows through the
multilateral trade system. In large measure the TFA works to attain these goals by making rules and their
implementation more transparent—for example, via electronic publication of information about port
procedures, fees, penalties, prohibitions, tariff quotas, and customs rules.247
239 Formally, the WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (WT/MIN(96)/16).
240 WTO, “Information Technology” (accessed March 14, 2017).
241 Ibid.
242 The participants in the expansion are Albania, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European
Union, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, the
Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland (on behalf of the customs union of Switzerland and
Liechtenstein), Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States. WTO, “Briefing Note: The Expansion of Trade in
Information Technology Products (ITA Expansion),” December 16, 2015. Macao, China, joined in 2016.
243 Formally, the Declaration on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products. WTO, General Council,
“Declaration on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products––Communication from the European
Union,” July 28, 2015.
244 For more information on the ITA Expansion, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, July 2016, 95–97.
245 WTO, “WTO Members Conclude Landmark $1.3 Trillion IT Trade Deal,” December 16, 2015.
246 WTO, “Information Technology Agreement––Majority of Participants,” November 1, 2016; USTR, Trade Policy
Agenda, March 2017, 111.
247 WTO, “Information Technology” (accessed March 14, 2017).

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |87
In 2013, members agreed to several decisions to help implement the so-called Bali Package of outcomes
from the ninth ministerial conference, one of which included a decision to implement the TFA.248 By
November 2014, members had adopted the legal protocol required to amend the WTO Agreement to
include the TFA, once two-thirds of WTO members (110 out of 164) had formally accepted the TFA.249
The WTO Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation was established to help bring about the TFA’s
entry into force. During 2016, members reported to the committee on their national experiences with
domestic reform efforts and the acceptance procedures ultimately needed to implement their TFA
commitments. Despite these efforts, the agreement had not been adopted by yearend 2016.250
Negotiations on an Environmental Goods
Agreement
Negotiations toward an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) began July 8, 2014. This agreement aims
at reducing customs duties on products used to treat and benefit the environment, including goods that
generate clean and renewable energy; improve energy and resource efficiency; reduce air, water, and
ground pollution; manage solid and hazardous wastes; monitor environmental quality; and help to abate
noise.251 The 18 EGA participants are Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Union (EU),
Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea,
Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States.252
Participants held their first formal round of 2016 on March 2–4, discussing several circulated proposals
on tariff “staging,” that is, the phasing out of tariffs over time.253 At their 13th round of negotiations on
April 18–22, 2016, participants continued discussions on proposals for tariff cuts and phaseouts, and
began to focus on products identified as sensitive by various participants. 254 The next discussions, on
June 20–24 and July 24–29, were held among small or bilateral groupings. These discussions sought to
overcome sensitivities about tariff elimination or phaseouts for certain goods.255
In the September 19–23 round, participants sought to narrow the types of environmental products that
would be included on the final list, which was pared to some 300 tariff lines nominated by EGA
participants.256 A number of participants also endorsed the goal of a yearend target for reaching a final
248 WTO, “Ministerial Conference, Ninth Session, Bali, 3–6 December 2013. Agreement on Trade Facilitation––
Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013,” WT/MIN(13)/36, WT/L/911, December 11, 2013.
249 WTO, GC, “Protocol Amending the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization—Decision
of 27 November 2014,” WT/L/940, November 28, 2014.
250 On February 22, 2017, the Agreement on Trade Facilitation entered into force after 110 (two-thirds) of the 164
WTO members deposited their formal legal documents accepting the agreement, making it the first multilateral
agreement completed under WTO auspices in over 20 years. WTO, “Trade Facilitation––WTO’s Trade Facilitation
Agreement Enters into Force,” February 22, 2017.
251 WTO, “Progress Made on Environmental Goods Agreement, Setting Stage,” December 4, 2016.
252 The EU negotiates as a single participant on behalf of its 28 member states.
253 Government of Canada, GAC, “WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” modified December 14, 2016;
ICTSD, “Environmental Goods Agreement Negotiators Eye Next Steps,” March 10, 2016.
254 ICTSD, “Environmental Goods Agreement Negotiators Discuss Tariff Cut Offers,” April 28, 2016.
255 ICTSD, “Environmental Goods Agreement Negotiators Bargain on Coverage,” June 30, 2016.
256 ICTSD, “Environmental Goods Agreement Participants Prepare Final Push,” September 29, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
88| www.usitc.gov
agreement.257 During the October 16–20 negotiating round, EGA participants held further small-group
discussions focused on product categories considered contentious by the chairman of EGA talks. 258
The 18th round of EGA negotiations was held November 26–December 2, and a concluding ministerial
meeting was scheduled for December 3–4.259 Whereas progress was reported at the talks that began in
November, participants were unable to overcome remaining differences in time to conclude
negotiations by the scheduled ministerial meeting.
At yearend 2016, the EGA chair leading the negotiations noted that participants seemed likely to find
consensus over an “A list” of more than 250 out of roughly 300 tariff lines under discussion; the
remaining “B list” items were considered more sensitive to some participants and likely to require
political-level decisions.260 As a consequence, further work was considered necessary in 2017 before the
participants could resolve their remaining points of disagreement.261
Discussions on Fisheries Subsidies
As part of the 2001 WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, WTO members agreed to open
negotiations to clarify and improve WTO rules and disciplines on fisheries subsidies to address
overcapacity and overfishing.262 Work on fisheries subsidies advanced in the WTO Negotiating Group on
Rules (NGR), and following the 2011 pause in the overall Doha Round negotiations, resumed in the lead-
up to the 2015 WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya.263 With members’ views sharply divided
on the subject, however, no consensus was reached, although all parties agreed that work on fisheries
subsidies should continue in 2016.264
In June 2016, NGR members expressed strong interest in developing new international rules on fisheries
subsidies, but continued to disagree on how to do so. 265 On September 14, 2016, a group of 13 “like-
minded” WTO members issued a joint statement on beginning preparations for new negotiations for an
“ambitious, high-standard” plurilateral WTO agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, while at
the same time working in parallel with all WTO members toward a wider multilateral agreement.266 The
13 members of this coalition are Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, New Zealand, Norway,
257 ICTSD, “Environmental Goods Agreement Negotiators Prepare for December Deadline,” October 27, 2016.
258 Ibid.; Government of Canada, GAC, “WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” modified December 14,
2016.
259 WTO, “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA)” (accessed March 16, 2017); Trade Reports International Group,
“EGA Negotiators Miss Mark,” December 5, 2016, 1.
260 WTO, “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA)” (accessed March 16, 2017); ICTSD, “Ministerial Talks to Clinch
Environmental Goods Agreement,” December 8, 2016; Trade Reports International Group, “EGA Negotiators Miss
Mark,” December 5, 2016; Baschuk, “Environment––Environmental Trade Talks Collapse,” December 6, 2016, 1.
261 WTO, “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA)” (accessed March 16, 2017); Government of Canada, GAC,
“WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),” modified December 14, 2016.
262 WTO, “Briefing Note: Negotiations on Rules—Anti-dumping and Subsidy Disciplines (including Fisheries
Subsidies) and Regional Trade Agreements,” updated March 2016.
263 Ibid.
264 Ibid.
265 WTO, “WTO Members Affirm Interest,” June 29, 2016.
266 USTR, “Joint Statement Regarding Fisheries Subsidies,” September 14, 2016; USTR, “Obama Administration
Undertaking Global Initiative,” September 14, 2016.

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |89
Papua New Guinea, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, United States, and Uruguay. 267 By yearend, three
other WTO members—Brazil, Iceland, and Panama—had joined this initiative.268
In December 2016, at the yearend meeting of the NGR, WTO members discussed several new proposals
to strengthen disciplines on fisheries subsidies with an aim of reaching an outcome at the next
ministerial conference, scheduled for December 2017 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Also at this meeting of
the NGR, Canada reported that the separate group of coalition members who were participating in the
plurilateral initiative would hold their first substantive meeting in early 2017, and that any NGR member
wishing to take part could join. Canada said that 16 members had signaled their interest by yearend
2016.269
Selected Plurilateral Agreements Already in Force
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft
The plurilateral WTO Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft was signed in 1980, and commits only those
WTO members that have accepted its disciplines to eliminate tariffs on civil aircraft and other
obligations related to civil aircraft. There were 32 signatories to the agreement in 2016, with 20 of them
EU member states.270 With the addition of Tajikistan (see below), there were 25 country observers to
the committee, as well as several international organizations with observer status.271
The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft held one regular meeting during the year, on November 3,
2016. During the meeting, the committee granted observer status to Tajikistan. The committee chair
also suggested opening proposed work on revising the agreement’s Product Coverage Annex through
informal consultations. Such revision would aim to bring the annex into conformity with the 2012 HS.
Neither the regular committee nor the technical subcommittee under the Committee on Trade in Civil
Aircraft met during 2016.272
Agreement on Government Procurement
At the end of 2016, there were 19 parties to the 1994 WTO Agreement on Government Procurement
(GPA).273 In 2012, the parties to the GPA 1994 formally adopted a revised agreement that expanded
267 Ibid.
268 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 150.
269 WTO, “WTO Members Engage on New Fisheries Subsidies Proposals,” December 9, 2016.
270 The 32 signatories to the agreement are Albania, Canada, Egypt, the EU, Georgia, Japan, Macao, Montenegro,
Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States, along with 20 EU member states that are signatories in their
own right: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. WTO, “Report (2016) of the
Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Adopted 3 November 2016),” November 7, 2016.
271 The 25 WTO members with observer status in the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft are Argentina, Australia,
Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Israel, Mauritius, Nigeria, Oman,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, and
Ukraine.
272 WTO, “Report (2016) of the Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Adopted 3 November 2016),” November 7,
2016.
273 The 19 parties to the GPA were Armenia, Canada, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Moldova,
Montenegro, the Netherlands with respect to Aruba, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland,

The Year in Trade 2016
90| www.usitc.gov
access to government procurement markets. The revised agreement entered into force in April 2014. In
2016, Ukraine and Moldova became full parties to the GPA 1994 on April 18 and July 14, respectively,
when each deposited its formal instrument of acceptance of the agreement. Also in 2016, three
parties—Ukraine, Moldova, and South Korea—became full parties to the revised agreement. As of
yearend 2016, all parties to the GPA 1994 except Switzerland were also parties to the revised
agreement.274
Kazakhstan was approved during the year to become an observer in the Committee on Government
Procurement, which oversees operation of both the original and the revised Agreement on Government
Procurement. This addition brought the number of country observers in the committee to 29, in
addition to a number of international organizations. In 2016, Russia asked to open accession
negotiations to the GPA, bringing the number of accessions in progress to nine countries.275
The WTO Committee on Government Procurement held four meetings in 2016: February 17, June 22,
October 18, and November 28. In June, the committee agreed to the Decision of Arbitration Procedures
for the revised GPA, which provides a tool to resolve disputes when parties are in the process of
modifying or clarifying coverage under the revised agreement.276 The committee also continued with its
various work programs, notably those dealing with access to government procurement activities for
small and medium-sized enterprises, the collection and reporting of statistical data on government
procurement, the promotion of environmental sustainability in the parties’ procurement processes, and
restrictions and exclusions in parties’ annexes to the agreement.277
Dispute Settlement Body
This section offers several pieces of information about the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). It provides
(1) a tally of new requests for consultations filed by WTO members during calendar year 2016 under the
WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU); (2) a table that lists the new panels established during
calendar year 2016 (involving all WTO members) to review matters raised in complaints under the DSU;
and (3) short summaries of the procedural and substantive issues in disputes involving the United States
that moved to the panel stage during 2016, along with summaries of panel and Appellate Body reports
involving the United States that were issued or adopted during 2016.
Box 3.1 provides an overview of the WTO dispute settlement process, and table 3.3 lists the disputes
(involving all WTO members) that moved from the consultation stage to the more formal panel litigation
stage during 2016. The titles of the disputes listed in table 3.3 also serve as an indication of the types of
subject matter that reached the more formal litigation stage during 2016.
Taiwan, Ukraine, the United States, and the EU. Counting the 28 EU member states as signatories, there are 47
separate signatories to the agreement. WTO, Report (2016) of the Committee on Government Procurement,
November 29, 2016.
274 WTO, “Agreement on Government Procurement: Parties, Observers and Accessions” (accessed April 13, 2017).
275 WTO, “Report (2016) of the Committee on Government Procurement,” November 29, 2016. The nine countries
that were in the process of accession to the GPA in 2016 are Albania, Australia, China, Georgia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan,
Oman, Russia, and Tajikistan.
276 Ibid.
277 Ibid.

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |91
Box 3.1 Overview of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures
The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) establishes a framework for the resolution of
disputes that arise between members under the WTO agreements.a Under the DSU, a member may file
a complaint with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). After filing, the member must first seek to
resolve the dispute through consultations with the named respondent party.b If the consultations fail,
the complaining party may ask the DSB to establish a panel to review the matters raised by the
complaint and make findings and recommendations.c Either party may appeal issues of law covered in
the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel to the WTO’s Appellate Body.d The
findings and recommendations of the Appellate Body and of the panel (as modified by the Appellate
Body) are then adopted by the DSB unless there is a consensus by the members to reject the ruling.
While the guidelines suggest that panels should complete their proceedings in six months, and that the
Appellate Body should complete its review in 60 days, these periods are often extended.
Once the panel report or the Appellate Body report is adopted, the party concerned must notify the DSB
of its intentions with respect to implementing the adopted recommendations.e If it is impracticable to
comply immediately, the party concerned is given a reasonable period of time to comply, with the time
decided either through agreement of the parties and approval by the DSB, or through arbitration.
Further provisions set out rules for compensation or the suspension of concessions in the event the
respondent fails to implement the recommendations.f Within a specified timeframe, parties can enter
into negotiations to agree on mutually acceptable compensation. Should the parties fail to reach
agreement, a party to the dispute may request the DSB’s authorization to suspend concessions or other
obligations to the other party concerned. Disagreements over the proposed level of suspension may be
referred to arbitration.
a WTO, “Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,” 1995.
b WTO DSU, Article 4.
c WTO DSU, Article 6.
d WTO DSU, Article 17.6.
e WTO DSU, Article 21.3.
f WTO DSU, Article 22.
Table 3.3 WTO dispute settlement panels established during 2016
Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name Panel established
DS493 Russian
Federation
Ukraine Ukraine––Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate from
Russia
April 22, 2016
DS494 Russian
Federation
European Union European Union––Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain
Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia (Second
complaint)
December 16, 2016
DS499 Ukraine Russian
Federation
Russia––Measures Affecting the Importation of Railway
Equipment and Parts Thereof
December 16, 2016
DS502 European Union Colombia Colombia––Measures Concerning Imported Spirits September 26, 2016
DS504 Japan South Korea Korea––Anti-Dumping Duties on Pneumatic Valves from Japan July 4, 2016
DS505 Canada United States United States––Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered
Paper from Canada
July 21, 2016
DS508 United States China China––Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials November 8, 2016
DS509 European Union China China––Duties and Other Measures concerning the
Exportation of Certain Raw Materials
November 23, 2016
Source: Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed May 19, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
92| www.usitc.gov
The summaries of issues in dispute in this section of the report are based entirely on information in
publicly available documents, including summaries published online by the WTO, summaries included in
USTR’s 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, and summaries included in USTR press
releases. They 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 2016 in disputes in which the United
States was the complainant or respondent appears in appendix table A.25.
This section focuses on developments during 2016. Several disputes in which panels had been
established in 2015 were active during 2016, with decisions expected in 2017; the panel decisions in
these cases will be summarized in the Commission’s 2018 report.278 Two disputes were resolved through
additional consultations. In dispute DS489, China—Measures Related to Demonstration Bases and
Common Service Platforms Programmes, the United States and China held additional consultations
following the establishment of a panel in 2015 and reached agreement in April 2016 on a memorandum
of understanding. Under the memorandum, China agreed to terminate the export subsidies it had
provided through the Demonstration Bases-Common Service Platform program.279 Dispute DS501,
China—Tax Measures Concerning Certain Domestically Produced Aircraft, was resolved following
consultations between the United States and China on January 29, 2016, when China rescinded
discriminatory tax exemptions on certain domestically produced aircraft.280 Two other disputes dating
back to 2010 and 2012 and involving U.S. antidumping measures on certain shrimp from Vietnam were
resolved in 2016, after panel and Appellate Body recommendations and rulings, when Vietnam and the
United States reached a mutually agreed solution. 281
This section also generally focuses only on developments through the panel and Appellate Body stage
and does not include matters that arise after the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopts panel or
Appellate Body reports in the original dispute. As indicated in box 3.1, dispute litigation often continues
278 For example, the panel in DS488 was established in March 2015 and composed in July 2015. The panel met with
the parties on July 20–21, 2016, and November 1–2, 2016. WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS488; United States—Anti-
Dumping Measures on Oil Tubular Goods from Korea” (accessed May 29, 2017); and USTR, 2017 Trade Policy
Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 92. The panel in DS491 was established in September 2015 and
composed on February 4, 2016. The panel held its first substantive meeting on December 6–7, 2016. WTO,
“Dispute Settlement: DS491; United States—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Certain Coated Paper
from Indonesia” (accessed May 29, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017,
92–93.
279 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS489; China—Measures Related to Demonstration Bases and Common Service
Platforms Programmes” (accessed May 28, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March
2017, 59.
280 The United States had requested consultations with China on December 8, 2015. In its complaint, the United
States said that it appears that China was exempting the sale of certain domestically produced aircraft from
China’s value-added tax (VAT) while subjecting imported aircraft to the VAT. The United States also alleged that
China had failed to publish the measures that establish these exemptions. The United States stated that these
measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994, and that China also appeared to
have acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 and a number of commitments in
its WTO accession agreement. USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 59.
281 The United States and Vietnam notified the DSB of their mutually agreed solution on July 18, 2016. See WTO,
“Dispute Settlement: DS404; United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam” (accessed
May 28, 2017); WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS429; United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from
Viet Nam” (accessed May 28, 2017). See also USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March
2017, 82–83.

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |93
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 a timeline for procedural actions in most of the active WTO dispute
settlement cases, including procedural actions at the implementation, compliance, and
compensation/retaliation stages. A number of disputes were still active during 2016 well after the panel
or Appellate Body report had been adopted, including two high-profile disputes brought by the United
States and the European Communities,282 respectively, against each other’s large civilian aircraft
measures.283 Several other proceedings of note were underway during 2016 after adoption of panel and
Appellate Body reports. These involved a dispute with respect to U.S. measures relating to the
importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna products;284 a dispute relating to measures imposed
282 In this report’s WTO dispute settlement section, the term “European Communities” is used rather than “EU” if
the source document—the WTO online summary—uses “European Communities.”
283 Compliance proceedings began in 2012 in both disputes and remained underway throughout 2016 in DS353
(brought by the EU against the United States). In DS316 (brought by the United States against the EU), the report
of the compliance panel was circulated on September 22, 2016. The panel found that the EU breached Articles 5(c)
and 6.3(a), (b), and (c) of the SCM agreement, and that the EU and certain member states failed to comply with the
DSB recommendations under Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement to “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse
effects or…withdraw the subsidy.” In particular, the compliance panel found the following: (1) 34 out of 36 alleged
compliance “steps” notified by the EU did not amount to “actions” with respect to the subsidies provided to Airbus
or the adverse effects that those subsidies were to have caused in the original proceeding; (2) as a result, the EU
failed to withdraw the subsidies, as recommended by the DSB; and (3) those subsidies were a genuine and
substantial cause of lost sales to U.S. aircraft, and displacement and impedance of exports of U.S. aircraft. On
October 13, 2016, the EU notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues developed by the compliance
panel. See WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS316; European Communities—Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft” (accessed May 28, 2017); WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS353; United States—Measures Affecting Trade in
Large Civil Aircraft—Second Complaint” (accessed May 18, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016
Annual Report, March 2017, 63.
284 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS381; United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale
of Tuna and Tuna Products” (accessed May 28, 2017). 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). The Appellate Body found aspects of the U.S.
provisions inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. On July 23, 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 recommendations and rulings. Compliance proceedings began in 2013. On December 3, 2015, the DSB
adopted the Appellate Body report and panel report as modified. On March 22, 2016, the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration issued a new rule modifying the dolphin-safe labeling measure, and on April 22,
2016, the United States requested the establishment of a compliance panel to determine if the new rule is
consistent with U.S. WTO obligations. On June 9, 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 compliance panel expects to issue its final report in mid-2017. On March 10,
2016, Mexico requested authorization of the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations. On March 23, 2016,
it was agreed at the DSB meeting that the matter be referred to arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU. On April
25, 2017, the arbitrator circulated its decision. The arbitrator determined that the level of nullification or
impairment suffered by Mexico as a result of the 2013 tuna measure is $163.23 million per annum. See also USTR,

The Year in Trade 2016
94| www.usitc.gov
by India on certain agricultural products from the United States;285 and a dispute relating to China’s
antidumping and countervailing measures on broiler products from the United States.286
New Requests for Consultations and New Panels
Established
During 2016, WTO members filed 17 requests for WTO dispute settlement consultations in new
disputes, which represented an increase from the 13 new requests filed in 2015 and 14 filed in 2014.287
Of the 17 new requests filed during 2016, the United States was involved in 8 (as complainant in 3 and
respondent in 5), as compared with 3 of the 13 requests in 2015 (as complainant in 2 and as respondent
in 1) and 3 of the 14 requests filed in 2014 (as complainant in 1 and respondent in 2).288 During 2016,
“U.S. Announces Compliance,” July 12, 2013; USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March
2017, 77–78.
285 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS430; India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural
Products from the United States” (accessed May 28, 2017). In this dispute the United States requested
consultations on March 6, 2012, regarding India’s import prohibitions on various agricultural products from the
United States. India asserted that these prohibitions were necessary to prevent the entry of avian influenza into
India. However, the United States had not had an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza since 2004. After
consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States requested establishment of a panel. The panel issued
its report on October 14, 2014, and found in favor of the United States. India appealed, and on June 4, 2015, the
Appellate Body issued a report upholding the panel’s findings. India informed the DSB that it would implement the
DSB’s recommendations and rulings, and the United States and India agreed that a reasonable period of time for
doing so would be 12 months, ending on June 19, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the United States requested the
authorization of the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. India
objected to the request, and referred the matter to arbitration. USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual
Report, March 2017, 65–66.
286 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, the United States requested establishment of a compliance
panel. The panel was composed on July 18, 2016. On October 18, 2016, the Chairperson of the panel informed the
DSB that the panel expected to issue its report before the end of 2017. See USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and
2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 58; WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS427; China—Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States” (accessed May 28, 2017).
287 The number of requests for WTO dispute settlement consultations referred to in this section includes only
requests made in connection with new disputes and does not include requests for consultations filed in connection
with compliance proceedings after the DSB’s adoption of panel and/or Appellate Body reports. In its 2017 Trade
Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, USTR reports a generally declining number of annual filings of requests for
consultations during the DSB’s first 21 years of operation—25 in 1995, 42 in 1996, 46 in 1997, 44 in 1998, 31 in
1999, 30 in 2000, 27 in 2001, 37 in 2002, 26 in 2003, 19 in 2004, 11 in 2005, 20 in 2006, 14 in 2007, 19 in 2008, 14
in 2009, 17 in 2010, 8 in 2011, 27 in 2012, 17 in 2013, 14 in 2014, and 13 in 2015. Thus in the first 10 years of the
DSB’s operation 327 requests for consultation were filed, versus 174 in the following 11 years. USTR, 2017 Trade
Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 50. The number of requests shown in the USTR report and in
Commission reports may vary based on whether the number is for a calendar year or a fiscal year or due to other
factors.
288 The United States filed two new disputes in early 2017: DS519, China—Subsidies to Producers of Primary
Aluminum (consultations were requested on January 12, 2017), and DS520, Canada—Measures Governing the Sale
of Wine in Grocery Stores (consultations were requested on January 18, 2017). As of early April 2017, both

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |95
the United States and China were the two WTO members most often named in new disputes, either as
the complaining or responding party—the United States was the complaining or responding party in 8
disputes and China in 6. In terms of new disputes filed during 2016, the United States and Brazil each
filed 3, while China, the EU, India, and Japan each filed 2, and Canada, Morocco, and Turkey each filed 1.
The countries named as the respondents in those disputes were the United States (in 5 disputes), China
(in 4), and Colombia, the EU, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Russia, South Korea, and Thailand in 1 each.289
Eight new dispute settlement panels were established during 2016 (table 3.3). The United States was the
complaining party in one of these panel proceedings, and the responding party in one. The 8 new panels
established in 2016 represent a decrease from the 16 panels established in 2015, the 13 panels
established in 2014, and the 12 panels established in 2013.
Requests for Consultations Filed during 2016 in Which the United
States Was the Complaining Party or the Responding Party
Requests in Which the United States Was the Complaining Party
All three new disputes filed by the United States during 2016 concerned measures taken by China. As of
the end of 2016, a panel had been established to consider one of the disputes and the other two
disputes were still in consultations. In the first dispute (DS508), filed on July 13, 2016, the United States
requested consultations with China regarding China’s export duties on various forms of antimony,
cobalt, copper, graphite, lead, magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin. On July 19, 2016, the United States
requested supplementary consultations on additional related issues. On October 13, 2016, the United
States requested establishment of a panel, and the DSB established a panel on November 8, 2016. As of
the end of 2016, the panel had not been composed. The issues raised in this dispute are summarized in
the next section.290
In the second dispute (DS511), filed on September 13, 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. As of the end of 2016, the matter was in consultations.291
In the third dispute (DS517), filed on December 15, 2016, the United States requested consultations
with China concerning China’s administration of its tariff-rate quotas, including those for wheat, short-
and medium-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 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
disputes were still in consultations. The issues raised and status of the dispute will be summarized in the next
report.
289 Statistics derived from the WTO’s “Chronological List of Disputes Cases.”
290 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS508; China—Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials” (accessed April 30, 2017).
291 After consultations failed to resolve the dispute, the United States, on December 5, 2016, requested
establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on January 17, 2017. WTO, “Dispute
Settlement: DS511; China—Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers” (accessed April 30, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
96| www.usitc.gov
1994, and Paragraph 1.2 of Part I of China’s Protocol of Accession. As of the end of 2016, the matter was
in consultations.292
Requests in Which the United States Was the Responding Party
The United States was the named respondent in five new disputes filed during 2016. As of the end of
2016, a panel had been established and composed to consider one of the disputes, and the remaining
four were still in consultations. In the first dispute (DS503), filed on March 3, 2016, India requested
consultations with the United States regarding certain measures (1) allegedly imposing increased fees on
certain applicants for L-1 and H-1B categories of non-immigrant visas, and (2) relating to a numerical
commitment for H-1B visas. India claimed that the measures are inconsistent with certain articles of the
GATS and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GATS Annex on Movement of Natural Persons Supplying Services.
As of the end of 2016, the matter was in consultations.293
In the second dispute (DS505), filed on March 30, 2016, Canada requested consultations with the United
States regarding countervailing duties adopted by the United States on supercalendered paper and the
investigation underlying the imposition of those duties. When consultations did not resolve the dispute,
Canada requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on July 21, 2016, and a
panel was composed (by the Director-General) on August 31, 2016.294 The issues raised in this dispute
are summarized in more detail in the next section.
In the third dispute (DS510), filed on September 9, 2016, India requested consultations with the United
States concerning certain measures in the energy sector relating to domestic-content requirements and
subsidies instituted by the governments of the states of Washington, California, Montana,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Delaware, and Minnesota. India claimed that the measures
appear to be inconsistent with Articles III:4, XVI:1 and XVI:4 of the GATT 1994, Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS Agreement), and Articles 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a),
5(c), 6.3(c), and 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). At
the end of 2016, the dispute was in consultations.295
In the fourth dispute (DS514), filed on November 11, 2016, Brazil requested consultations with the
United States concerning the imposition of certain countervailing measures with respect to cold- and
hot-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, and certain aspects of the investigations underlying those
measures. Brazil claimed that the measure appears to be inconsistent with certain articles and annexes
of the SCM Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994. As of the end of 2016, the matter was in
consultations.296
292 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS517; China—Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products” (accessed April
30, 2017).
293 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS503; United States—Measures Concerning Non-Immigrant Visas” (accessed April
30, 2017).
294 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS505; United States—Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from
Canada” (accessed April 30, 2017).
295 On January 17, 2017, India requested establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on March 21, 2017.
WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS510; United States—Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector”
(accessed April 30, 2017).
296 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS514; United States—Countervailing Measures on Cold- and Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products from Brazil” (accessed April 30, 2017).

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |97
In the fifth dispute (DS515), filed on December 12, 2016, China requested consultations with the United
States concerning certain provisions of U.S. law relating to the determination of normal value for
nonmarket economy countries in antidumping proceedings involving products from China. China
claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.2,9.2, 18.1, and 18.4 of the
Antidumping Agreement, Articles I:1, VI:1, and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh
Agreement. As of the end of 2016, the matter was in consultations.297
Panels Established during 2016 at the Request of the United
States
As shown in table 3.3, the DSB established one new panel in 2016 at the request of the United States.
This panel concerned China’s export restraints on certain raw materials (DS508). As of the end of 2016,
the panel had not been composed. The issues raised and procedural history of the dispute are
summarized below.
China—Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials (DS508)
The United States filed this dispute on July 13, 2016. The United States requested consultations with
China regarding China’s export restraints on the exportation of antimony, cobalt, copper, graphite, lead,
magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin. The export restraints include export quotas, export duties, and
additional requirements that impose restrictions on the trading rights of enterprises seeking to export
various forms of the materials, such as prior export performance requirements.298
The United States claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Paragraph 11.3 of Part I of
China’s Accession Protocol. The United States also considered that the measures appear to nullify or
impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under China’s Accession Protocol.
On July 19, 2016, the United States requested supplementary consultations concerning alleged
restrictions on the export of various forms of antimony, chromium, indium, magnesia, talc, and tin. The
United States claimed that the alleged restrictions appear to be inconsistent with Paragraphs 2(A)(2),
5.1, and 11.3 of Part I of China’s Accession Protocol as well as paragraph 1.2 of the Accession Protocol
(to the extent that it incorporates paragraphs 83, 84, 162, and 165 of the Report of the Working Party
on the Accession of China), and Articles X:3(a) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The United States also
considered that the alleged restrictions appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United
States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. On October 13, 2016, the United States
requested the establishment of a panel, and the DSB established a panel at its meeting on November 8,
2016. As of end of 2016, the panel had not been composed.299
297 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS515; United States—Measures Related to Price Comparison Methodologies”
(accessed May 3, 2017). On the same day, China filed a similar dispute relating to EU price comparison
methodologies. On March 9, 2017, China requested establishment of a panel in the EU dispute, and the DSB
established a panel on April 3, 2017. See WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS516; European Union—Measures Related
to Price Comparison Methodologies” (accessed May 3, 2017).
298 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 59.
299 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS508; China—Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials” (accessed April 30, 2017).
The EU filed a similar complaint against China on July 19, 2016, regarding China’s duties and other alleged
restrictions on the export of various forms of antimony, chromium, cobalt, copper, graphite, indium, lead,
magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin. WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS509; China—Duties and other Measures
concerning the Exportation of Certain Raw Materials” (accessed May 3, 2017). The EU requested establishment of

The Year in Trade 2016
98| www.usitc.gov
Panels Established during 2016 in Which the United States Was
the Named Respondent
The DSB established one panel during 2016 in which the United States was the named respondent. This
panel, established at the request of Canada, concerned U.S. countervailing duties on supercalendered
paper from Canada (DS505). As of the end of 2016, the panel had been composed. The issues raised and
the procedural history of the dispute are summarized below.
United States—Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from
Canada (DS505)
In this dispute, Canada challenged countervailing duties adopted by the United States on
supercalendered paper and the investigation underlying the imposition of those duties. Canada’s
request for consultations also concerned alleged ongoing conduct regarding the application of adverse
facts available to “discovered” information during the course of a countervailing duty investigation.
Canada claimed that the measures are inconsistent with certain articles of the SCM Agreement300 and
Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994. On June 9, 2016, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB
established a panel on July 21, 2016, and a panel was composed (by the Director-General) on August 31,
2016.301
Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or
Adopted during 2016 That Involve the United
States
During 2016, the DSB adopted panel and/or Appellate Body reports addressing original disputes302 in
five cases in which the United States was the complainant or a respondent (table 3.4). The reports in
those disputes are summarized below.
a panel in that dispute and the DSB established a panel on November 23, 2016. As of the end of 2016, the panel
had not been composed.
300 Articles 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(b), 2, 10, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.6, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.7, 12.8, 14, 14(d), 19.1, 19.3, 19.4,
22.3, 22.5, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.
301 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS505; United States—Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from
Canada” (accessed April 30, 2017).
302 As opposed to panel and Appellate Body reports issued in subsequent compliance and other proceedings.

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |99
Table 3.4 WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports circulated or adopted in 2016
in which the United States was a party
Case no. Complainant Respondent Case name
Date of report
circulation or adoption
DS456 United States India India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and
Solar Modules
AB report circulated (Sept. 16,
2016), adopted (Oct. 14, 2016)
DS464 South Korea United States United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing
Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea
AB report circulated (Sept. 7,
2016), adopted (Sept. 26, 2016)
DS471 China United States United States—Certain Methodologies and their
Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving
China
Panel report circulated (Oct. 19,
2016), appealed to AB
DS478 United States Indonesia Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products,
Animals, and Animal Products
Panel report circulated (Dec. 22,
2016)
DS487 European Union United States United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large
Civil Aircraft
Panel report circulated (Nov.
28, 2016), appealed to AB
Derived from WTO, “Dispute Settlement: The Disputes—Chronological List of Disputes” (accessed May 19, 2017).
Reports in Which the United States Was the Complainant
India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules (DS456)
In its request for consultations in this dispute filed on February 6, 2013, the United States challenged
certain measures of India relating to domestic-content requirements under the Jawaharlal Nehru
National Solar Mission (NSM) for solar cells and solar modules. The United States claimed that the
measures appear to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, Article 2.1 of the TRIMs
Agreement, and Articles 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(c), and 25 of the SCM Agreement. The United States also claimed
that the measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements. On February 10, 2014, the United States requested
supplementary consultations concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic-content
requirements under Phase II of the NSM for solar cells and solar modules. After consultations failed to
resolve the dispute, on April 14, 2014, the United States requested that a panel be established. The DSB
established a panel on May 23, 2014, and the panel was composed on September 24, 2014.303
The panel issued its final public report was on February 24, 2016, finding in favor of the United States on
all claims. The panel found that India’s domestic-content requirements under the NSM are inconsistent
with India’s national treatment obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and Article 2.1 of the
TRIMs Agreement. It found India’s requirements to accord “less favorable” treatment to imported solar
cells and modules than accorded to like products of Indian origin because Indian solar power developers
were permitted to bid for and maintain certain power generation contracts only by using domestic
produced equipment, and not using imported equipment. India appealed the decision to the WTO
Appellate Body on April 20, 2016. The Appellate Body issued its report on September 16, 2016. The
Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s finding that India’s domestic-content requirements under the NSM
are inconsistent with India’s national treatment obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and
Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. It also affirmed the panel’s rejection of India’s defensive claims
under Articles III:8(a), XX(j), and XX(d) of the GATT 1994.304
303 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS456; India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules”
(accessed May 3, 2017).
304 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 66–67.

The Year in Trade 2016
100| www.usitc.gov
On October 14, 2016, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by
the Appellate Body report. On November 8, 2016, India informed the DSB that it intended to implement
the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in the dispute. On December 1, 2016, the United States and
India informed the DSB that in order to allow enough time for them to discuss a mutually agreed period,
they had agreed on deadlines for arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. 305
Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals, and Animal
Products (DS478)
The United States, joined by New Zealand, challenged certain measures imposed by Indonesia relating
to 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 2.2 and 2.15 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection.306
The United States requested consultations with Indonesia on May 8, 2014. When consultations failed to
resolve the dispute, on March 18, 2015, the United States and New Zealand requested the WTO to
establish a panel. On May 20, 2015, the DSB established a single panel to examine this dispute and
DS477, which had been brought by New Zealand and involved similar claims. On October 8, 2015, the
Director-General composed the panel.307
The panel circulated its report on December 22, 2016, and found all of Indonesia’s import-restricting
measures for horticultural products and animal products are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT
1994. The panel also found that Indonesia has failed to demonstrate that the challenged measures are
justified under any general exception available under the GATT 1994.308
Reports in Which the United States Was the Respondent
United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large
Residential Washers from Korea (DS464)
In this dispute South Korea claimed the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties by the
United States on large residential washers from South Korea, as well as certain methodologies used by
the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), are inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 9.4,
9.5, 11, and 18.4 of the Antidumping Agreement; Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 10, 14, and 19.4 of the SCM
Agreement; Articles VI, VI:1, VI:2, and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
South Korea requested consultations with the United States on August 29, 2013, and after consultations
305 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS456; India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules”
(accessed May 3, 2017).
306 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS478; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal
Products” (accessed May 29, 2017).
307 Ibid. See also WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS477; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and
Animal Products” (accessed May 29, 2017); and USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March
2017, 68.
308 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 68. On February 17, 2017, Indonesia
notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law and interpretations in the panel report. WTO,
“Dispute Settlement: DS477; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products”
(accessed May 29, 2017).

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |101
failed to resolve the dispute, on December 5, 2013, South Korea requested establishment of a panel.
The DSB established a panel on January 22, 2014, and the Director-General composed the panel on June
20, 2014.309
The panel circulated its report on March 11, 2016. The panel found that aspects of USDOC’s
antidumping determination were inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the
Antidumping Agreement. These included the USDOC’s determination to apply an alternative, average-
to-transaction comparison methodology, and the application of that methodology to all transactions
rather than just to so-called pattern transactions. The panel rejected other claims asserted by South
Korea, including South Korea’s argument that USDOC acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 by
determining the existence of a pattern exclusively on the basis of quantitative criteria. The panel found,
however, that aspects of USDOC’s differential pricing methodology are inconsistent “as such” with the
second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement. The panel also found that the United
States’ use of zeroing when applying the average-to-transaction comparison methodology is
inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 and Article 2.4, both “as such” and as applied in
the washers antidumping investigation. In addition, the panel made several findings on the
countervailing-duty issues raised by South Korea. The panel found that USDOC’s disproportionality
analysis, in its original and remand determinations, was inconsistent with Article 2.1(c) of the SCM
Agreement. But the panel rejected South Korea’s remaining claims, i.e., its claim that USDOC’s regional
specificity determination was inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the SCM Agreement, and its claims
concerning the proper quantification of subsidy ratios.310
On April 19, 2016, the United States appealed certain of the panel’s findings, and on April 25, 2016,
South Korea also filed an appeal. The Appellate Body circulated its report on September 7, 2016. It
upheld several of the panel’s findings under the Antidumping Agreement, including the panel’s finding
that the average-to-transaction comparison methodology should be applied only to so-called pattern
transactions, the panel’s finding that the use of zeroing is inconsistent with the second sentence of
Article 2.4.2 and Article 2.4, both “as such” and as applied, and the panel’s finding that the differential
pricing methodology is inconsistent “as such” with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the
Antidumping Agreement. The Appellate Body reversed other findings made by the panel. For instance,
the Appellate Body found that an investigating authority must assess the price differences at issue on
both a quantitative and qualitative basis, and it mooted the panel’s finding concerning systemic
disregarding, finding instead that the combined application of comparison methodologies is
impermissible. With respect to the countervailing duty issues, the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s
rejection of South Korea’s regional specificity claim, but found that certain aspects of USDOC’s
calculation of subsidy rates were inconsistent with Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of
the GATT 1994.311
The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports on September 26, 2016. On October 26, 2016,
the United States stated its intention to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, and said it
309 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large
Residential Washers from Korea” (accessed May 9, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual
Report, March 2017, 89.
310 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 89–90.
311 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large
Residential Washers from Korea” (accessed May 29, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual
Report, March 2017, 89–90.

The Year in Trade 2016
102| www.usitc.gov
would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On December 9, 2016, South Korea requested the
reasonable period of time be determined by binding arbitration.312
United States—Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-Dumping
Proceedings Involving China (DS471)
In this dispute China claimed the U.S. use of certain methodologies in antidumping investigations
regarding a number of products from China is 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. The Chinese products
covered by these investigations included certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics
using sheet-fed presses; certain oil country tubular goods; high-pressure steel cylinders; polyethylene
terephthalate film, sheet, and strip; aluminum extrusions; certain frozen and canned warmwater
shrimp; certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires; crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not
assembled into modules; diamond sawblades and parts thereof; multilayered wood flooring; narrow
woven ribbons with woven selvedge; polyethylene retail carrier bags; and wooden bedroom furniture.
China requested consultations with the United States on December 3, 2013, and after consultations
failed to resolve the dispute, on February 13, 2014, China requested the establishment of a panel. The
DSB established a panel on March 26, 2014, and the Director-General composed the panel on August 28,
2014.313
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 AD Agreement, including certain quantitative aspects of
Commerce’s methodology. However, the panel found fault with other aspects of USDOC’s methodology
and with USDOC’s explanation of why 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 AD Agreement.
In addition, the panel found that 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, is inconsistent with certain obligations in the AD Agreement concerning when exporters and
producers are entitled to a unique antidumping margin or rate. Finally, 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 margin or rate. The panel also decided to exercise judicial economy with
respect to the information USDOC used in particular proceedings. On November 18, 2016, China notified
312 On January 12, 2017, the Director-General appointed an arbitrator, and on April 13, 2017, the Arbitrator
determined the reasonable period of time to be 15 months, expiring on December 26, 2017. WTO, “Dispute
Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from
Korea” (accessed May 29, 2017).
313 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS471; United States— Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-
dumping Proceedings Involving China” (accessed May 9, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual
Report, March 2017, 91.

Chapter 3: The World Trade Organization
U.S. International Trade Commission |103
the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the
panel.314
United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft (DS487)
In this dispute the EU alleged that conditional tax incentives established by the state of Washington in
relation to the development, manufacture, and sale of large civil aircraft constitute specific subsidies
within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement and prohibited subsidies that are
inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. The EU requested consultations with
the United States on December 19, 2014. After consultations failed to resolve the matter, on February
12, 2015, the EU requested establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on February 23, 2015,
and the Director-General composed the panel on April 22, 2015.315
The panel circulated its report on November 28, 2016. The panel found that all seven Washington state
aerospace tax incentives at issue are subsidies, but only the business and occupation (B&O) tax incentive
is a prohibited subsidy. In particular, the panel report found the EU failed to demonstrate that (1) the
aerospace tax measures are de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with
respect to the First Siting Provision in Washington state’s Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB 5952)
considered separately; (2) the reduced B&O tax rate for the manufacture and sale of commercial
airplanes is de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with respect to the
Second Siting Provision in ESSB 5952 considered separately; and (3) the aerospace tax measures are de
jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with respect to the First Siting Provision
and the Second Siting Provision considered jointly. The panel report also found that (1) the seven
aerospace tax measures at issue constitute a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM
Agreement; (2) the Washington state B&O tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial
airplanes under the 777X program is inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement; and (3) the
United States acted inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. On December 16, 2016, the
United States appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the panel report.316
314 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 91.
315 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS487; United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft” (accessed
May 28, 2017).
316 Ibid.; USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 91–92. On January 17, 2017, the
EU notified the DSB of its decision to cross-appeal.

104| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |105
Chapter 4
Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade
Activities
This chapter summarizes trade-related activities during 2016 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 developments during the year in the negotiation of a Trade in
Services Agreement (TiSA), as well as 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. On July 1, 2016, Latvia became the 35th
member of the OECD.317
Ministerial Council Meeting
The OECD held its 2016 Ministerial Council Meeting on June 1–2, 2016, in Paris, France.318 The meeting
focused on the theme of enhancing productivity and inclusive growth, including policies that support
skills and jobs and that leverage the benefits accruing from innovation by firms and the increased
digitization of information. As part of the effort to boost productivity and growth, the ministers
highlighted recent trade initiatives, such as the expanded Information Technology Agreement and the
Trade Facilitation Agreement, both under the World Trade Organization (WTO). They also called for the
conclusion of negotiations toward an Environmental Goods Agreement and a Trade in Services
Agreement (TiSA).319 In addition, they encouraged continued OECD work on trade in value added (TiVA),
Trade Facilitation Indicators, and the Services Trade Restrictiveness Index to help understand more fully
how open trade can increase productivity and growth. To help raise productivity, the ministers agreed
that investments are needed in education and skills that promote quality jobs as a response to rapid
317 At the end of 2016, there were 35 OECD members––Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. OECD, “Members
and Partners,” n.d. (accessed January 17, 2017).
318 OECD, “Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth,” n.d. (accessed January 17, 2017).
319 OECD, Council, “2016 Ministerial Council Statement––Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth. Meeting of
the Council at Ministerial Level, 1–2 June 2016,” C/MIN(2016)8/FINAL, June 2, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
106| www.usitc.gov
technological changes, such as digitization. At the same time, they noted that the risks of job losses from
automation are relatively modest.320
Trade Committee
The OECD Trade Committee met twice in 2016, at its 168th session on April 21–22 and at its 169th
session on November 3–4.321 At the April meeting, the committee discussed its draft work program for
2017–2018 and prepared for the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in June 2016, as well as other
upcoming events. The Trade Committee also continued discussions with several countries––Colombia,
Costa Rica, and Lithuania––in various stages of accession to the OECD.322 In May 2016, the Trade
Committee formally presented its draft work program for 2017–2018, as agreed upon at the April 2016
meeting. The work program will have four primary areas of focus over the next two years: (1) trade
liberalization, (2) trade in services, (3) trade and domestic policies, and (4) the OECD Arrangement on
Export Credits.323
At its November 2016 meeting, the Trade Committee met with representatives from the world’s 20
major economies, known as the Group of 20 (G20).324 Major topics of discussion included how to
strengthen agricultural trade policies, how best to structure reforms concerning trade policy and trade
flows, and how to overcome barriers to trade in services. Members also discussed how trade in
environmental goods and services can support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as
well as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its annual Conference of
Parties (COP). It was noted that during its 21st session in Paris in 2015 (COP21 or the 2015 Paris Climate
Conference) the COP had reviewed the Convention implementation.325 Other discourse touched on
OECD work on digitization, as well as the trade costs of regulatory divergence. 326
320 OECD, Council, “Chair’s Summary––Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth,” C/MIN(2016)9, June 7, 2016,
3, par. 12.
321 OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Summary Record: Trade Committee––Plenary Session,” TAD/TC/M(2016)1, September
26, 2016; OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Summary Record: Trade Committee––Confidential Session,”
TAD/TC/M(2016)1/ANN, September 26, 2016; OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Agenda: Trade Committee––3–4 November
2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France,” TAD/TC/A(2016)2, October 14, 2016; OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft
Agenda: Trade Committee––Confidential Session––4 November 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France,”
TAD/TC/A(2016)2/ANN, October 14, 2016.
322 OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Summary Record: Trade Committee––Plenary Session,” TAD/TC/M(2016)1, September
26, 2016.
323 OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) 2017–18 of the Trade Committee,”
TAD/TC(2016)1/REV2, May 31, 2016.
324 The Group of Twenty (G20) comprises the European Union and 19 countries––Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,
Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. G20 Web site, “Members and Participants,” n.d. (accessed
January 19, 2017).
325 OECD, TAD, TC, “Reforming Trade In Services––Insights From New OECD Analysis––OECD Conference Centre––
3–4 November 2016,” TAD/TC(2016)10, October 13, 2016. More formally, the reference is to the Conference of
Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), session 21 (COP21 or the
2015 Paris Climate Conference).
326 OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Agenda: Trade Committee––3–4 November 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris,
France,” TAD/TC/A(2016)2, October 14, 2016.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |107
Working Party of the Trade Committee
The Working Party of the Trade Committee (TCWP) reported at the April 2016 meeting on its activities
since the Trade Committee last met in November 2015.327 The chair of the working party updated
progress made in the technical work on the value-creating role of trade in services, among other things,
under the Trade Committee’s 2015–2016 work program.
In November 2016, the TCWP reported that it had finalized several documents under its work program.
One document develops a framework for international regulatory cooperation, while another includes
regional and country studies that address global value chains in various locations (Latin America, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and Chile). Also, two country studies analyze services trade and
policy in Brazil and India, respectively, using the OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI).328 The
TCWP also reported on approaches to studying the cost of services trade restrictions using the STRI, a
priority previously expressed by members of the Trade Committee. The working party reported on the
four elements for this project, set out in papers already underway: “The Trade Effects of Regulatory
Differences”; “The Trade Effect of Services Trade Restrictions”; “STRI: Services Trade Restrictiveness,
Mark-ups and Competition”; and “Trade Cost in Services: Estimation with Firm-level Data.”329
The TCWP met again on December 13–14, 2016.330 At this meeting, the TCWP discussed trade in
services, including the cost of services trade restrictions to firms and their foreign affiliates; services in
global value chains in the context of the increased bundling of goods and services in international trade;
how to value services commitments currently found in trade agreements; and subjects involving the
OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index. The working party also touched on how state-owned
enterprises might better regulate international trade and investment, restrictive measures concerning
government procurement, applications of the OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators, digital trade, and local-
content policies in the context of mineral-exporting countries.331
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Background
Established in 1989 and composed of 21 member economies, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) is a regional economic forum.332 Since its inception, APEC has aimed to increase prosperity in the
327 OECD, TAD, TC, “Report from the Chair of the Working Party of the Trade Committee,” TAD/TC/RD(2016)2, April
20, 2016.
328 OECD, TAD, TC, “Report from the Chair of the Working Party of the Trade Committee,” TAD/TC/RD(2016)1,
November 2, 2016, 2.
329 Ibid.
330 OECD, TAD, TC, “Draft Agenda: Working Party of the Trade Committee––13–14 December 2016, Paris, France,”
TAD/TC/WP/A(2016)4, December 9, 2016.
331 Ibid.
332 In 2016, the 21 APEC member economies were Australia; Brunei Darussalam (Brunei); Canada; Chile; China;
Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; the Philippines;
Russia; Singapore; South Korea; Taiwan (Chinese Taipei); Thailand; the United States; and Vietnam. For further
details, see APEC, “About APEC” (accessed January 23, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
108| www.usitc.gov
region by supporting regional economic integration and by promoting inclusive and sustainable
growth.333 APEC decisions are made by consensus, and commitments are undertaken voluntarily.334
The operational structure of APEC is divided into the policy level and the working level. At the policy
level, the annual APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting sets overarching policy direction, while the annual
APEC ministerial meeting, sectoral ministerial meetings, senior officials meetings, and APEC Business
Advisory Council meetings provide strategic policy recommendations.335 At the working level, four core
committees, including the Committee on Trade and Investment, carry out activities and projects. 336 The
APEC Secretariat is based in Singapore.337
Adopted by APEC member economies in 1994 in Bogor, Indonesia, the Bogor Goals are a set of targeted
goals for creating a free and open trade and investment area in the Asia-Pacific region.338 APEC works in
three key areas toward the Bogor Goals: (1) trade and investment liberalization that reduces and
eventually eliminates tariff and nontariff barriers to trade and investment; (2) business facilitation,
which focuses on reducing business transaction costs and improving market access and efficiency; and
(3) economic and technical cooperation that provides training in all APEC member economies to build
their capacities to promote trade, investment, and sustainable, inclusive economic growth. 339
At the core of APEC work is the Regional Economic Integration agenda. Initiatives under this program
include pursuing the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), a comprehensive free trade agreement
among APEC member economies; improving the ease of doing business; streamlining customs
procedures; and carrying out structural reforms in APEC member economies.340
2016 APEC Developments
In 2016, Peru served as the APEC chair and hosted major APEC meetings. 341 Under its leadership, APEC
focused on “quality growth and human development” and sought to pursue four priorities: “investing in
human capital development; modernizing micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs);
fostering the regional food system; and advancing the regional economic integration and growth
agenda.”342
In 2016, various APEC meetings and workshops were organized, carrying out discussions and/or training
on a wide range of topics. Examples included human resource development; MSMEs’ entry into global
and regional markets; food trade and regional food security; barriers to trade, investment, and
333 APEC, APEC at a Glance, 2015, 2.
334 Ibid., 4.
335 APEC, “How APEC Operates” (accessed March 21, 2017); APEC, “How APEC Operates: Policy Level” (accessed
March 21, 2017).
336 APEC, “How APEC Operates: Working Level” (accessed on March 21, 2017).
337 APEC, APEC at a Glance, 2015, 4.
338 APEC, “Bogor Goals” (accessed January 23, 2017).
339 APEC, “Scope of Work” (accessed April 3, 2017).
340 APEC, “Regional Economic Integration Agenda” (accessed March 22, 2017).
341 Peru hosted major APEC meetings in 2016, including the Economic Leaders’ Meeting, ministerial meetings,
three Senior Officials Meetings (SOM1, SOM2, and SOM3), and other related meetings. APEC, “Events Calendar”
(accessed April 6, 2017).
342 APEC Peru 2016, “APEC 2016: Quality Growth and Human Development”; APEC, “Peru’s Priorities for 2016”
(both accessed January 20, 2017).

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |109
competition; digital trade and the Internet economy; climate change and energy security; and green
growth, among others.343 At the Economic Leaders’ Meeting on November 19–20, 2016, APEC leaders
and ministers agreed to a number of outcomes from 2016, including preventing trade barriers, creating
more transparent and open regulatory cultures, and reducing trade costs by improving the efficiency of
supply chains.344
The Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) reported good progress in advancing APEC’s objectives in
2016, highlighting (1) the implementation of the Investment Facilitation Action Plan, especially in the
priority areas of transparency, investor risk reduction, and business regulation simplification; (2) the
launch of the APEC Virtual Knowledge Center on Services, an interactive hub for stakeholders; (3)
progress made by member economies in carrying out tariff reduction commitments for the APEC list of
environmental goods; (4) the survey of regulatory measures in environmental services; and (5) projects
implemented to facilitate the use of intellectual property rights by MSMEs.345 The Second-Term Review
of the Bogor Goals, as well as progress on the creation of the FTAAP and global value chain (GVC)
cooperation in 2016, are described separately in the sections below.
The Second-Term Review of the Bogor Goals346
In 2016, APEC conducted the Second-Term Review of the Bogor Goals.347 This review assessed progress
on trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, while identifying the weak areas where APEC
economies can focus their efforts in upcoming years.
The review highlighted the following findings:348
• Trade and investment flows by APEC economies have increased significantly since the 1990s,
though trade slowed down after the 2008 global financial crisis.
• The overall most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff in the APEC region fell from an average of 11.0
percent in 1996 to 5.5 percent in 2014, while the share of zero-tariff product lines among all
product lines in APEC tariff schedules rose from 27.3 percent in 1996 to 45.4 percent in 2014.
However, tariff rates remained relatively high in sectors related to agriculture (e.g., dairy
products, beverages and tobacco, and cereals and preparations).
• APEC economies have increasingly applied nontariff measures that affect trade.
343 APEC, Events, http://www.apec.org/Events-Calendar.aspx?year=2016; APEC, news releases in 2016,
http://www.apec.org/Press/News-Releases.aspx?year=2016&topic=All (both accessed January 20, 2017). For more
information on green growth, see USITC, The Year in Trade in 2015, July 2016, 119–22.
344 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017.
345 APEC, 2016 Committee on Trade and Investment Annual Report to Ministers, November 2016, 2–4.
346 For more information on the Bogor Goals, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2014, July 2015, 117–18.
347 APEC conducted a major review of the Bogor goals in 2010 and in May 2011. APEC senior officials established
guidelines to review progress by member economies every two years beginning in 2012, as well as to conduct a
second-term review in 2016 and a final review in 2020. APEC, Second-Term Review of APEC’s Progress towards the
Bogor Goals: APEC Region, November 2016, x.
348 APEC, Second-Term Review of APEC’s Progress towards the Bogor Goals: APEC Region, November 2016.

http://www.apec.org/Events-Calendar.aspx?year=2016

http://www.apec.org/Press/News-Releases.aspx?year=2016&topic=All

The Year in Trade 2016
110| www.usitc.gov
• The regulations governing services sectors in the APEC region have become less restrictive and
more competition friendly, but the level of openness varies across sectors as well as among
APEC economies.
• Foreign investors’ perceptions of investment restrictions remain negative, as they continue to
face obstacles that increase the costs of investment, despite APEC governments’ efforts to
implement measures that facilitate investment and improve the investment climate.
• Efforts on trade facilitation in the APEC region have led to improved logistics, and in general,
trade across borders has become faster and cheaper.
• Employment levels have not fully recovered since the 2008 global financial crisis, even though
progress on economic growth and social development has reduced poverty and improved living
standards.
• APEC economies have mixed performances in achieving economic growth that is
environmentally sustainable.
Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP)
In 2006, APEC economies agreed to “examine the long-term prospects of a FTAAP.”349 At the 2014 APEC
Economic Leaders’ Meeting, APEC leaders endorsed Annex A—The Beijing Roadmap for APEC’s
Contribution to the Realization of the FTAAP (Beijing Roadmap). This document listed the actions needed
to create the FTAAP, including launching a Collective Strategic Study on Issues Related to the Realization
of the FTAAP (Study).350
In 2016, APEC reported the completion of the Study. The Study reviews the APEC region’s economies;
touches upon the next-generation trade and investment issues (discussed below) that should be
considered in an eventual FTAAP; describes the various tariff and nontariff measures (NTMs) in the APEC
region that affect trade and investment; evaluates the level of coverage of existing regional trade
agreements (RTAs) and FTAs, as well as other ongoing regional undertakings (e.g., the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership);351 and analyzes the challenges and
opportunities involved in realizing the FTAAP.352
Among the next-generation trade and investment issues highlighted in the Study are “facilitating global
supply chains; enhancing SME [small and medium-sized enterprises] participation in global production
chains; promoting effective, non-discriminatory, and market-driven innovation policy; transparency in
RTAs/FTAs; and manufacturing-related services in supply chains and value chains.”353
349 APEC, “Pathways to FTAAP,” November 14, 2010.
350 APEC, “2014 Leaders’ Declaration: Annex A: The Beijing Roadmap for APEC’s Contribution,” November 11, 2014.
For details on the steps to be taken, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2014, July 2015, 121.
351 The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement between the 10
member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the 6 states with which ASEAN has
existing free trade agreements (Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea).
352 APEC, 2016 Committee on Trade and Investment Annual Report to Ministers, Appendix 6, November 2016, 3.
353 Ibid., 37.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |111
The NTMs identified by the Study that affect trade and investment include sanitary and phytosanitary
measures; technical barriers to trade; import licenses; quantitative restrictions; and regulatory measures
that restrict market entry or foreign participation, or impede cross-border services delivery, investment
protection, and investment dispute settlement.354
The Study recommends advancing regional economic integration through capacity-building projects,
technical assistance, and policy-based solutions.355
In November 2016, APEC leaders endorsed the Study and its executive summary. They then issued the
Lima Declaration on FTAAP, instructing officials to consider next steps towards the eventual realization
of the FTAAP.356
Global Value Chain Development and Cooperation
In 2013, APEC economic leaders agreed to promote global value chain (GVC) development and
cooperation in the APEC region on the basis of previous work on connectivity.357 In 2014, APEC member
economies endorsed the APEC Strategic Blueprint for Promoting Global Value Chains Development and
Cooperation (Blueprint) as the mechanism they would use to strengthen economic cooperation within
the global and regional value chain network.358 Under the Blueprint, nine work streams have been set
up.359 The United States leads two GVC work streams, one on “addressing trade and investment issues
that impact GVCs,” and the other on “APEC GVCs and Trade in Value Added (TiVA) measurement.”360
The CTI noted substantial progress made in 2016 on the work stream on “APEC GVCs and TiVA
Measurement,” including convening the Third Technical Group meeting in February 2016 in Lima, Peru,
and holding the second capacity-building workshop and the Fourth Technical Group meeting in October
2016 in Bangkok, Thailand. At these meetings and the workshop, the group discussed technical issues
and identified technical assistance needs related to data sources and compilation methodologies that
will be used to construct the APEC TiVA database.361
The CTI also noted progress in other areas of GVC cooperation in 2016. Highlights included a public-
private dialogue in August 2016 on enhancing the integration of regional value chains in Asia with those
in Latin America and the Caribbean; three subregional, public-private dialogues on improving the
354 Ibid., 51–105.
355 Ibid., 181.
356 APEC, 2016 Leaders’ Declaration, “Annex A: Lima Declaration on FTAAP,” November 20, 2016.
357 APEC, 2014 Leaders’ Declaration, “Annex B: APEC Strategic Blueprint,” November 11, 2014.
358 The term global value chains (GVCs) refers to a growing phenomenon in which different stages of production
processes are located in different countries. For more information, see OECD, “Global Value Chains,” n.d.
(accessed April 3, 2017).
359 For additional information on these nine work streams, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, 67th Report, July
2016, 120.
360 The United States co-leads Work Stream 2, “APEC GVCs and TiVA Measurement,” with China. The objective of
this work stream is to establish an APEC TiVA database by 2018. Upon USTR’s request, in the capacity of technical
support, USITC staff members served as the U.S. co-chair of the Technical Group in 2016, and have been co-leading
the project with Chinese counterparts since 2014.
361 APEC, 2016 Committee on Trade and Investment Annual Report to Ministers, November 2016, 13–14.

The Year in Trade 2016
112| www.usitc.gov
investment climate for GVC development; and a draft report on how to improve APEC developing
economies’ participation in GVCs.362
Negotiations on a Trade in Services
Agreement
In July 2012, a number of WTO members released a joint statement expressing their intent to open
negotiations toward a plurilateral Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), in part as a response to the slow
pace of services negotiations under the multilateral framework of the Doha Development Agenda
(DDA).363 Initially numbering 20 participants in 2013 when negotiations were launched, there were 23
participants by yearend 2016.364
TiSA participants conducted 21 negotiating rounds during 2013–16, and aimed at finishing negotiations
by December 2016.365 However, the parties were unable to conclude by yearend and agreed to
reconvene in 2017 to take stock of areas in need of ongoing technical work, although no new rounds
were scheduled.366
While the structure of the agreement and sectors to be covered under the TiSA are evolving, the
agreement is thought to be structured in four basic parts: (I) the core text; (II) market access and
national treatment commitments; (III) sectoral annexes; and (IV) institutional matters.367 The core text
builds on provisions in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and includes horizontal
provisions that apply to all parts of the agreement. The market access and national treatment
commitments will contain an individual party’s schedules and any listed exceptions or nonconforming
measures. The sectoral annexes set out disciplines for particular services sectors and issues. The
institutional provisions lay out the basic rules for how the TiSA functions, addressing dispute settlement,
amendments to the agreement, new membership, and possible future multilateralization, among other
things.
362 Ibid., 14, 16.
363 The WTO Director-General has explained that the TiSA negotiations do not take place within the WTO, but that
the participants have provided updates on their discussions to the WTO Council on Trade in Services. WTO, Trade
Policy Review Body, “Overview of Developments in the International Trading Environment,” January 31, 2014, 58,
par. 3.127. TiSA participants have said during these updates that they saw no contradiction between the TiSA talks
and the services negotiations under the Doha Round, saying that the TiSA was developed to be compatible with
the GATS and could be multilateralized in the future. WTO, “Annual Report of the Council for Trade in Services,”
November 28, 2014, 4, par. 6.2.
364 The 23 economies participating in the TiSA negotiations in 2016 were Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, the European Union, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States. USTR, 2017
Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 1, 2017, 166.
365 CRS, Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations: Overview, January 3, 2017, I; USDOS, Secretary of State,
“19th Round of TiSA Negotiations (State 84866),” July 28, 2016, par. 6; Coalition of Services Industries (CSI), “The
Trade In Services Agreement (TiSA),” n.d. (accessed March 13, 2017).
366 Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), “Trade in Services Agreement––
News,” n.d. (accessed March 23, 2017); CRS, Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations: Overview, January 3,
2017, i.
367 CRS, Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations: Overview, January 3, 2017, 5.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |113
Although still a work in progress, by yearend 2016 approximately 19 sectoral annexes had been
proposed according to several governments.368 These include annexes on (1) delivery services, (2) direct-
selling services, (3) domestic regulation, (4) electronic commerce, (5) energy-related services, (6)
environmental services, (7) export subsidies, (8) facilitation of patient mobility, (9) financial services, (10)
government procurement, (11) localization, (12) movement of natural persons, (13) professional
services, (14) state-owned enterprises, (15) telecommunications, (16) transparency, (17) transport
services––air, (18) transport services––maritime, and (19) transport services––road.369
Trade and Investment Framework
Agreements
By yearend 2016, the United States had entered into 55 trade and investment framework agreements
(TIFAs) (table 4.1). 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. These TIFAs cover
a range of matters, including market access, labor, the environment, protection of intellectual property
rights, and capacity building. TIFA councils meet to discuss these issues on a regular basis.370 In 2016,
two new TIFAs (with Argentina and Laos) were signed and various TIFA councils met.
368 Government of New Zealand, MFAT, “Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA),” n.d. (accessed March 24, 2017);
Government of Colombia, Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo [Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and
Tourism], “Rondas de Negociación e Informes del Acuerdo sobre el Comercio de Servicios (TiSA),” [Negotiating
rounds and reports on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)] (last modified March 17, 2017); compilation from
Government of Australia, DFAT, “Trade in Services Agreement––News,” n.d. (accessed March 23, 2017); European
Parliament, “The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA): An End to Negotiations in Sight?” October 12, 2015, 18.
369 The exact number of annexes can often vary depending on how different sectors are combined or broken out,
e.g., whether electronic commerce and telecommunications are combined as a single proposed annex, or each is in
a separate sectoral annex.
370 USTR, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements,” n.d. (accessed March 15, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
114| www.usitc.gov
Table 4.1 U.S. trade and investment framework agreements in 2016
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, 2009
U.S.-Argentina TIFA March 23, 2016
U.S.-Armenia TIFA May 7, 2015
U.S.-Bahrain TIFAa June 18, 2002
U.S.-Bangladesh TICFA November 25, 2013
U.S.-Brunei 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 25, 2016
U.S.-Lebanon TIFA November 30, 2006
U.S.-Liberia TIFA February 15, 2007
U.S.-Libya TIFA May 20, 2010
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 TIFAa July 7, 2004
U.S.-Pakistan TIFA June 25, 2003
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 TIFA June 18, 2012b
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 April 1, 2008
U.S.-United Arab Emirates TIFA March 15, 2004
U.S.-Uruguay TIFAc January 25, 2007
U.S.-Vietnam TIFA June 21, 2007
U.S.-Yemen TIFA February 6, 2004
Regional
U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) TIFAd August 25, 2006
U.S.-Caribbean Community (CARICOM) TIFAe May 28, 2013
U.S.-Central Asian TIFA (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) June 1, 2004
U.S.-Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) TIFAf October 29, 2001
U.S.-East African Community TIFA (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda) July 16, 2008
U.S.-Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)g August 5, 2014
U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Framework Agreement for Trade, Economic, Investment, and
Technical Cooperation (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates)
September 25, 2012
U.S.-West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) TIFAh April 24, 2002
Source: USTR, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements,” n.d. (accessed March 15, 2017).
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 15, 2017).
a Bahrain and Oman have both FTAs and TIFAs in effect with the United States.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |115
b The United States-South Africa TIFA was amended on June 18, 2012, and replaces the original TIFA, signed on February 18, 1999.
c On October 2, 2008, the United States and Uruguay signed a TIFA protocol on trade and environment and a TIFA protocol on trade
facilitation.
d The 10 countries of ASEAN are Brunei Darussalam (Brunei), Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
and Vietnam.
e 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.
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 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.
h The 8 members of WAEMU are Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.
Developments in TIFA Negotiations during 2016
On March 23, 2016, U.S. and Argentine officials signed a TIFA. The agreement establishes a U.S.-
Argentina Council on Trade and Investment to discuss bilateral trade and investment and related issues,
with the goal of facilitating dialogue on a range of issues, including intellectual property rights, market
access, and agriculture.371 In 2016, U.S. exports to Argentina totaled $8.6 billion and imports from
Argentina were valued at $4.7 billion. The top three U.S. exports to Argentina by value were petroleum
oils and oils from bituminous minerals ($1.2 billion); civilian aircraft, engines, and parts ($646.3 million);
and medicaments ($263.2 million). These three exports comprised 24.5 percent of all U.S. exports to
Argentina in 2016.372 The top three imports were biodiesel ($1.2 billion), wine ($305.5 million), and
crude petroleum ($206.4 million). These three imports made up 37.3 percent of all U.S. imports from
Argentina in 2016.373
On November 7, 2016, the U.S.-Argentina TIFA council met for the first time in Buenos Aires,
Argentina.374 The two sides discussed several topics, including WTO dispute settlement, trade
facilitation, and reducing excess steel capacity, and agreed to establish an Innovation and Creativity
Forum for Economic Development. This forum will focus on several topics of mutual interest, including
geographical indications, industrial designs, and protection of intellectual property rights; it held its first
meeting on December 6, 2016.375 Argentina had requested that the United States reconsider
redesignating Argentina as a beneficiary country under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). In
response, the USTR announced at the meeting that they would initiate a public review process to
determine whether Argentina meets GSP eligibility criteria.376
On February 25, 2016, officials from the United States and Laos signed a TIFA. The agreement
establishes a forum for dialogue between the United States and Laos on trade and investment issues,
including intellectual property, labor, environment, capacity building, and issues pertaining to Laos’s
membership in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).377 Further, U.S. officials worked
with Laos to support its implementation of its WTO accession commitments, as well as commitments
371 USTR, “United States and Argentina Sign,” March 23, 2016; White House, “Fact Sheet: United States-Argentina
Relationship,” March 23, 2016.
372 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 3, 2015).
373 Ibid.
374 USTR, “United States and Argentina Hold Ministerial-Level Meeting,” November 7, 2016.
375 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 134.
376 USTR, “United States and Argentina Hold Ministerial-Level Meeting,” November 7, 2016; USTR, 2017 Trade
Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 186.
377 USTR, “United States and Laos Sign,” February 25, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
116| www.usitc.gov
under the U.S.-Laos Bilateral Trade Agreement, which extends normal trade relations status to products
of Laos.378
In 2016, U.S. exports to Laos totaled $30.9 million and imports from Laos were valued at $55.0 million.
The top three U.S. exports to Laos by value were synthetic woven fabrics ($11.2 million), nonindustrial
diamonds ($4.8 million), and construction machinery parts and attachments ($1.3 million). These top
three exports represented 55.9 percent of all U.S. exports to Laos in 2016.379 The top three U.S. imports
from Laos by value were telephone sets ($10.7 million), nonindustrial diamonds ($9.3 million), and
silicon ($6.6 million). These imports represented 48.4 percent of total U.S. imports from Laos in 2016.380
Developments in Existing TIFAs during 2016
During 2016, the following TIFA councils met:
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
On February 17, 2016, U.S and ASEAN officials met in San Francisco, California, to attend the U.S.-ASEAN
TIFA council meeting. The parties focused on the environment, investment, transparency, information
and communications technology, SME development, trade facilitation, and technical barriers to trade
and regulatory barriers.381
Central Asia
On April 5, 2016, officials of the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and the United States convened in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, for the 10th anniversary of the
Council Meeting of the U.S.-Central Asia TIFA. The parties discussed trade, transit, and investment issues
among the Central Asian countries, as well as expanding exports from the region under the U.S. GSP.
Working group proposals included the creation of a regional International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation group to implement customs reforms and a Women’s Economic Empowerment Working
Group to promote women’s entrepreneurship.382
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
On February 8, 2016, U.S. and COMESA officials met in Lusaka, Zambia, to hold the eighth meeting of the
U.S.-COMESA TIFA. Topics of discussion included the U.S.-COMESA trade and investment relationship
under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), agricultural productivity and trade, deepening
bilateral trade, and business and investment policies in the region.383
East African Community (EAC)
On September 27, 2016, United States and EAC officials held a meeting of the U.S.-EAC TIFA. The
meeting focused on the implementation of the EAC-U.S. “Cooperation Agreement on Trade Facilitation,
378 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 143.
379 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 3, 2015).
380 Ibid.
381 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 143.
382 USTR, “Joint Statement on the Results of the Council Meeting,” April 5, 2016.
383 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 145.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |117
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and Technical Barriers to Trade,” which was signed in February
2015. Officials also discussed efforts to increase bilateral trade through AGOA and strategic ways to
deepen the U.S.-EAC Trade and Investment Partnership.384
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
On September 27, 2016, U.S. and ECOWAS officials met in Washington, DC, for the second meeting of
the U.S.-ECOWAS TIFA council. A range of topics were discussed, including activities in support of trade
and investment objectives, the long-term U.S.-ECOWAS trade relationship, and expanding the trade and
investment relationship.385
Indonesia
On April 12, 2016, the United States and Indonesia met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, under the U.S.-
Indonesia TIFA. The parties discussed Indonesia’s economic reforms and liberalization agenda, TPP
outcomes, investment issues, intellectual property, localization requirements for the high-tech sector,
agricultural import requirements, and cooperation on environmental issues. 386
Mozambique
On November 8, 2016, the United States and Mozambique held the fifth meeting of the U.S.-
Mozambique TIFA in Maputo, Mozambique. The parties discussed the U.S.-Mozambique Trade Africa
partnership, as well as ways to improve Mozambique’s business and investment climate and to increase
bilateral trade and investment.387
Nepal
On June 10, 2016, the United States and Nepal held the second TIFA council meeting in Washington, DC.
The two sides discussed strengthening bilateral trade and investment ties, trade facilitation, intellectual
property, global value chains, and capacity building. Nepal also requested technical assistance to assist
with integration into global value chains, address capacity constraints, and maximize its use of U.S. trade
preferences.388
Pakistan
On October 18, 2016, the United States and Pakistan convened the eighth meeting of the U.S.-Pakistan
TIFA Council in Islamabad, Pakistan. The parties discussed market access for U.S. beef products, tax
predictability for U.S. businesses, and the electronic filing of customs documents.389
Philippines
On March 18, 2016, officials from the United States and the Philippines met in Washington, DC, to hold a
meeting of the U.S.-Philippines TIFA. The parties focused on several issues, including investment,
384 Ibid., 144.
385 Ibid., 145.
386 USTR, “United States and Indonesia Explore Initiatives to Increase Trade and Investment,” April 12, 2016.
387 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 145.
388 USTR, “Joint Statement on the 2nd Joint U.S.-Nepal Trade and Investment,” June 10, 2016.
389 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 146.

The Year in Trade 2016
118| www.usitc.gov
intellectual property, customs, and agriculture. Officials also discussed ways to deepen cooperation on
issues pertaining to WTO, APEC, and ASEAN.390
Sri Lanka
On April 28, 2016, the 12th U.S.-Sri Lanka TIFA council meeting was held in Washington, DC. To facilitate
two-way trade and investment, the two sides adopted a U.S.-Sri Lanka Joint Action Plan to Boost Trade
and Investment. The plan’s five-year objectives include reforming Sri Lanka’s trade and investment
regime; improving the competitiveness of Sri Lanka’s exports; promoting interaction between U.S. and
Sri Lankan business communities; strengthening workers’ rights and environmentally sustainable
manufacturing practices; reforming the educational sector to be responsive to the needs of business;
and increasing the participation of women in business and trade. 391
Taiwan
On October 4, 2016, U.S. and Taiwan officials met in Washington, DC, to convene the 10th TIFA council
meeting. The parties discussed a range of trade and investment issues, including intellectual property
protection and enforcement, transparency, technical barriers to trade, and agricultural issues, such as
the removal of barriers on U.S. beef and pork.392
Tunisia
On March 22, 2016, the United States and Tunisia held the sixth meeting of the U.S.-Tunisia TIFA council
in Washington, DC. The council focused on several topics to facilitate bilateral trade and investment,
including branding strategies for Tunisian firms, female entrepreneurship, and the development of
Tunisia’s intellectual property rights protection regime. The Tunisian delegation also stated their intent
to ratify the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and become an observer to the WTO Government
Procurement Agreement.393
Ukraine
On October 5, 2016, the United States and Ukraine held the sixth meeting of the U.S.-Ukraine Trade and
Investment Council in Washington, DC. The parties discussed several issues regarding the enhancement
of bilateral trade and investment, including the enforcement and protection of intellectual property
rights, Ukraine’s regulatory regime, and expanding Ukraine’s use of the United States GSP. Officials also
discussed reforms to Ukraine’s business climate, specifically regarding Ukraine’s efforts to increase
transparency and predictability for both foreign and domestic businesses.394
Uruguay
On May 11, 2016, the United States and Uruguay held the seventh Trade and Investment Council
meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay. The parties addressed a range of issues, including trade facilitation,
390 USTR, “United States and Philippines Strengthen Engagement on Trade,” March 18, 2016.
391 USTR, “Joint Statement on the 12th Joint U.S.-Sri Lanka Trade and Investment,” April 28, 2016.
392 USTR, “United States and Taiwan Hold Dialogue,” October 4, 2016. For more information on the TIFA with
Taiwan, see the chapter 6 section on Taiwan.
393 USTR, “Joint Statement of the U.S.-Tunisia Council on Trade and Investment,” March 22, 2016.
394 USTR, “Joint Statement on the United States-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council,” October 5, 2016.

Chapter 4: Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
U.S. International Trade Commission |119
the digital economy, opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, market access, and ongoing
trade initiatives.395
395 USTR, “United States and Uruguay Hold Meeting,” May 11, 2016.

120| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |121
Chapter 5
U.S. Free Trade Agreements
This chapter summarizes developments related to U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) during 2016. 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 2016.
U.S. Trade with FTA Partners in 2016
The United States was party to 14 FTAs involving a total of 20 countries as of December 31, 2016.
Starting with the most recent, the FTAs in force during 2016 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 2006–2007) 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 $1.4 trillion in
2016, which accounted for 39.1 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade with the world. The value of
U.S. exports to FTA partners totaled $676.6 billion, a 4.7 percent decline from $710.3 billion in 2015,
which reflected the 3.3 percent decline in total U.S. exports to the world in 2016. U.S. exports to most
FTA partners declined in 2016; the exceptions were exports to Jordan, Morocco, the Dominican
Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (and to CAFTA-DR combined). U.S. imports from FTA partners were
valued at $748.8 billion, a 3.3 percent decline from $774.3 billion in 2015. The U.S. merchandise trade
deficit with all FTA partners increased 12.9 percent to $66.7 billion in 2016 (tables 5.1–5.3).
U.S. trade with the two NAFTA countries (Canada and Mexico) continued to contribute the most to all
U.S. trade with FTA partners. In 2016, these countries accounted for $1.1 trillion, or 75.0 percent, of
total U.S. trade with its FTA partners. From 2015 to 2016, the value of U.S. exports to NAFTA countries
fell 3.8 percent ($19.4 billion) to $496.9 billion. U.S. imports from NAFTA countries fell 3.4 percent
($20.3 billion), to $572.2 billion from 2015 to 2016. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with its NAFTA
partners fell 1.2 percent to $75.3 billion in 2016 because U.S. imports decreased more than U.S. exports
to its NAFTA partners (tables 5.1–5.3).
U.S. trade with non-NAFTA FTA partners was valued at $356.2 billion in 2016, which was a 5.2 percent
decrease from 2015. U.S. exports to these FTA partners decreased 7.4 percent ($14.3 billion), from
$193.9 billion in 2015 to $179.7 billion in 2016. U.S. imports from these partners decreased 2.9 percent
($5.2 billion) from $181.8 billion in 2015 to $176.6 billion in 2016. U.S. exports decreased more than
imports, which caused the U.S. merchandise trade surplus with its non-NAFTA FTA partners to decline
74.4 percent to $3.1 billion.

The Year in Trade 2016
122| www.usitc.gov
Table 5.1 Total U.S. exports to FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16
FTA partner 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
NAFTA 553,148 516,354 496,920 -3.8
Canada 312,817 280,609 265,961 -5.2
Mexico 240,331 235,745 230,959 -2.0
Non-NAFTA 211,935 193,946 179,683 -7.4
Israel 15,065 13,539 13,197 -2.5
Jordan 2,050 1,359 1,495 10.0
Chile 16,542 15,445 12,941 -16.2
Singapore 30,072 28,472 26,868 -5.6
Australia 26,682 25,036 22,225 -11.2
Morocco 2,102 1,625 1,866 14.8
Bahrain 1,060 1,271 902 -29.0
CAFTA-DR 31,128 28,722 28,866 0.5
Oman 2,015 2,355 1,784 -24.3
Peru 10,056 8,726 8,029 -8.0
South Korea 44,625 43,446 42,266 -2.7
Colombia 20,068 16,287 13,099 -19.6
Panama 10,470 7,664 6,144 -19.8
FTA partner total 765,083 710,300 676,603 -4.7
World total 1,621,172 1,502,572 1,453,721 -3.3
FTA partner share of world (%) 47.2 47.3 46.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Table 5.2 Total U.S. imports from FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16
FTA partner 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
NAFTA 645,017 592,564 572,218 -3.4
Canada 349,278 296,156 278,067 -6.1
Mexico 295,739 296,408 294,151 -0.8
Non-NAFTA 186,943 181,769 176,566 -2.9
Israel 23,007 24,477 22,206 -9.3
Jordan 1,401 1,492 1,557 4.4
Chile 9,479 8,772 8,799 0.3
Singapore 16,502 18,267 17,801 -2.6
Australia 10,697 10,894 9,534 -12.5
Morocco 995 1,012 1,022 1.0
Bahrain 965 902 768 -14.9
CAFTA-DR 28,412 23,750 23,384 -1.5
Oman 978 907 1,109 22.2
Peru 6,079 5,053 6,249 23.7
South Korea 69,680 71,759 69,932 -2.5
Colombia 18,316 14,075 13,796 -2.0
Panama 432 408 408 -0.1
FTA partner total 831,961 774,332 748,784 -3.3
World total 2,356,366 2,248,232 2,189,183 -2.6
FTA partner share of world (%) 35.3 34.4 34.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |123
Table 5.3 U.S. merchandise trade balance with FTA partners, by FTA partner, 2014–16
FTA partner 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
NAFTA -91,869 -76,209 -75,298 1.2
Canada -36,461 -15,547 -12,106 22.1
Mexico -55,408 -60,663 -63,192 -4.2
Non-NAFTA 24,992 12,177 3,117 -74.4
Israel -7,942 -10,938 -9,009 17.6
Jordan 649 -133 -62 53.0
Chile 7,062 6,673 4,141 -37.9
Singapore 13,571 10,205 9,068 -11.1
Australia 15,985 14,142 12,690 -10.3
Morocco 1,107 613 844 37.6
Bahrain 95 368 134 -63.7
CAFTA-DR 2,716 4,973 5,482 10.2
Oman 1,037 1,448 675 -53.4
Peru 3,976 3,672 1,780 -51.5
South Korea -25,055 -28,313 -27,666 2.3
Colombia 1,752 2,212 -696 (a)
Panama 10,039 7,255 5,736 -20.9
FTA partner total -66,877 -64,032 -72,181 -12.7
World total -735,194 -745,660 -735,462 1.4
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
aNot meaningful.
U.S. Imports Entered under FTAs
The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs totaled $374.2 billion in 2016, which accounted for half
(50.0 percent) of total U.S. imports from FTA partners and 17.1 percent of U.S. imports from the world
(tables 5.4–5.5).
Table 5.4 U.S. imports for consumption entered under FTAs, by FTA partner, 2014–16
FTA partner 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
NAFTA 356,958 316,160 301,946 -4.5
Canada 174,737 140,727 131,152 -6.8
Mexico 182,220 175,432 170,794 -2.6
Non-NAFTA 58,792 56,802 72,296 27.3
Israel 2,952 2,907 2,741 -5.7
Jordan 1,217 1,349 1,357 0.6
Chile 4,940 4,861 4,694 -3.4
Singapore 1,565 1,654 1,833 10.8
Australia 4,701 5,123 3,630 -29.2
Morocco 242 256 189 -26.3
Bahrain 540 527 498 -5.3
CAFTA-DR 12,854 13,518 13,658 1.0
Oman 611 599 814 35.8
Peru 3,414 2,732 2,659 -2.6
South Korea 17,110 17,831 34,823 95.3
Colombia 8,614 5,405 5,345 -1.1
Panama 32 41 54 31.9
FTA partner total 415,750 372,962 374,242 0.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
124| www.usitc.gov
Table 5.5 Ratio of U.S. imports for consumption under FTAs to U.S. general imports, by partner, 2014–
16
FTA partner 2014 2015 2016
Percent
NAFTA 55.3 53.4 52.8
Canada 50.0 47.5 47.2
Mexico 61.6 59.2 58.1
Non-NAFTA 31.4 31.2 40.9
Israel 12.8 11.9 12.3
Jordan 86.8 90.4 87.1
Chile 52.1 55.4 53.3
Singapore 9.5 9.1 10.3
Australia 43.9 47.0 38.1
Morocco 24.3 25.3 18.5
Bahrain 56.0 58.4 64.9
CAFTA-DR 45.2 56.9 58.4
Oman 62.4 66.1 73.4
Peru 56.2 54.1 42.6
South Korea 24.6 24.8 49.8
Colombia 47.0 38.4 38.7
Panama 7.4 10.0 13.3
FTA partner total 50.0 48.2 50.0
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
The value of U.S. imports entered under FTAs in 2016 increased $1.3 billion (0.3 percent), up from
$373.0 billion in 2015. FTA imports from South Korea grew $17.0 billion (95.3 percent), which
represented the largest increase. The growth was primarily driven by a large increase in motor vehicle
imports, which became duty free under the FTA on January 1, 2016. Imports under FTAs from Oman and
Panama also increased, by 35.8 percent ($215 million) and 31.9 percent ($13 million), respectively;
however, they changed from much smaller baselines. Combined imports from NAFTA partners
decreased 4.5 percent ($14.2 billion), which was mostly due to a decrease in energy-related imports
from both Canada and Mexico, and road tractor imports from Mexico.
Jordan remained the partner with the highest ratio of imports entered under an FTA to total imports,
with a ratio of 87.1 percent (table 5.5). Other countries with notably high ratios include Oman (73.4
percent), Bahrain (64.9 percent), and Mexico (58.1 percent). CAFTA-DR countries as a whole also had a
high ratio, at 58.4 percent. Each CAFTA-DR partner also had large shares, except for Costa Rica, for
which the ratio was just 33.1 percent. The partners with the smallest shares of imports entered under an
FTA to total imports continued to be Singapore (10.3 percent), Israel (12.3 percent), and Panama (13.3
percent). The imports from these countries often entered the United States free of duty under normal
trade relations rates.

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |125
Developments in FTA Negotiations during
2016
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
On February 4, 2016, the United States and 11 other countries party to the agreement signed the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP) following the conclusion of negotiations in 2015.396 Over the course of 2016,
the U.S. administration worked to prepare the agreement for congressional consideration; however,
both of the leading presidential candidates expressed opposition to the TPP as drafted, and the
implementing legislation was not submitted to Congress by yearend 2016.397 In January 2017, President
Donald Trump instructed the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to formally withdraw from TPP
discussions.398
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP) Agreement
Launched in 2013, the United States and the European Union (EU) continued negotiations in 2016
towards a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement. Four rounds of
negotiations were held in 2016 (table 5.6), with the goal of completing “an ambitious, comprehensive
and high-standard agreement this year.”399 Meetings between USTR Michael Froman and EU Trade
Minister Cecilia Malmström intensified in 2016, but certain areas of the agreement still needed
“significant work” at yearend.400 All of the rounds, except the 15th round in October 2016, included
meetings with stakeholders, including representatives from academia, business, labor, and
environmental and consumer groups.
Table 5.6 Timetable of major TTIP negotiations, 2016
Date Negotiating round
February 22–26 12th round, Brussels, Belgium
April 25–29 13th round, New York, NY
July 11–15 14th round, Brussels, Belgium
October 3–7 15th round, New York, NY
Source: USTR, “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” https://ustr.gov/ttip (accessed March 22, 2017).
During the year, the two parties made progress in all areas of the negotiations, including market access,
regulatory issues, and rules. In the area of market access, negotiators entered the year with an
agreement to eliminate duties on 97 percent of tariff lines.401 During 2016, negotiations centered on
reducing or eliminating transition periods on those tariff lines for which duties were not immediately
396 The 11 other countries under the agreement are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
397 See, for example, Inside U.S. Trade, “TPP’s Fate in Lame-Duck Uncertain,” September 29, 2016.
398 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 143.
399 White House, “Remarks by President Obama at Hannover Messe Trade Show Opening,” April 24, 2016.
400 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date,” January 17, 2017; EC, “Fourteenth Round of
Negotiations,” July 15, 2016.
401 USTR, “U.S. Press Statement at the Close of the T-TIP Round,” February 26, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
126| www.usitc.gov
eliminated at entry into force of the agreement.402 In July, the EU made its first market access offer in
financial services,403 which had been delayed by the EU until the United States agreed to include
financial services regulatory cooperation in TTIP.404 Although an agreement was not reached, a related
bilateral forum separate from TTIP, in which financial sector regulatory issues have been discussed since
2002, was enhanced, renamed, and had its first meeting in July.405 In the area of government
procurement, both sides presented first offers in February.406 The U.S. chief TTIP negotiator said it was
the most ambitious offer the United States had made in any trade agreement, including the TPP.407 But
the EU said it was seeking more market access,408 including procurement opportunities at the Federal
Aviation Administration and in rail transportation.409
Both sides indicated that progress has been made in the regulatory area.410 Discussions advanced in
2016 on regulatory cooperation and on good regulatory practices, which aim to set out principles and
rules that the United States and EU can apply in developing regulations.411 For example, progress was
made on developing a framework for regulatory cooperation that would facilitate greater compatibility
in future regulations and on strengthening transparent rulemaking by ensuring opportunities for public
input.412 Discussions moved forward on technical barriers to trade, including progress on reducing
duplicative product testing and certification requirements, as well as on devising ways to increase
participation by stakeholders in the development of each other’s product standards.413 Both sides
continued to discuss how to organize a regulatory cooperation forum.414
Talks also addressed regulatory compatibility in nine sectors, including motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals,
chemicals, medical devices, cosmetics, textiles, engineering services, information and communication
technologies, and pesticides. During the final negotiating round of 2016, the U.S. chief negotiator noted
that good progress had been made in resolving conceptual and language differences in the auto,
pharmaceutical, and medical device sectors.415 Also, the two sides made progress in 2016 on updating a
mutual recognition agreement from 1998 on good manufacturing practices for drug inspections.416
402 Ibid.; USTR, “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators from the New York Round,” April 29, 2016;
USTR, “Statement by Assistant USTR Dan Mullaney,” July 15, 2016.
403 USTR, “Statement by Assistant USTR Dan Mullaney,” July 15, 2016.
404 EC, “Report of the 14th Round of Negotiations,” July 2016.
405 U.S. Treasury, “Joint U.S.-EU Financial Regulatory Forum Joint Statement,” July 25, 2016; U.S. Treasury,
“Improvements in EU-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation,” July 19, 2016.
406 USTR, “U.S. Press Statement at the Close of the T-TIP Round,” February 26, 2016.
407 USTR, “Statement by Assistant USTR Dan Mullaney,” July 15, 2016.
408 EC, “TTIP: The Finish Line and How to Get There,” June 29, 2016.
409 European Parliament, “EU-US Negotiations on TTIP: A Survey,” July 2016, 21.
410 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date,” January 17, 2017.
411 USTR, “U.S. Press Statement at the Close of the T-TIP Round,” February 26, 2016; USTR, “Opening Remarks by
U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators from the New York Round,” April 29, 2016.
412 USTR, “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators from the New York Round,” April 29, 2016.
413 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date,” January 17, 2017.
414 EurActiv, “EU, US Negotiators Officially Drop Aim of Concluding TTIP in 2016,” Oct. 10, 2016; EC, “Report of the
15th Round of Negotiations,” October 2016, 7.
415 USTR, “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership,” October 7, 2016.
416 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date,” January 17, 2017; Corrigan, “Remarks to the Food and
Drug Law,” March 16, 2016. On March 1, 2017, the updated revised agreement entered into force. Decision No
1/2017 of 1 March 2017 of the Joint Committee established under Article 14 of the Agreement on Mutual

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |127
Negotiations also progressed during the year on labor; the environment; customs and trade facilitation;
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); energy; intellectual property rights, including geographical
indications; competition; state-owned enterprises; investor protection; and state-to-state dispute
settlement.417 In the 12th round in February, the EU presented its approach on investment protection
and dispute resolution, and views were exchanged for the first time.418 During the 13th round, the U.S.
chief negotiator said that customs and trade facilitation, competition, and SMEs were at a “very
advanced state of negotiation.”419
In a joint report on the status of negotiations as of the end of 2016, the United States and EU said that
the following areas still required “significant work”: (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.420
Developments in the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA)421
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among 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.422
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.
The commission has not met since 2012. However, officials of the three member countries have met
regularly to expand and deepen trade and investment opportunities in North America. 423
The following sections describe the major activities of NAFTA’s Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC)
and Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) during 2016, as well as dispute settlement
activities under NAFTA Chapters 11 and 19 for the year.
Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America, amending the Sectoral Annex for
Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) [2017/382], 2017 O.J. (L 58/36), March 4, 2017.
417 USTR, “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership,” October 7, 2016.
418 EC, “The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),” March
2016, 19.
419 USTR, “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators from the New York Round,” April 29, 2016; EC, “The
Transatlantic Trade and investment Partnership (TTIP)—State of Play,” April 27, 2016.
420 USTR, “U.S.-EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress,” January 17, 2017.
421 U.S. bilateral trade relations with Canada and Mexico are described in chapter 6 of this report.
422 The section on Mexico in chapter 6 provides an update on recent developments in NAFTA’s cross-border
trucking provisions; more information appears in USITC, The Year in Trade 2008, 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 TRQ.
423 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 128.

The Year in Trade 2016
128| www.usitc.gov
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. The United States’ NAO is the Office
of Trade and Labor Affairs in the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL).424 Another NAO function is to
receive and respond to public communications on labor law matters arising in another NAALC country.
Each NAO establishes its own domestic procedures for reviewing and responding to public
communications. The NAOs and the secretariat also carry out the cooperative activities of the CLC,
including seminars, conferences, joint research projects, and technical assistance.425
In 2016, the USDOL and the Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) published a joint
report on the educational and outreach activities completed in 2015 about the rights of workers under
H-2A and H-2B visas.426 In the United States, the USDOL held 29 outreach events reaching more than
2,300 workers and 1,000 employers. In Mexico, STPS held 11 events reaching almost 1,600
individuals.427
In July 2016, the Mexican NAO received a submission from two former H-2 workers, the Centro de los
Derechos del Migrante (Center for Migrant Rights), and 27 other organizations, alleging gender
discrimination in the U.S. H-2 system. The Mexican NAO accepted the submission for review in August of
the same year.428
Also in 2016, the U.S. NAO published its Public Report of Review of U.S. Submission 2015-04 (Mexico)
concerning Mexico’s obligations regarding workers’ rights under the NAALC. 429 In 2015, the USDOL
received a submission from four groups: the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, the Frente
Auténtico del Trabajo (Authentic Workers’ Front), the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, and the
Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research. The USDOL accepted the submission for
review on January 11, 2016.
The report, published in July 2016, indicates that there was too little evidence to support specific
conclusions about complaints that the Mexican government failed to effectively enforce certain aspects
of its labor laws at the chain of stores referenced in the submission. However, the report notes that
USDOL has had longstanding concerns about protection contracts and the factors that facilitate them,
such as structural bias in the Conciliation and Arbitration Boards that administer labor justice in Mexico.
The report also indicated that recent steps taken by the government of Mexico and reforms that had
been proposed would address the factors underlying these concerns, if they were effectively
424 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “Division of Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade Agreements” (accessed March 15, 2017).
425 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, “North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: A Guide” (accessed March 15, 2017).
426 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, Public Report on Outreach Events, 2016 (accessed March 30, 2017); USTR, 2017 Trade Policy
Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 128.
427 Ibid.
428 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 128.
429 Ibid., 129.

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |129
implemented.430 Mexico’s Congress approved one of those proposed reforms—the constitutional
reform that abolishes the Conciliation and Arbitration Boards and creates a system of labor courts—in
November 2016.431 The report recommends expeditious passage and implementation of the reform.
The U.S. NAO will continue to monitor and engage with the Mexican government on these and other
issues mentioned in the submission. Other issues include pregnancy discrimination and the misuse of
government-sponsored volunteer programs in retail stores.432
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 the environmental goals of NAFTA, which are to protect and improve the
environment, support sustainable development, and increase cooperation in reaching these goals.433
The CEC was established to support cooperation among the parties to reach these goals.434
Articles 14 and 15 of the supplemental agreement provide citizens and nongovernmental organizations
with a mechanism to help enforce environmental laws in the NAFTA countries. Article 14 governs
alleged violations submitted for review by the CEC. It sets out guidelines about criteria for submissions
and parties that can file complaints. Article 15 outlines the CEC Secretariat’s obligations in considering
the submissions and publishing findings in the factual record.435 At the end of 2016, three complaint files
remained active under Articles 14 and 15, two of which were submitted in 2016. All three active files
involved Mexico (table 5.7).
Table 5.7 Active files as of yearend 2016 under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation
Case title Case number First filed Countrya Status
La Primavara
Forest
SEM-15-001 July 20, 2015 Mexico The Secretariat informed the CEC Council that the Secretariat
considers that the submission warrants development of a factual
record.
Agricultural Waste
Burning in Sonora
SEM-16-001 Jan. 22, 2016 Mexico The Secretariat informed the CEC Council that the Secretariat
considers that the submission warrants development of a factual
record.
Monterrey VI
Aqueduct
SEM-16-002 July 11, 2016 Mexico 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 March 15, 2017).
aRefers to the country against which an allegation was filed.
At the 23rd regular session of the CEC Council on September 9, 2016, in Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico, the
Council focused on “Sustainable Communities and Ecosystems” as well as on “Youth and the
430 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, Public Report of Review of U.S. Submission 2015-04 (Mexico), July 8, 2016, ii–iii; and USTR,
2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 129.
431 As of January 2017, a majority of Mexico’s state legislatures had approved the constitutional reforms, as
required by law for ratification, and the reforms are expected to be implemented by early 2018. Additional
legislative reforms to address protection contracts and union representation challenges are pending in Mexico’s
Congress.
432 USDOL, ILAB, OTLA, Public Report of Review of U.S. Submission 2015-04 (Mexico), July 8, 2016, i–iv.
433 CEC, “North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation” (accessed March 17, 2017).
434 CEC, “About the CEC” (accessed March 17, 2017).
435 CEC, “About Submissions on Enforcement Matters” (accessed March 15, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
130| www.usitc.gov
Environment in North America.” The CEC’s Joint Public Advisory Committee also hosted a public forum
on biodiversity and climate change.436 The CEC Ministerial Statement noted that several significant
milestones for the three countries occurred in 2016, including the signing of the Paris Agreement on
climate change as well as the North American Leaders Summit. The summit was held in Ottawa, Canada,
on June 29, 2016, and the North American leaders launched an Action Plan on Climate, Clean Energy,
and Environmental Partnership there. The 24th session will be held in 2017 in Charlottetown, Prince
Edward Island, Canada.437
The Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank were
created in 1993 to address environmental issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region.438 As of December
31, 2016, the bank had contracted a total of nearly $2.8 billion in loans and grants, of which 96 percent
has been disbursed for use in 216 environmental infrastructure projects. 439
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.440 The sections below
describe developments during 2016 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 2016.
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.441 A key feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability in domestic courts of
final awards made by arbitration tribunals.442 In 2016, there were five active Chapter 11 cases filed
against the United States, four of them filed by Canadian investors and one filed by Mexican
436 CEC, “CEC Ministerial Statement—2016: Twenty-third Regular Session” (accessed March 15, 2017).
437 CEC, “CEC Ministerial Statement—2016: Twenty-third Regular Session” (accessed March 15, 2017).
438 NADB, “About Us: Origins,” http://www.nadbank.org/about/origins.asp (accessed March 17, 2017).
439 NADB, “Summary of Project Implementation Activities: Active Projects,” December 31, 2016.
440 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 15, 2017).
441 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 March 15, 2017).
442 Ibid.

http://www.nadbank.org/about/origins.asp

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |131
investors;443 one filed by U.S. investors against Canada; 444 and one filed by U.S. investors against
Mexico.445
Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews
Chapter 19 of NAFTA contains a mechanism that provides for a binational panel to review final
determinations made by national investigating authorities in antidumping and countervailing duty
cases.446 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. 447 At the end of 2016, the NAFTA Secretariat
listed six binational panels active under Chapter 19 (table 5.8). Four of the six active cases challenged
the Mexican agency’s determinations on products from the United States, and two challenged U.S.
agencies’ determinations on products from Canada and Mexico.448
Table 5.8 NAFTA Chapter 19 binational panels, active reviews through 2016
Country Filed by Case number
National agencies’
final determinationa Case title
Mexico
United States MEX-USA-2012-1904-01 SE Antidumping
Administrative Review
Chicken Thighs and Legs
United States MEX-USA-2012-1904-02 SE Antidumping
Administrative Review
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl
Ether
United States MEX-USA-2015-1904-01 SE Antidumping
Administrative Review
Ammonium Sulphate
United States MEX-USA-2016-1904-01 SE Antidumping
Administrative Review
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl
Ether
United States
Canada USA-CDA-2015-1904-01 USDOC Antidumping
Administrative Review
Supercalendered Paper
Mexico USA-MEX-2014-1904-02 USITC Injury Determination Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar
Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases” (accessed March 15, 2017).
a In Canada, final dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the Canada Border Services Agency, and injury determinations are made
by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. In Mexico, all determinations are made by the Secretariat of the Economy. In the United States,
dumping and subsidy determinations are made by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), and injury determinations are made by the
USITC. NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 15, 2017).
Developments in Other FTAs Already in Force
during 2016
In 2016, U.S. officials met with FTA partners for discussions on a variety of matters, including dispute
settlement, labor issues, enhancing trade and investment, and environmental issues. Highlights of these
consultations are presented in this section.
443 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United States” (accessed March 15, 2017).
444 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the Government of Canada” (accessed March
15, 2017).
445 USDOS, “NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations: Cases Filed against the United Mexican States” (accessed March 15,
2017).
446 The binational panel is made up of representatives of the two nationalities that are involved in the dispute.
447 NAFTA Secretariat, “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions” (accessed March 15, 2017). Such reviews
involve the parties and designated agencies, rather than individuals or firms.
448 NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases” (accessed March 15, 2017).

The Year in Trade 2016
132| www.usitc.gov
Twelve of the 14 U.S. FTAs have investment provisions designed to protect foreign investors and their
investments and to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes.449 According to the U.S.
Department of State, among the U.S. FTAs that provide for investor-state dispute settlements, there are
ongoing investor disputes under NAFTA (as discussed above), the U.S.-Chile FTA, CAFTA-DR, the U.S.-
Peru TPA, and the U.S.-Oman FTA.450
Thirteen of the 14 U.S. FTAs have labor provisions to protect worker rights and facilitate cooperation on
labor issues.451 By yearend 2016, USDOL and other agencies had acted on labor complaints made by
interested parties in seven FTA partners: Bahrain, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, and Peru. In 2016, USDOL received one submission, under the labor chapter of the
U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. USDOL also released two review reports, one on the
submission filed against Mexico under the NAALC, the other on the submission filed against Peru under
the labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.452 For more detailed information
regarding these developments, see the section on each respective FTA in this chapter.
U.S.-Australia FTA
On May 3, 2016, officials from the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Joint Committee held a meeting
to review implementation of the U.S.-Australia FTA, including issues related to goods and services,
investment, and intellectual property.453
CAFTA-DR
The central oversight body for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is the Free Trade Commission, comprising the U.S. Trade Representative and the
trade ministers of the other CAFTA-DR parties or their designees.454 In August 2016, technical-level staff
of the parties met in Managua, Nicaragua, to follow up on agreements made during the previous Free
Trade Commission meeting in 2015 to advance technical and administrative implementation issues.455
Labor
In October 2016, USDOL issued its fifth periodic review on implementation of the recommendations in
its 2013 report. The original report found evidence of apparent and potential violations of labor law in
449 CRS, U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress, April 29, 2013, 14. The U.S. FTAs with
Bahrain and Jordan do not have investment provisions. 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.
450 For more information, see USDOS, “International Claims and Investment Disputes (L/CID),” n.d. (accessed
March 9, 2017).
451 Only the 1985 U.S.-Israel has no such provisions. For more information, see USDOL, ILAB, “Submissions under
the Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements,” n.d. (accessed March 9, 2017).
452 For more information on NAALC and Mexico, see the previous section on NAFTA in this chapter.
453 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 116.
454 Ibid.
455 Ibid.

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |133
the Dominican sugar sector, while the 2016 review noted positive steps taken by the Dominican
Republic and the sugar industry to address these concerns.456
Environment
Officials responsible for trade and environment under CAFTA-DR held several meetings in 2016 to
discuss environmental cooperation funding, the monitoring and implementation of environmental
obligations under the agreement, and preparation for senior-level meetings of the Environmental Affairs
Council. The council met in July 2016 in San Salvador, El Salvador, to mark the 10-year anniversary of
CAFTA-DR.457
U.S.-Chile FTA
The central oversight body for the U.S.-Chile FTA is the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Commission, composed of
the U.S. Trade Representative and Chile’s Director General of International Economic Affairs or their
designees. This commission held its 11th meeting in December 2016. The commission recognized the
value of discussions about the implementation of Chapter 17 (IPR) and further reviewed implementation
of the FTA, including the need to update product-specific rules of origin to reflect the 2017 changes to
the global Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) used to classify
traded goods. It reaffirmed the parties’ goal of resolving concerns about sanitary and phytosanitary
standards (SPS) and continued cooperation on these matters. 458
Labor
The FTA Labor Chapter establishes a Labor Cooperation Mechanism for the United States and Chile to
work together to improve labor standards and advance common commitments. In June 2016, a
delegation from the Chilean Ministry of Labor visited Washington, DC. Their agenda included a working-
group meeting of the Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labor and a visit to the Job Corps
center of the U.S. Department of Labor. Chile has enacted several pieces of labor legislation over the
past decade that are relevant to the FTA Labor Chapter, including guaranteeing the rights of workers to
collective bargaining in 2016. Effective April 2017, this law limits employers’ power to replace striking
workers, expands collective bargaining rights to some temporary workers and apprentices, and removes
obstacles that previously inhibited bargaining beyond the individual enterprise level. The USDOL, in its
annual report on child labor, found that Chile has made significant progress in the areas of law
enforcement, policy, legislative efforts, and social programs.459
U.S.-Colombia TPA
The central oversight body for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is the U.S.-Colombia Free
Trade Commission, composed of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Colombian Minister of Trade,
Industry, and Tourism or their designees. In 2016, the United States and Colombia continued to work
together to carry out initiatives launched at the commission’s 2012 meeting, including the elimination of
456 USDOL, ILAB, “Fifth Periodic Review of Implementation of Recommendations,” October 5, 2016.
457 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 152.
458 Ibid., 121.
459 Ibid., 122.

The Year in Trade 2016
134| www.usitc.gov
tariffs for certain goods, the establishment of certain elements related to the dispute settlement
mechanism, and updating the agreement’s rules of origin.460
Labor
The agreement’s entry into force was accompanied by the Action Plan Related to Labor Rights (Action
Plan) for Colombia, developed jointly by the parties and launched in 2011. The year 2016 marked the
five-year anniversary of the Action Plan. In 2016, the Colombian government continued implementing
the plan, including issuing a presidential decree to crack down on illegal forms of subcontracting.
Ongoing engagement between U.S. and Colombian officials in 2016 included videoconferences with
Colombia’s Minister of Labor, a July meeting in Washington, DC, with the Minister of Labor, and a
November mission to Colombia by USTR and USDOL officials.461
In May 2016, labor unions and nongovernmental organizations in the United States and Colombia filed a
public submission with USDOL, alleging that the government of Colombia had failed to effectively
enforce labor laws and had not adopted laws to protect labor rights. The USDOL accepted this
submission and began the detailed review process in July 2016. The review considers all information
provided by the submitters, the government of Colombia, and others with knowledge of the issue.462
U.S.-Israel FTA
The central oversight body for the U.S.-Israel FTA is the U.S.-Israel Joint Committee. The Joint
Committee met in February 2016 to discuss potential efforts to increase bilateral trade and investment.
The parties also discussed specific impediments to bilateral trade related to standards and customs
practices. In addition, Israel proposed resuming negotiations on a permanent U.S.-Israel Agreement on
Trade in Agricultural Products (ATAP). Initially negotiated in 1996, ATAP allowed U.S. products
preferential market access to Israel, but did not conform to the U.S.-Israel FTA’s objective of free trade
in agricultural products. ATAP was renegotiated in 2004 to include additional market access
opportunities in agricultural products and was to remain in effect until December 2008. ATAP has been
extended on an annual basis since 2008 after Israel and the United States were unable to conclude a
successor agreement. In July, the United States revised modalities for a new permanent ATAP
agreement. These proposals are being reviewed by both sides.463
U.S.-Jordan FTA
The U.S.-Jordan Joint Committee met in May 2016 to discuss labor issues, technical barriers to
agricultural trade, acceptance of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, and
Jordan’s accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. After the meetings concluded, the
460 Ibid., 122.
461 Ibid., 123.
462 USDOL issued a public report regarding this submission on January 11, 2017. The report raises concerns about
the labor law inspection and enforcement system in place to protect rights to freedom of association and collective
bargaining. USDOL, “Submission under U.S.-Colombia TPA,” n.d. (accessed March 14, 2017).
463 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 123–24.

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |135
issue of licensing imports of poultry from the United States was resolved, allowing U.S. poultry to be
imported into Jordan.464
U.S.-Korea FTA (KORUS)
The Joint Committee is the central oversight committee under the U.S.-Korea FTA. It is responsible for
supervising the agreement’s implementation, coordinating the work of other committees, and resolving
issues that may arise.465 In 2016, nine committees and working groups established under KORUS met to
discuss issues related to the agreement. Highlights of these meetings are detailed below:
The Committee on Trade in Goods discussed the South Korean Customs Service’s interpretation of the
FTA’s rules of origin and verification procedures, resulting in the closure of two outstanding customs
reviews of U.S. manufacturers. The committee also discussed U.S. concerns about new customs
clearance procedures for express delivery packages at Incheon airport.
The Medicines and Medical Devices Committee discussed South Korea’s import pricing system, South
Korea’s patent linkage system, and updates on draft regulations related to pharmaceutical drugs in
South Korea.
The Professional Services Working Group focused on potential efforts to enhance trade in professional
services.
The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters discussed South Korea’s process for reviewing
and approving new biotechnology events,466 outstanding plant and animal market access issues, and
issues pertaining to maximum residue limits in pesticides.467
In November 2016, U.S. and South Korean officials held technical-level conversations related to the
KORUS labor chapter. The parties also discussed cooperative efforts to facilitate corporate compliance
with international labor standards in global supply chains.468
U.S.-Morocco FTA
In October 2016, U.S. and Moroccan officials held an Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary FTA
Subcommittee meeting in Washington, DC. The meeting covered a variety of issues, including exports of
bovine genetics and pet food from the United States to Morocco.469
Labor
In 2016, the government of Morocco passed a domestic worker law that addresses an issue of concern
that was raised by the United States during a 2014 meeting of the FTA Subcommittee on Labor. This law,
464 Ibid., 124.
465 USTR, “Statement on Meeting of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” December 15, 2014.
466 An event is the insertion of a particular transgene into a specific location on a chromosome. The term “event” is
often used to differentiate genetically engineered crop varieties.
467 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 126.
468 Ibid.
469 Ibid., 127.

The Year in Trade 2016
136| www.usitc.gov
which takes effect in August 2017, extends protections and benefits to workers by setting a minimum
wage, limiting weekly hours of work, providing a day of rest, and establishing a minimum age of
employment.470
U.S.-Panama TPA
In November 2016, the Free Trade Commission, the central oversight body of the U.S.-Panama TPA, held
a meeting to review progress on implementing the TPA. The committee also discussed next steps on
outstanding intellectual property commitments and concerns related to bilateral trade in agricultural
products. In December 2016, the parties agreed to update the TPA’s rules of origin to correspond to
changes in the system of product names (nomenclature) used in the international Harmonized System.
During the year, the two sides also made progress on establishing the dispute settlement infrastructure
under the agreement.471
Labor
The TPA includes a labor chapter requiring both countries to adopt and maintain fundamental labor
rights, to enforce their labor laws, and to avoid waiving or deviating from these laws in a way that would
affect trade or investment. In February 2016, U.S. and Panamanian officials met in Washington, DC, to
discuss labor law enforcement issues and best practices in the areas of child labor, wage-and-hour
protections, and occupational safety and health.472
Environment
The November 2016 meeting of the Free Trade Commission also included discussions on the next steps
in staffing an independent secretariat. The secretariat mechanism is responsible for encouraging the
public to take part in identifying environmental enforcement issues and is to consider public
submissions about the enforcement of environmental laws.473
U.S.-Peru TPA
The main oversight body of the U.S.-Peru TPA is the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Commission. In 2016, the
commission continued work on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade,
with much of the work centering on logging issues under the Annex on Forest Sector Governance. In
March 2016, following technical-level exchanges and engagements between Peruvian officials and USTR
and USDA, an official letter was finalized with Peru that resulted in the removal of trade restrictions
related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.474
470 Ibid.
471 Ibid., 130–31.
472 Ibid., 131.
473 Ibid., 154.
474 Ibid., 132. This ailment is also known as mad cow disease.

Chapter 5: U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. International Trade Commission |137
Labor
In March 2016, USDOL issued a report in response to the public submission filed under the Labor
chapter of the TPA by the International Labor Rights Forum and seven Peruvian workers’ organizations.
The submission alleged that the government of Peru had failed to adopt and maintain laws that protect
labor rights and to enforce existing labor laws. USDOL’s report raised concerns regarding freedom of
association as well as questions about labor law enforcement. 475
Environment
In 2016, the two countries held several meetings to discuss and monitor issues in implementing the
TPA’s environment chapter and its Annex on Forest Sector Governance.476
In February 2016, the USTR requested that the government of Peru verify that certain wood products
exported to the United States in 2015 adhered to applicable Peruvian laws and regulations. Peru’s
subsequent investigation showed that a significant portion of these timber shipments did not comply
with Peruvian laws on trade in timber products. In August 2016, the Timber Committee issued a set of
recommendations to address this violation, and in November 2016 the USTR reached an agreement with
Peru on a concrete set of actions.477
In November 2016, officials from the United States and Peru conducted several meetings in Lima, Peru,
under the Environmental Affairs Council, the Subcommittee on Forest Sector Governance, and the
Environmental Cooperation Commission.478
475 USDOL, ILAB, “2015 Submission under U.S.-Peru TPA,” March 18, 2016.
476 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 154.
477 Ibid., 155.
478 Ibid.

138| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |139
Chapter 6
U.S. Trade Relations with Selected
Trading Partners
This chapter reviews U.S. bilateral trade relations with 10 selected trading partners. Among these are
some of the United States’ major trading partners in 2016, as well as others that are notable as a result
of recent changes to U.S. bilateral trade relations. This year, the report covers the following trading
partners: the European Union (EU), China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Brazil,
and Cuba (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, the
U.S. trade balance, U.S. merchandise exports, and U.S. merchandise imports. That description is
followed by summaries of the major bilateral trade-related developments during 2016.
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 declined 1.8 percent, from $699.6 billion in 2015 to $687.0 billion in 2016. However, the EU share of
U.S. trade increased for the third year in a row, from 18.7 percent in 2015 to 18.9 percent in 2016, as
total U.S. trade with the world declined by more than U.S. trade with the EU. The U.S. trade deficit with
the EU fell $9.2 billion from $155.6 billion in 2015 to $146.3 billion in 2016 as U.S. imports from the EU
dropped more than U.S. exports to the EU (figure 6.1). At the same time, the United States continued to
register a trade surplus in services with the EU, increasing $0.9 billion in 2016 to $61.4 billion (figure
6.2). The EU accounted for 32.8 percent ($397.8 billion) of U.S. two-way trade in services in 2016. The
United Kingdom was the EU’s largest services trader with the United States, with 29.2 percent of the EU
total, followed by Germany and France.479
The EU became the largest market for U.S. merchandise exports in 2016, surpassing Canada, which had
ranked as the largest export market in 2015. U.S. exports to the EU were stable, falling just 0.6 percent
to $270.3 billion in 2016. Leading U.S. exports to the EU included civilian aircraft, engines, and parts;
medicaments (medicines); blood fractions (e.g., antiserum); refined petroleum products; and hand-
executed paintings, drawings, and pastels.
The EU was the second-largest source of U.S. imports, following China. U.S. imports from the EU
decreased 2.5 percent, from $427.6 billion in 2015 to $416.7 billion in 2016. Leading U.S. imports were
passenger motor vehicles, medicaments, blood fractions, refined petroleum products, and parts of
turbojets and turbopropellers. U.S.-EU merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.27
through A.30.
479 The services trade data by country reported in this chapter are based on trade in private services, which exclude
government sales and purchases of services.

The Year in Trade 2016
140| www.usitc.gov
Figure 6.1 U.S. merchandise trade with the EU, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.2 U.S. private services trade with the EU, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
50
100
150
200
250
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |141
Trade Developments
The major focus of the U.S.-EU trade relationship in 2016 was negotiations to conclude the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement. TTIP trade negotiators aimed to complete the
negotiations in 2016, but issues remained at yearend.480 The Transatlantic Economic Council continued
its work in parallel to TTIP, focusing primarily on long-term regulatory cooperation. Other notable
developments in 2016 included a U.S.-EU agreement on the Privacy Shield, a framework that allows
U.S.-based companies to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States consistent with EU law,
and negotiations to conclude an agreement on insurance and reinsurance. These are described
below.481
In December 2016, the United States took initial steps toward reinstating trade action against the EU in
a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute that began in 1996 over the EU’s ban on meat treated with
certain growth-promoting hormones (DS26).482 Although a bilateral memorandum of understanding
(MOU) was signed in 2009 in an effort to resolve the disagreement, the United States claims that its beef
industry has been prevented from gaining the intended benefits from the MOU. 483 There were also
developments in other WTO dispute settlement cases involving the United States and the EU in 2016. A
compliance panel report was circulated in September 2016 that addressed the long-running complaint
by the United States about EU measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft (DS316). Also, a panel
report was circulated in November 2016 in the complaint by the EU regarding conditional tax incentives,
established by Washington state, for large civil aircraft (DS487). For more information about WTO
dispute settlement cases, see chapter 3 and appendix table A.25.
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 in order to strengthen integration and
growth.484 The TEC’s efforts tend to be long term and focus on aligning “transatlantic standards and
regulation to enable the growth of innovative, export-oriented industries in the United States and the
EU.” 485 On November 30, 2016, U.S. and EU officials met for the first time since November 2015 to
review progress and discuss new opportunities for collaboration to support innovation and growth.486
A report of the meeting noted progress in 2016 on the following:487
• Electric vehicles: Work continued on developing common standards, test procedures, and tools
to promote universal compatibility and interoperability between electric vehicles, supply
480 For more information on TTIP, see chapter 5 of this report.
481 In addition, in June 2016, the UK voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”), but the UK’s actual break from
the EU is not expected to be completed for several years.
482 81 Fed. Reg. 95724 (December 28, 2016); USTR, “Obama Administration Takes Action to Address European
Union’s Unfair Trade Practices against U.S. Beef Industry,” December 22, 2016.
483 USTR, “Obama Administration Takes Action,” December 22, 2016. For more information on this issue, see
discussion of Section 301 cases in chapter 2.
484 USDOS, EUR, “Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration,” April 30, 2007.
485 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council, Facilitators’ Report,” November 30, 2016.
486 Ibid.
487 Ibid.

The Year in Trade 2016
142| www.usitc.gov
equipment, and electric power supply infrastructure. In 2016, the two sides agreed to cooperate
on battery testing, energy efficiency of electric and hybrid vehicles, interoperability of smart
grids (upgraded “intelligent” electricity networks), electromagnetic compatibility, and wider
standardization work.488
• E-health: To encourage the more effective use of information and communications technology
for delivery of health services, work continued in two areas: (1) developing and promoting the
use of internationally recognized standards to enable the exchange of patient summary records
globally, and (2) developing common curricula to train health workers on health-related
information and communications technology to build skilled e-health workforces in the United
States and EU. In July 2016, the two sides updated the e-health roadmap, which lays out the
vision, challenges, and action plans, including specific deliverables, of the work on standards and
workforce development, as well as newer work to encourage innovation in the e-health
industry.489
• Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Work continued on enhancing cooperation to
promote trade and investment opportunities for U.S. and EU SMEs. The seventh U.S.-EU SME
workshop was held in June 2016, in Tallinn, Estonia, to exchange best practices and discuss
topics including access to finance, intellectual property rights (IPRs), access to standards, and
entrepreneurship. U.S. and EU negotiators of the SME chapter in TTIP also met with SME
representatives at the workshop to discuss their needs and expectations of TTIP. In addition, the
United States and EU worked together to support SME events at several international fairs and
at a cluster matchmaking event to help SMEs find strategic partners in thematic areas of mutual
interest.490
• The bio-based economy: Work continued on developing guidance on the nature of bio-based
products, data collection, and benchmarking, as well as on aligning international standards in
this sector.
• Nanotechnology: Regular meetings continued in 2016 to exchange information on regulatory
and scientific developments to help inform decision-making in the United States and the EU.
• Raw materials: TEC participants continued to share best practices and develop approaches to
ensure fair access to and responsible use of critical raw materials, in part to avoid future trade
disruptions. 491
TEC officials also agreed at the annual meeting to add one new area for cooperation. The two sides
agreed to explore opportunities for cooperating on ocean research projects to help support sustainable
economic activities in the Atlantic.492
488 Ibid.; EC, “Interoperability and E-Mobility,” n.d., https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/interoperability-
and-e-mobility (accessed February 23, 2017).
489 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council, Facilitators’ Report,” November 30, 2016; USDOS, “Transatlantic
eHealth/Health IT Cooperation Roadmap,” July 28, 2016; USDOS, “Transatlantic eHealth/Health IT Cooperation
Roadmap: Annex—Actions and Deliverables,” July 28, 2016.
490 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council, Facilitators’ Report,” November 30, 2016; USDOS, EUR, “Joint
Statement on the 7th U.S.-EU SME Best Practices Workshop,” June 2, 2016.
491 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council, Facilitators’ Report,” November 30, 2016; EC, “Transatlantic
Economic Council: Cooperation on Innovation for Growth,” November 30, 2016.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/interoperability-and-e-mobility

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |143
U.S.-EU Privacy Shield
EU data protection regulations allow the transmission of EU personal data to third countries only if the
country is deemed to provide an adequate level of protection by reason of domestic law or international
commitments.493 In February 2016, the United States and EU announced a new method for companies
to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States that is consistent with EU law. The new
framework—the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield—replaces the Safe Harbor agreement that was invalidated by
the European Court of Justice in October 2015.494 On July 12, 2016, the Privacy Shield entered into force
when the European Commission deemed the Privacy Shield framework adequate to enable data
transfers under EU law.495
Company participation in the Privacy Shield is voluntary. To participate, a company must certify that it
will comply with the data-handling requirements of the Privacy Shield. The U.S. Department of
Commerce began accepting certifications to the Privacy Shield from U.S. companies on August 1,
2016.496
The Privacy Shield framework consists of four broad areas, including:497
1. The Privacy Shield principles, which are a code of conduct or set of obligations on U.S.-based
companies regarding the handling of data transferred from the EU to the United States. To
become a Privacy Shield participant, a company must commit to comply with these principles so
that the commitment becomes enforceable under U.S. law. For example, a participant must
ensure accountability for data transferred to third parties, and must provide free and accessible
dispute resolution.
2. Oversight and enforcement of the program by the U.S. government. For example, the U.S.
government will verify that companies have met self-certification requirements before the
certification is finalized, and will proactively monitor participating companies.
3. A new ombudsperson, located at the U.S. Department of State. This new mechanism aims to
facilitate the processing of requests relating to national security access to data transmitted to
the United States from the EU.
4. Safeguards and limitations on U.S. government access to data in the areas of national security
and law enforcement.498
492 USDOS, EUR, “Transatlantic Economic Council, Facilitators’ Report,” November 30, 2016; EC, “Transatlantic
Economic Council,” November 30, 2016.
493 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of
Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L
281/31). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en .
494 For more background, see USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, July 2016, 164–65.
495 CRS, “Digital Trade and U.S. Policy,” January 2017, 20; USDOC, “Privacy Shield Overview” (accessed February 23,
2017).
496 USDOC, “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework,” July 12, 2016.
497 USDOC, “The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework FAQs” (accessed February 23, 2017).
498 USDOC, “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework Principles,” February 29, 2016; USDOC, “The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
Framework FAQs” (accessed February 23, 2017); USDOC, “Key New Requirements” (accessed February 23, 2017);
CRS, “Digital Trade and U.S. Policy,” January 2017, 20.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en

The Year in Trade 2016
144| www.usitc.gov
The Privacy Shield framework also provides for an annual review of the program by U.S. and EU officials.
Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance
In 2016, U.S. and EU officials met five times to negotiate an agreement on insurance and reinsurance,
although a final agreement was not concluded by yearend.499 The aim of the United States was to
ensure that a new agreement would “level the regulatory playing field for U.S.-based insurers and
reinsurers operating [in the EU]” following the January 1, 2016, implementation of a new insurance
regulatory regime in the EU, known as Solvency II.500 Solvency II501 requires that U.S. insurers and
reinsurers be deemed equivalent to EU providers in order to ensure continued access to the EU
market.502 Three major areas of prudential insurance supervision were the subject of negotiations:
group supervision, exchange of information between supervisory authorities on both sides, and
reinsurance supervision, including collateral.503
China
U.S.-China Trade
In 2016, China remained the United States’ largest single-country trading partner based on two-way
merchandise trade, accounting for 15.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. two-way
merchandise trade with China amounted to $578.6 billion in 2016, a decrease of 3.5 percent over the
$599.3 billion recorded in 2015. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China, which fell $20.1 billion to
$347.0 billion in 2016, remained higher than the U.S. trade deficit with any other trading partner. The
contraction of this deficit was attributable to a $20.4 billion decrease in U.S. merchandise imports from
China, while U.S. merchandise exports to China decreased by much less, $297 million (figure 6.3). In
2016, China continued to be the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner based on
two-way services trade of $69.0 billion. U.S. services trade with China has been increasing in recent
years; it amounted to 5.7 percent of total U.S. services trade in 2016, compared to 5.3 percent in 2015
and 4.9 percent in 2014. The U.S. services trade surplus with China increased $4.2 billion in 2016 to
$37.0 billion, as a result of growing U.S. exports. In 2016, U.S. services exports to China grew $5.2 billion,
or 10.8 percent, while U.S. services imports from China grew $995 million, or 6.6 percent, relative to the
year before (figure 6.4).
499 On January 13, 2017, U.S. and EU officials announced the conclusion of an agreement, which was sent to
Congress the same day. In general, the agreement provides that U.S. insurance groups operating in the EU will not
have to meet EU worldwide group capital, reporting, or governance requirements, and will be supervised at the
worldwide group level only by relevant U.S. insurance supervisors. It also encourages U.S. and EU insurance
supervisory authorities to share information on insurers and reinsurers that operate in the U.S. and EU markets.
Finally, it eliminates collateral and local presence requirements for U.S. reinsurers operating in the EU insurance
market, subject to certain conditions. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Bilateral Agreement between the
European Union and the United States of America on Prudential,” January 18, 2017.
500 Wall and Harney, letter to Richard Shelby et al., November 20, 2015.
501 Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2014/51/EU, replaces 14 existing directives
commonly known as Solvency I.
502 Wall and Harney, letter to Richard Shelby et al., November 20, 2015; Trans-Atlantic Business Council, “TABC
Welcomes U.S.-EU Agreement,” January 13, 2016.
503 USTR, “Joint Statement on U.S.-EU Negotiations,” December 12, 2016.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |145
Figure 6.3 U.S. merchandise trade with China, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.4 U.S. private services trade with China, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

The Year in Trade 2016
146| www.usitc.gov
China was the third-largest single-country destination for U.S. merchandise exports in 2016, behind
Canada and Mexico. U.S. merchandise exports to China amounted to $115.8 billion in 2016, decreasing
0.3 percent, or $297 million, relative to 2015. The slight drop in U.S. exports to China in 2016 was
broadly reflective of shrinking demand from China, given that its imports from all countries in the world
decreased 5.1 percent relative to 2015.504 Leading U.S. exports to China in 2016 were civilian aircraft,
engines, and parts (12.6 percent of total U.S. exports to China) and soybeans (12.3 percent). Other
leading U.S. exports to China included processors and controllers, machines for semiconductor or
integrated circuit manufacturing, and cellphones. Exports of passenger motor vehicles, when combined,
constitute the third largest U.S. export product to China at $8.9 billion.505
In 2016, U.S. merchandise imports from China amounted to $462.8 billion, representing 21.1 percent of
all U.S. goods imports in that year. While this was more than imports from any other country, U.S.
merchandise imports from China fell 4.2 percent relative to the year before. Leading 2016 U.S. imports
from China were cellphones; portable computers and tablets; telecommunications equipment; tricycles,
scooters, and related toys; and computer parts and accessories. U.S.-China merchandise trade data are
shown in appendix tables A.31 through A.34.
Trade Developments
Among the prominent trade developments that unfolded in 2016 between the United States and China
were certain dispute settlement cases between the two countries. Since China’s accession to the WTO in
2001, the United States has filed 21 of the 39 complaints against China under the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism, and China has filed 10 such complaints against the United States. 506 In 2016, the
United States filed 3 new complaints against China. On July 13, 2016, the United States requested
consultations with China regarding China’s export duties on certain raw materials, including antimony,
cobalt, copper, graphite, lead, magnesia, talc, tantalum, and tin.507 On September 13, 2016, the United
States requested consultations with China regarding certain measures through which China appears to
provide domestic support in favor of agricultural producers producing wheat, indica rice, japonica rice,
and corn.508 Finally, on December 15, 2016, the United States requested consultations with China
regarding China’s administration of its tariff-rate quotas, including those on wheat, short- and medium-
grain rice, long-grain rice, and corn.509 On December 12, 2016, China requested consultations with the
United States concerning certain provisions of U.S. law pertaining to the determination of normal value
for “nonmarket economy” countries in antidumping proceedings involving products from China.510
Developments in these and other WTO dispute settlement proceedings during 2016 are described in
more detail in chapter 3 and appendix table A.25.
504 IHS Markit, GTA database (accessed February 27, 2017).
505 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 21, 2017). Passenger motor vehicles include 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.
506 WTO, “Chronological List of Dispute Settlement Cases” (accessed March 5, 2017).
507 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS508; China―Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials” (accessed March 5, 2017).
508 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS511; China―Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers” (accessed March 5,
2017).
509 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS517; China―Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products” (accessed
March 5, 2017). On January 12, 2017, the United States also requested consultations with China at the WTO
concerning subsidies that China is alleged to provide to its producers of aluminum (DS519). For more information
on the aluminum industry, see USITC, Aluminum: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, June 2017.
510 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS515; United States―Measures Related to Price Comparison Methodologies”
(accessed March 5, 2017).

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |147
In 2016, the most prominent U.S.-China bilateral trade issues were discussed during three key meetings:
at the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) held in June 2016; on the sidelines of
the G20 Summit in September 2016; and at the annual Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT)
held in November 2016. The S&ED, established in 2009, is a high-level forum in which the United States
and China can discuss a wide range of bilateral and global political, strategic, security, and economic
issues. The JCCT, established in 1983, is a forum for the highest-level dialogue on bilateral trade issues
and is broadly considered a vehicle for promoting commercial relations. In 2016, major topics addressed
by U.S. and Chinese officials in these and other discussions included China’s protection and enforcement
of IPRs; overcapacity in China’s steel industry; and policies that have restricted market access of U.S.
exports, including information and communications technology products and services.
Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement
The United States and China have long held consultations on IPR issues, particularly since China’s WTO
accession and its acceptance of the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
Agreement.511 As a result, China has undertaken substantial legal and judicial reforms, although U.S.
companies continue to report problems, most notably on issues related to the enforcement of pre-
existing IPR laws and on the protection of trade secrets.512
In its 2016 Special 301 Report, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) described recent IPR-
related policy developments in China, as well as ongoing IPR-related problems.513 The report notes that
in its continuing efforts to update its laws and regulations on copyrights, patents, trade secrets, drug
review and approvals, and IP components of its 2008 Anti-Monopoly Law, the Chinese government
introduced new measures in draft legislation. Those measures offer domestic Chinese industry officials
and entrepreneurs a means of participating in the policy development process.514 They also include the
use of market mechanisms to help guide policy makers’ research and development initiatives.515 In
addition, China initiated a capacity-building three-year pilot study on the merits of specialized
intellectual property courts, including those in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Moreover, at the
November 2016 JCCT meeting, China made a series of IPR-related commitments. These included
commitments to end bad-faith trademark filings, joint efforts with U.S. government agencies to train
U.S. and Chinese SMEs on IPR protection in e-commerce, implementation measures to end illegal online
broadcasting of sporting events, and initiatives to decrease the likelihood of trade secret
misappropriation (e.g., lowering judicial requirements for information that may contain trade secrets,
and increased protection of information when sensitive company data is required for judicial review). 516
Despite these developments, U.S. companies continued to report ineffective protection of IPRs in all
forms, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and protection of pharmaceutical test
data. Consequently, USTR’s 2016 Special 301 Report again placed China on its “Priority Watch List,”
noting particular concerns with trade secret theft, measures that favor domestically owned intellectual
property in the name of promoting innovation, online copyright piracy, trade of counterfeit goods, and
511 For more information on the effect of China’s IPR infringement, see USITC, China: Intellectual Property
Infringement, November 2010, and USITC, China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement, May 2011.
512 USTR, 2016 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 4.
513 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 3.
514 Ibid., 7–8, 29–36.
515 Ibid.
516 USTR, “U.S.-China Joint Fact Sheet on the 27th U.S.-China Joint Commission,” November 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
148| www.usitc.gov
technology transfer requirements.517 In addition, USTR again named Chinese online and physical
marketplaces that reportedly engage in and facilitate substantial copyright piracy and trademark
counterfeiting in its 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets.518
China’s Excess Capacity in Steel
The United States and China intensified their focus on China’s excess production of steel and other
metals in 2016 through a series of bilateral discussions. Efforts included a September 2016 meeting
between President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping, a December 2016 Global Forum on Steel
Excess Capacity at the G20, and high-level discussions at the 2016 JCCT and U.S.-China S&ED.519 Both
countries agreed to promote the establishment of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity and to
actively participate in and strengthen information sharing.520 Such a forum is intended to create a venue
for identifying market-distorting policies, developing best practices, and encouraging countries to
realign industrial production with market trends.521 By December 2016, the United States and China had
also agreed to hold an informal U.S.-China JCCT Steel Dialogue in 2017. Such a specialized component of
the JCCT is intended to allow both countries to share information on global steel capacity, production,
and trade gathered since the 2016 JCCT Steel Dialogue.522
China’s steelmaking capacity exhibited robust growth in the past 10 years, and since the early 2000s, it
has accounted for the majority of the world’s total steel capacity growth.523 This growth in steel capacity
was led by strong demand in China, which increased from an estimated 612.1 million metric tons (mt) to
740.4 million mt between 2010 and 2014.524 However, by 2014, amid the slowdown in China’s real
estate market, China’s demand for steel started to decline for the first time since 1995.525 This loss in
demand motivated many steel producers in China to increase their steel exports.526 According to USTR,
three key factors dramatically decreased the relative competitiveness of U.S. steel producers and
exporters in 2016: the doubling of Chinese-led global excess capacity in the steel industry between 2000
and 2014, the rise in China’s steel exports on global markets, and the precipitous drop in steel prices
associated with subsidization in China and other countries.527
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Security
Policy
According to USTR, a series of new Chinese policies may impose major restrictions on a wide range of
foreign ICT products and services.528 Given that these Chinese government measures called for the
517 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 3, 7–8.
518 USTR, 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 2016.
519 USTR, “U.S. Fact Sheet on the 27th U.S.-China Joint Commission,” November 2016.
520 Ibid.
521 White House, “Global Economic Growth and Steel Excess Capacity,” September 2016.
522 USTR, “U.S. Fact Sheet on the 27th U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade,” November 2016.
523 OECD, “Capacity Developments in the World Steel Industry,” April 2016, 14, 21.
524 Ibid., 16.
525 Ibid., 21.
526 USTR, “2016 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance,” January 2017, 13.
527 USTR, “Addressing Steel Excess Capacity and Its Impacts,” April 2016; USDOC and USTR, “Statement by U.S.
Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman,” December 2016; White
House, “Global Economic Growth and Steel Excess Capacity,” September 2016.
528 USTR, 2016 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 11.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |149
adoption of “secure and controllable” ICT products and services, USTR was concerned that such
initiatives would add significant costs to foreign companies operating in China, and that China’s long-
term goal would be eventually to replace its imports of such products and services.529
In 2016, the United States and China made progress in addressing these concerns in their highest-level
bilateral discussions. During the November JCCT meeting, for example, China stated that its “secure and
controllable” policies were not aimed at limiting or preventing commercial sales opportunities for
foreign ICT suppliers. China also stated that such policies were not intended to impose nationality-based
conditions and restrictions on commercial ICT purchases, sales, or users. In 2016, China also agreed to
notify the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade about relevant technical regulations of its
policy measures, in accordance with their WTO obligations.530
Cybersecurity Law
In November 2016, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China enacted a new
Cybersecurity Law aimed at tightening government control over information flows and technology
products.531 The enactment of this law, together with the National Security Law of 2015, raised concerns
among U.S. technology companies that businesses would be compelled to provide their source codes
and trade secrets to the Chinese government.532 U.S. technology firms were also concerned that such
measures may help the Chinese government favor domestic technology firms over foreign businesses.533
USTR considered these to be measures that would affect broader Chinese industrial and economic
policy, and stated that the new Cybersecurity Law would impose far-reaching and onerous trade
restrictions on imported ICT products and services in China.534
At the conclusion of the U.S.-China S&ED meeting in June 2016, China committed to keeping its
Cybersecurity Law consistent with WTO agreements. It also affirmed that this law was nondiscriminatory
in nature and ensured that it would not impose nationality-based conditions or restrictions on the
purchase, sale, or use of ICT products by commercial enterprises. 535 Both the United States and China
committed to keeping their cybersecurity measures generally applicable to their commercial sector and
not to limit or prevent commercial sales opportunities for foreign suppliers of ICT products or
services.536
529 Ibid.
530 USTR, “U.S. Fact Sheet on the 27th U.S.-China Joint Commission,” November 2016; USTR, 2016 USTR Report to
Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 11.
531 USCC, Economics and Trade Bulletin, December 6, 2016.
532 Ibid.
533 Ibid.
534 USTR, 2016 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, January 2017, 11.
535 Ibid.
536 Ibid.

The Year in Trade 2016
150| www.usitc.gov
Canada
U.S.-Canada Trade
Canada was the second-largest U.S. single-country trading partner in 2016 after China, having fallen, in
2015, from the top position it held for a number of years. The value of U.S. merchandise trade with
Canada fell 5.7 percent in 2016 to $544.0 billion, accounting for 14.9 percent of total U.S. merchandise
trade in 2016, compared to 15.4 percent in 2015. Both U.S. exports and imports with Canada continued
to decline in 2016, but U.S. imports decreased more than exports, resulting in the narrowing of the
bilateral trade deficit in 2016 to $12.1 billion (figure 6.5). The 22.1 percent decrease ($3.4 billion) in the
U.S. trade deficit with Canada between 2015 and 2016 largely resulted from the steep decline in energy-
related imports.
Canada remained the second-largest single-country U.S. trading partner in services in 2016, after the UK.
Canada’s two-way services trade with the United States fell $1.7 billion in 2016 to $83.0 billion,
representing 6.8 percent of all U.S. services trade with the world. Nonetheless, it still ranked ahead of
that of Japan ($71.4 billion), China ($69.0 billion), and Mexico ($53.9 billion). U.S. exports of services to
Canada continued to fall from their peak of $62.5 billion in 2013 to $53.7 billion in 2016, a decline of 4.2
percent from 2015. At the same time, U.S. imports of services from Canada rose slightly, by 2.1 percent,
to $29.3 billion in 2016 (figure 6.6). As a result, the U.S. surplus in services with Canada narrowed
further in 2016 to $24.4 billion, a decrease of 10.9 percent from 2015.
In 2016, Canada became the United States’ second-largest export market for goods after the EU, losing
its long-time position as the largest U.S. export market. U.S. exports of goods to Canada declined 5.2
percent ($14.6 billion), from $280.6 billion in 2015 to $266.0 billion in 2016. The top U.S. exports to
Canada in 2016 included passenger motor vehicles; motor vehicles for goods transport; civilian aircraft,
engines, and parts; and light oils. U.S. exports to Canada declined in nearly all sectors in 2016, but the
drop in U.S. exports of energy products to Canada was especially significant; these fell $5.9 billion (26.7
percent).537 Declines in exports of crude oil, refined petroleum products, and natural gas accounted for
most of this decline.
In 2016, Canada became the United States’ third-largest single-country import source, behind China and
Mexico, falling from second in previous years. The top U.S. imports from Canada included crude
petroleum, passenger motor vehicles, natural gas, and coniferous sawn wood. U.S. imports from Canada
were $278.1 billion, down 6.1 percent ($18.1 billion) from the previous year. This decline was largely a
result of a $15.7 billion decline in the value of U.S. imports of energy-related products from Canada.
Crude petroleum—the top U.S. import from Canada—declined by $10.8 billion in 2016, refined
petroleum products by $2.4 billion, light oils by nearly $1.0 billion, and natural gas by $0.9 billion. U.S.-
Canada merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.35 through A.38.
537 While U.S. exports of crude petroleum to Canada declined by value and by quantity in 2016, total U.S. exports
of crude petroleum to all other markets increased as a result of the removal of restrictions on U.S. exports of crude
petroleum to countries other than Canada in December 2015. EIA, “Petroleum and Other Liquids, Exports by
Destination,” March 20, 2017.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |151
Figure 6.5 U.S. merchandise trade with Canada, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.6 U.S. private services trade with Canada, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

The Year in Trade 2016
152| www.usitc.gov
Trade Developments
In 2016, the United States and Canada continued to explore renewal of the Canada-United States
Softwood Lumber Agreement, which had expired in October 2015. Also, the Canada-United States
Regulatory Cooperation Council met to review progress in various sectors. These topics are discussed in
more detail below. Finally, U.S. dairy producers expressed concern about the implementation of a new
price class of milk (class 6) in Ontario and Manitoba in 2016. These pricing regulations might affect U.S.
exports of ultra-filtered milk.538
Softwood Lumber
The 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) officially expired on October 12, 2015,
following a two-year extension agreed on January 23, 2012.539 The agreement contained a one-year
grace period for renegotiation (“standstill”), during which U.S. lumber interests could not file any trade
litigation.
On March 10, 2016, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada instructed their
trade agencies to explore options for addressing the issue of the softwood lumber industry in both
countries and to report on their discussions.540 On June 29, 2016, the President and Prime Minister
released a joint statement saying that both governments would continue to work together to reach a
durable new agreement on softwood lumber that would address the differences between the two sides,
bearing in mind the expiration of the legal standstill after October 12, 2016.541
Absent a new agreement, the U.S. lumber industry petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce
(USDOC) and the USITC on November 25, 2016,542 to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations concerning imports of certain softwood lumber products from Canada.543
Canada and the United States held talks about bilateral trade in softwood lumber on the margins of the
December 3–4, 2016, WTO ministerial meeting, but reached no conclusion.544
538 In the first half of 2017, this pricing was extended beyond the two provinces when the Canadian government
added a new class of milk nationwide (class 7). EY, Trade Watch, June 2016, 8; Agri-Food Economic Systems,
“Understanding the Dynamics of Milk Pricing and Revenue,” May 2016; USTR, 2016 National Trade Estimate, 70.
539 “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada
Extending the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Canada, as Amended. Article 1––Extension of the SLA 2006,” January 23, 2012.
540 White House, “Fact Sheet: United States—Canada Relationship,” March 10, 2016.
541 White House, “Joint Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President,” June 29, 2016.
542 The petitions were lodged by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations
or Negotiations (the “Coalition”). The Coalition is an ad hoc association whose members are the U.S. Lumber
Coalition, Inc.; Collum’s Lumber Products, L.L.C.; Hankins, Inc.; Potlatch Corp.; Rex Lumber Company; Seneca
Sawmill Company; Sierra Pacific Industries; Stimson Lumber Company; Swanson Group; Weyerhaeuser Company;
Carpenters Industrial Council; Giustina Land and Timber Company; and Sullivan Forestry Consultants, Inc. USITC,
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, January 2017, 2.
543 See 81 Fed. Reg. 87069 (December 2, 2016); 81 Fed. Reg. 93892 (December 22, 2016); 81 Fed. Reg. 93897
(December 22, 2016). On January 6, 2017, the USITC found a reasonable indication of material injury to U.S.
industry by reason of imports of softwood lumber products from Canada; 82 Fed. Reg. 4418 (January 13, 2017).
544 Menyasz, “Bilateral Agreements––U.S., Canadian Trade Officials to Talk,” November 29, 2016, 3.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |153
Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council
In February 2011, the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was formed to
identify regulatory issues that hinder cross-border trade and investment but that might be mitigated by
technical collaboration between the two governments. The RCC engages business and consumer groups
to help find areas where regulatory cooperation between the two countries can help improve health
and safety in the process of promoting economic growth.545
On May 4–5, 2016, the United States and Canada held the annual RCC stakeholder event in Washington,
DC. U.S. departments and agencies—including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and
Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—met with their Canadian
counterparts to explore the regulatory situation in over 20 areas. These sectors included crop
protection, workplace chemicals, food safety, energy efficiency, transport of dangerous goods,
aquaculture, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and “connected” vehicles (vehicles with electronic
links for safety puposes).546 Such RCC meetings help identify opportunities for regulatory streamlining
and cooperation that can be developed as part of these agencies’ annual work plans.547 In addition, the
RCC and U.S.-Canada Consultative Committee on Agriculture held various technical workshops as part of
the work plan development in the agricultural area.
Mexico
U.S.-Mexico Trade
In 2016, Mexico was the United States’ third-largest single-country merchandise trading partner,
following China and Canada. Merchandise trade between the two countries slipped 1.3 percent to
$525.1 billion in 2016, accounting for 14.4 percent of U.S. trade with the world. While both imports and
exports declined in 2016, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Mexico rose $2.5 billion to $63.2
billion, since U.S. exports to Mexico declined more than U.S. imports did (figure 6.7). At the same time,
the U.S. trade surplus in services with Mexico shrank 22.3 percent to $7.2 billion in 2016 (figure 6.8),
largely a result of increasing U.S. services imports from Mexico. Mexico continued to be the United
States’ sixth-largest single-country trading partner for services in 2016, after the UK, Canada, Japan,
China, and Germany.
Mexico remained the United States’ second-largest single-country export market in 2016, accounting for
15.9 percent of total U.S. exports to the world. U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico totaled $231.0
billion, a decrease of 2.0 percent from 2015. In 2016, the leading U.S. exports to Mexico were computer
parts and accessories; refined petroleum products; parts and accessories for motor vehicles;
telecommunications equipment; civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; and corn.
545 USDOS, EB, “2012 Investment Climate Statement,” June 2012.
546 USDOC, ITA, “U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council: United States and Canada Announce” (accessed
March 20, 2017). Using connected-vehicle technology, which is similar to radar and camera equipment already
used in vehicles, short-range radio signals communicate with each other so that vehicles that are near to each
other can be aware of one another. USDOT, OST-R, “Connected Vehicle Basics” (accessed April 5, 2017).
547 Government of Canada, “Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council E-Newsletter,” March 2016
(modified April 15, 2016).

The Year in Trade 2016
154| www.usitc.gov
Figure 6.7 U.S. merchandise trade with Mexico, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.8 U.S. private services trade with Mexico, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |155
Mexico was the United States’ second-largest single-country import source in 2016 and accounted for
13.4 percent of U.S. total imports. In 2016, U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico fell 0.8 percent to
$294.2 billion, driven by a large decrease in the value of U.S. imports of energy-related products.
Leading U.S. imports from Mexico included passenger motor vehicles; motor vehicles for goods
transport; computers; telecommunications equipment; color TV reception apparatus; and crude
petroleum. U.S.-Mexico merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.39 through A.42.
Trade Developments
To strengthen the U.S.-Mexico commercial and economic relationship, a new High-Level Economic
Dialogue (HLED) was established in 2013. Developments in 2016 regarding the HLED and NAFTA’s cross-
border trucking provisions are described below.
High-Level Economic Dialogue
On September 20, 2013, U.S. and Mexican officials launched the High-Level Economic Dialogue, a
cabinet-level group that meets annually. The HLED is a forum for bilateral economic cooperation to
promote economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness for both Mexico and the United
States. 548 The HLED work plan has three pillars: promoting competitiveness and connectivity; fostering
economic growth, productivity, entrepreneurship, and innovation; and partnering for regional and
global leadership.549 According to the USDOC, the HLED has been a valuable mechanism to advance both
countries’ strategic economic and trade priorities, serving as an instrument of cooperation on regional
priorities.550
On February 25, 2016, U.S. and Mexican officials held the third cabinet-level meeting of the HLED in
Mexico City to review their accomplishments and set new priorities for 2016.551 At the meeting, the U.S.
and Mexican governments agreed to continue work in the areas of energy, modern borders, workforce
development, regulatory cooperation, partnering in regional and global leadership, and stakeholder
engagement.552
Energy
In 2016, the United States and Mexico formally founded the U.S.-Mexico Energy Business Council and
held its inaugural meeting in December.553 The council’s objective is to bring together U.S. and Mexican
energy industry representatives to discuss issues of mutual interest and ways to strengthen the U.S.-
Mexico relationship on trade, investment, and competitiveness in the energy sector.554
548 White House, “Joint Statement: 2016 U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic Dialogue,” February 25, 2016.
549 White House, “Fact Sheet: U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue,” September 20, 2013.
550 USDOC, “Fact Sheet: High Level Economic Dialogue: Three Years of Achievements,” December 8, 2016.
551 White House, “Joint Statement: 2016 U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic Dialogue,” February 25, 2016.
552 Ibid.
553 USDOC, “Fact Sheet: High-Level Economic Dialogue: Three Years,” December 8, 2016.
554 81 Fed. Reg. 8907 (February 23, 2016).

The Year in Trade 2016
156| www.usitc.gov
Modern Borders
The United States and Mexico continued to make progress on border infrastructure projects. In 2016,
U.S. and Mexican government officials inaugurated the Tornillo-Guadalupe Port of Entry and
International Bridge in Tornillo, Texas. The port of entry, for which ground was broken in July 2011,
connects Tornillo, Texas, and Guadalupe, Mexico, replacing the Fabens-Caseta Port of Entry completed
in 1938.555 The Tornillo-Guadalupe project is intended to improve international trade and environmental
conditions, as well as relieve congestion in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez metropolitan area. It will increase
capacity and lanes both on the bridge and at the port of entry. Moreover, it will now allow commercial
traffic to use the bridge to cross between the United States and Mexico, as pedestrians and personal
vehicles already do.556 This project adds to the border infrastructure projects of previous years, such as
the West Rail Bypass Bridge connecting Brownsville, Texas, and Matamoros, Tamaulipas, which opened
in August 2015. The West Rail Bypass Bridge was the first new international rail bridge constructed
between the two nations in 100 years.557
Also in 2016, a second cargo pre-inspection pilot project was inaugurated at the Mesa de Otay Port of
Entry, Baja California. Under the program, certain cargo is to be pre-inspected in Mexico before crossing
the border into the United States. The programs are designed to improve the flow of trade by reducing
the number of inspections, shortening wait times, and lowering transaction costs.558 The first Cargo Pre-
Inspection Program pilot was established at the Laredo International Airport, Texas, and began
operations on October 15, 2015.559
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.560 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,
2011.561 The program concluded on October 10, 2014.562
On January 9, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation submitted a report on the pilot program to
Congress showing that the Mexican companies’ violations, driver violations, and vehicle out-of-service
rates reflected the same level of safety as U.S. and Canadian-headquartered motor carriers.563 As a
555 USDOC, “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Delivers Remarks at Inauguration,” February 4, 2016.
556 USDOC, “U.S. and Mexican Officials Celebrate the Inauguration,” February 4, 2016; USDOC, “U.S. Departments
of Commerce and Energy Appoint Inaugural U.S. Section,” June 30, 2016.
557 Infrastructure at the border is further discussed in USITC, The Year in Trade 2015, July 2016, 181.
558 USDHS, “CBP Commissioner Inaugurates Cargo Pre-Inspection Program,” January 12, 2016.
559 Ibid.
560 Developments in cross-border truck services between the United States and Mexico are reported in USITC, The
Year in Trade 2008, July 2009, 5-16; USITC, The Year in Trade 2009, July 2010, 5-16; USITC, The Year in Trade 2010,
July 2011, 5-12; USITC, The Year in Trade 2011, July 2012, 5-14; USITC, The Year in Trade 2012, July 2013, 5-13;
USITC, The Year in Trade 2013, 2014, 149; USITC, The Year in Trade 2014, July 2015, 177.
561 76 Fed. Reg. 20807 (April 13, 2011).
562 USDOT, FMCSA, United States-Mexico Cross-Border Long-Haul Trucking, January 2015.
563 USDOT, FMCSA, “United States to Expand Trade Opportunities with Mexico,” January 9, 2015.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |157
result, as of 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.564
In 2016, reports from the FMCSA indicated that Mexican-owned or Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
were operating more safely than U.S. carriers on U.S. roads. For instance, FMCSA data from 2016
showed that roadside inspections of Mexican-owned or Mexico-domiciled carriers resulted in driver out-
of-service rates—that is, rates of violations serious enough to halt drivers’ trips immediately 565—of 0.86
percent, compared with a rate of 4.9 percent for all motor carriers on U.S. highways.566
Japan
U.S.-Japan Trade
In 2016, Japan remained the United States’ fourth-largest single-country trading partner in terms of two-
way merchandise trade, accounting for 5.4 percent of total U.S. merchandise trade. U.S. merchandise
trade with Japan increased 0.9 percent, from $193.8 billion in 2015 to $195.5 billion in 2016. The
increase in total bilateral merchandise trade was attributable to an $821.6 million increase in U.S.
exports to Japan and a corresponding $837.7 million increase in U.S. imports from Japan. As a result of
these changes, in 2016 the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Japan grew slightly ($16.1 million) to
$68.9 billion (figure 6.9). In 2016, 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 increased $195 million,
or 0.4 percent, to $44.0 billion in 2016, while U.S. services imports from Japan also increased, growing
$1.0 billion, or 3.9 percent, to $27.4 billion. As a result, the U.S. surplus in services trade with Japan
narrowed to $16.7 billion from $17.5 billion the year before (figure 6.10).
Japan remained the fourth-largest destination for U.S. merchandise exports in 2016, accounting for 4.4
percent of global U.S. exports. Between 2015 and 2016, U.S. exports to Japan increased 1.3 percent,
from $62.4 billion in 2015 to $63.2 billion in 2016. Leading U.S. exports to Japan were civilian aircraft,
engines, and parts; corn; medicaments; liquefied propane; and medical instruments and appliances.
Japan remained the fourth-largest source of U.S. merchandise imports in 2016, accounting for 6.0
percent of global U.S. imports. The value of U.S. imports from Japan increased 0.6 percent in 2016, from
$131.4 billion in 2015 to $132.2 billion in 2016. 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.
564 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.
565 USDOT, FMCSA, “Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates (Mexican-Owned or Mexico-Domiciled Carriers),” March 24, 2017.
566 USDOT, FMCSA, “Roadside Inspection Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates,” March 24, 2017.

The Year in Trade 2016
158| www.usitc.gov
Figure 6.9 U.S. merchandise trade with Japan, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.10 U.S. private services trade with Japan, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |159
Trade Developments
Economic dialogue between the United States and Japan in 2016 focused on a variety of topics,
including agricultural trade issues; transparency in pricing and regulation in Japan’s medical device and
pharmaceutical sectors; and market access issues in Japan’s insurance market. These topics are
discussed in more detail below. In addition, the United States and Japan worked on other trade issues of
interest at the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. These included WTO dispute
settlement matters; expansion of the WTO Information Technology Agreement; the plurilateral Trade in
Services Agreement; an “Intellectual Property and Innovation Education and Diffusion” initiative with
the WTO TRIPS Council; and environmental goods tariff reductions, as well as next-generation issues
such as digital trade.567
Agricultural Products
Japan remained an important market for U.S. agricultural exports in 2016. In that year, U.S. agricultural
exports to Japan amounted to $12.1 billion, and related negotiations focused on market access issues
associated with rice, pork, fish, and seafood (see appendix table A.45).
In 2016, U.S. officials noted a variety of issues associated with Japan’s rice market. Despite the fact that
Japan is the United States’ second-largest export market for rice, Japan’s importation and distribution
systems are considered highly regulated and nontransparent by USTR. 568 Japan’s established 682,000 mt
tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on imported rice is managed by its Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
through two types of tenders—ordinary minimum access (OMA) tenders and simultaneous-buy-sell
(SBS) tenders.569 Most imported rice is purchased through OMA tenders for government-held stocks and
is used for industrial food processing, livestock feed, or food aid.570 Meanwhile, the SBS tenders, which
provide important access to Japan’s more highly valued table rice market,571 were suspended
temporarily from October to December 2016.572 USTR is monitoring Japan’s rice import system in light
of the market access issues U.S. rice exporters face and Japan’s WTO import commitments.573 In 2016,
the United States’ 246,740 metric tons of rice exports to Japan were valued at $236 million. 574
Japan’s fluctuating and unpredictable tariffs on U.S. pork meat were also a subject of U.S. concern in
2016.575 Japan’s tariff on pork is established by a “gate price” system that applies an ad valorem tariff (of
4.3 percent) when the import value is greater than or equal to an established reference price, and an
567 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report, April 2016, 13; USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March
2017, 160.
568 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 245.
569 USDA, ERS, “Japan—Trade,” updated October 11, 2016; USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March
2017, 245.
570 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 245.
571 Rice is imported through SBS tenders for end users such as the food service sector. USA Rice, “Japan Resumes
Rice Tenders,” December 16, 2016.
572 Japan suspended SBS tender trading from October to December 2016 to investigate allegations of price
manipulation by importers and wholesalers. New rules resulting from the investigation prohibited importers and
wholesalers from directly exchanging money. USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 245; USA
Rice Federation, “Japan Resumes Rice Tenders,” December 16, 2016 (accessed May 5, 2017).
573 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 245.
574 Ibid.; USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 11, 2017). Rice exports included those under HTS 1006.
575 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 246.

The Year in Trade 2016
160| www.usitc.gov
additional tariff when the value of the pork meat imports falls below a given reference price. Japan is
the largest export market for U.S. pork and pork products on a value basis and is a market that has
shown increased demand. In 2016, U.S. exports of fresh or frozen pork meat to Japan amounted to
nearly $1.5 billion and accounted for about 35 percent of all U.S. exports of this commodity.576
High Japanese tariffs on several fish and seafood products remained a recurring topic in bilateral trade
negotiations in 2016. In 2016, U.S. exports of fish and seafood amounted to nearly $666 million to Japan
alone.577 Moreover, Japan is the third-largest market for these U.S. exports, after Canada and China.578
In addition to high tariffs on these products, U.S. exporters also face import quotas on Alaska pollock,
cod, Pacific whiting, mackerel, sardines, squid, and Pacific herring, as well as on products such as pollock
roe, cod roe, and surimi. Although Japan has reduced tariffs, increased import quota volumes, and
lowered associated administrative burdens, the import quotas continued to be reported to be a barrier
to U.S. exporters in 2016.579 Furthermore, while Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare revised
existing standards and specifications for food, which includes seafood, in February 2016, the effects of
these changes on U.S. exports are yet to be determined. 580
Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals
In 2016, the United States and Japan continued to address longstanding barriers to U.S. medical device
and pharmaceutical exports to Japan. Although there have been improvements in Japan’s regulatory
review process for medical devices and pharmaceuticals in recent years, U.S. concerns continue over
broader transparency issues as they relate to pricing and regulation.581 For example, the Pricing for
Market Expansion scheme that was introduced in April 2016 dramatically cut the prices of drugs on the
Japanese market if the drug achieved higher sales than anticipated.582 The ad hoc nature of the price
reductions in both 2015 and 2016, and the unusually short stakeholder consultation period beforehand,
led the U.S. government in 2016 to request that the Japanese government follow a more transparent
process and provide stakeholders with enough time to provide meaningful input.583
In 2016, U.S. medical device exports to Japan amounted to $4.1 billion, or 10.4 percent of U.S. medical
device exports worldwide. In 2016, Japan was the United States’ second-largest market for medical
devices.584 The United States also exported $3.8 billion of pharmaceutical products to Japan in 2016,
representing 8.2 percent of total U.S. pharmaceutical exports in that year.585 In 2016, Japan was the
third-largest market for U.S. pharmaceutical exports after Belgium and the Netherlands.586
576 USDA, FAS, Japan—Livestock and Products Annual 2016 Market Situation Update, September 9, 2016, 7–8;
USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 11, 2017). Pork exports included those under HTS 0203.
577 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed April 11, 2017). Fish and seafood exports included those exports under HTS
03.
578 Ibid. Fish and seafood exports included those exports under HTS 03.
579 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 246.
580 USDA, FAS, Japan Issues New Safety Standards for Agricultural Food, January 25, 2016, 1.
581 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 256.
582 Ibid.
583 Ibid.
584 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed May 11, 2017). Medical device exports included those under HTS 9018, 9021,
and 9022.
585 Ibid. Pharmaceutical exports included those under HTS 30.
586 Ibid. Pharmaceutical exports included those under HTS 30.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |161
Insurance Market
The United States and Japan continued to hold high-level discussions on market access issues related to
Japan’s insurance market in 2016. Despite important legal changes, Japan’s postal life insurance system,
run by Japan Post Holdings, has continued to dominate Japan’s insurance market.587 However, the
United States and Japan have been regularly discussing ways of allowing greater international
competition within Japan’s insurance market. In 2016, Japan Post imposed a limit on the amount of
insurance they could provide and a cap on the types of financial activities and products they could
offer.588 Such market measures have historically limited the extent to which Japan Post dominated its
country’s local insurance market.589 However, as of April 2016, the Japanese government allowed Japan
Post to raise the per-customer deposit cap from 10 million yen to 13 million yen (about $92,000 to
$120,000) and to raise the per-policyholder insurance coverage cap from 13 million yen to 20 million
yen (about $120,000 to $184,000).590
Other developments have also had the potential to impact the position of Japan Post Holdings. Under
the TPP, U.S. insurance companies would have been granted open access to the Japan Post Insurance
distribution network, allowing them to compete under equivalent conditions.591 Outside the TPP
framework, Japan Post Holdings began a process of wide-scale privatization in late 2015, which
influenced market dynamics in this segment of Japan’s economy.592 Japan Post Holdings’ sale of its
shares is expected to take place in July 2017.593
Republic of Korea
U.S.-Korea Trade
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) was the United States’ sixth-largest single-country merchandise
trading partner in 2016. Two-way merchandise trade was valued at $112.2 billion in 2016, falling from
$115.2 billion in 2015. In spite of this decline, the share of U.S. trade with South Korea remained
unchanged from 2015 and accounted for 3.1 percent of U.S. trade with the world. The United States
recorded a $27.7 billion merchandise trade deficit with South Korea in 2016, a 2.3 percent decrease
from $28.3 billion in 2015 as U.S. imports from South Korea declined more than U.S. exports to South
Korea (figure 6.11). In 2016, South Korea continued to be the tenth-largest single-country services
trading partner based on two-way trade. U.S. exports of services to South Korea increased 5.1 percent in
2016, reaching a five-year high of $21.3 billion. At the same time, U.S. imports of services from South
Korea remained relatively stable, declining 0.1 percent to $8.8 billion. As a result of these two trends,
the U.S. trade surplus in services with South Korea rose from $11.4 billion in 2015 to $12.5 billion in
2016, an increase of 9.1 percent (figure 6.12).
587 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 248.
588 Ibid.
589 Ibid.
590 Ibid.
591 USITC, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact, May 2016, 362.
592 USDOC, ITA, “Japan—Openness to and Restriction on Foreign Investment,” January 24, 2017.
593 Bloomberg, “Japanese Government Seeks to Privatize Japan Post” January 16, 2017.

The Year in Trade 2016
162| www.usitc.gov
Figure 6.11 U.S. merchandise trade with South Korea, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.12 U.S. private services trade with South Korea, 2012–16 a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
5
10
15
20
25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |163
U.S. merchandise exports to South Korea were valued at $42.3 billion in 2016, declining 2.7 percent
($1.2 billion) from 2015. Because South Korean imports from all sources declined, the share of United
States’ exports in total South Korean imports rose from 10.1 percent to 10.6 percent in 2016.594 Among
the leading U.S. exports to South Korea were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; processors or
controllers; machines for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or electronic integrated circuits;
helicopters; and corn. Exports of passenger motor vehicles, when combined, were valued at $1.6 billion
in 2016, increasing 23.1 percent from $1.3 billion.595
U.S. merchandise imports from South Korea totaled $69.9 billion in 2016, a decrease of 2.5 percent
($1.8 billion) from 2015. Leading U.S. imports from South Korea included passenger vehicles, cellphones,
blood fractions (e.g., antiserum), refined petroleum products, and photosensitive semiconductor
devices. U.S.-South Korea merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.47 through A.50.
Trade Developments
In 2016, U.S. trade relations with South Korea occurred within the framework of the U.S.-Korea Free
Trade Agreement (FTA), as discussed below and in chapter 5. Additional dialogue focused on supporting
the growth of the digital economy and the information and communications technology industry in both
countries while also recognizing the importance of privacy and data protection. Other trade
developments included the WTO dispute regarding U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures
on large residential washers from South Korea; the panel report for this dispute was circulated on March
11, 2016, and the Appellate Body report was circulated on September 7, 2016.596
U.S.-Korea FTA
The U.S.-Korea FTA, commonly referred to as KORUS, entered into force on March 15, 2012. In terms of
value of trade covered, it is the second-largest U.S. FTA after NAFTA.597 As of January 1, 2017, six rounds
of tariff cuts have taken place under the agreement, with tariffs eliminated on approximately 95 percent
of consumer and industrial products.598 As of January 1, 2016, imports of passenger vehicles from the
United States enter South Korea duty free.599 See chapter 5 for more information on the U.S.-Korea FTA.
Information Technology and Digital Trade
In August 2016, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-Korea Business Council, and U.S.-Japan Business
Council had their first Trilateral Digital Economy Steering Committee meeting. This initiative aims to
594 IHS Markit, GTA (accessed April 11, 2017).
595 USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed March 21, 2017). 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.
596 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS464; United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large
Residential Washers from Korea” (accessed March 28, 2016). For more information, see chapter 3.
597 See tables 5.1 and 5.2 for complete data.
598 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate, March 2017, 275; USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual
Report, March 2017, 125; USTR, “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” n.d. (accessed April 4, 2017). The six rounds
of tariff cuts and eliminations took place on the date of the agreement’s entry into force (March 15, 2012) and on
January 1, 2013; January 1, 2014; January 1, 2015; January 1, 2016; and January 1, 2017.
599 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 125.

The Year in Trade 2016
164| www.usitc.gov
bring together government and nongovernment efforts revolving around the digital economy.600 For
example, the group aims to develop initiatives that promote an open Internet and seamless data flows.
In September 2016, representatives of the U.S. and South Korean governments, industry, and
nongovernmental organizations attended the third bilateral Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) Policy Forum. The two-day forum’s objective was to provide an opportunity to discuss
issues such as supporting the growth of the digital economy as well as the ICT industry in both countries.
Both sides affirmed support for policies that promote innovation, trade, investment, and growth, while
also emphasizing the importance of privacy and data protection.601
India
U.S.-India Trade
In 2016, India became the United States’ 9th-largest single-country trading partner (based on two-way
merchandise trade), rising from 10th-largest in 2015. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with India
increased 2.2 percent to $67.7 billion in 2016. In addition, India’s share of total U.S. merchandise trade
with the world rose to 1.9 percent, up from 1.8 percent in 2015, continuing a slow but steady increase in
India’s share of U.S. merchandise trade with the world over recent years. Although U.S. exports to India
went up slightly in 2016, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with India rose 4.2 percent to $24.3 billion in
2016 as imports grew even more than exports (figure 6.13). Although India was again the United States’
seventh-largest single-country services trading partner, based on two-way trade, it continued to be the
only top trading partner with which the United States has a services trade deficit; however, this trade
deficit has slowly decreased since 2014. In 2016, U.S. exports again rose slightly more than U.S. imports
of services, which resulted in a 1.6 percent decline in the U.S. services trade deficit to $6.8 billion (figure
6.14). Total U.S. services trade with India grew 10.3 percent to $46.7 billion in 2016.
U.S. merchandise exports to India increased 1.1 percent from $21.5 billion in 2015 to $21.7 billion in
2016. Leading U.S. exports to India in 2016 were nonindustrial diamonds; nonmonetary gold; civilian
aircraft, engines, and parts; almonds; and petroleum coke.
U.S. merchandise imports from India increased 2.7 percent in 2016 to $46.0 billion. Leading U.S. imports
from India in 2016 were nonindustrial diamonds, medicaments, gold jewelry, light oils, and frozen
shrimp. 602 U.S. merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.51 through A.54.
600 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “U.S. Chamber Launches Trilateral Digital Economy Steering Committee,” August
30, 2016.
601 USDOS, “Joint Statement on the 3rd U.S.-Republic of Korea ICT Policy Forum,” September 12, 2016.
602 Because the United States and India are both major centers for global trade of cut or faceted diamonds,
diamonds lead U.S.-India trade in terms of both imports and exports.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |165
Figure 6.13 U.S. merchandise trade with India, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.14 U.S. private services trade with India, 2012–16 a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

The Year in Trade 2016
166| www.usitc.gov
Trade Developments
There were several active WTO dispute settlement proceedings involving the United States and India in
2016. In March, India requested consultations with the United States about measures concerning non-
immigrant temporary work visas.603 In July, the United States requested arbitration regarding a dispute
with India concerning the importation of certain agricultural products on the basis that India failed to
bring its measures into compliance within the agreed reasonable period of time.604 In September, India
requested consultations with the United States regarding alleged domestic-content requirements in the
renewable energy sector provided by several U.S. states.605 Finally, in October 2016, the Dispute
Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, regarding India’s purchase power agreements with solar firms and domestic-content
requirements.606 For more information on WTO dispute settlement cases, see chapter 3.
In 2016, the United States and India continued dialogue on improving bilateral trade and investment,
including IPR protection. In June 2016, President Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in
Washington, DC, for their third major bilateral summit. The second U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial
Dialogue was held in New Delhi, India, in August 2016 and was co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj, and
Minister of State for Commerce and Industry of India Nirmala Sitharaman. A number of topics were
discussed, including trade and investment, improving the ease of doing business, and standards
cooperation. The Trade Policy Forum and IPR protection, two important areas of bilateral dialogue in
2016, are discussed in detail below.
India and United States Trade Policy Forum
On October 20, 2016, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and India’s Minister of Commerce and
Industry Nirmala Sitharaman met in Delhi for the 10th ministerial-level meeting of the India and United
States Trade Policy Forum. This meeting covered several topics that are the focus of established inter-
ministerial working groups, including agriculture, trade in goods and services, promoting investment,
manufacturing, and IPRs.607
Agriculture
The United States and India noted the need to establish science- and risk-based regulations that are
grounded in international standards and guidelines and also agreed to share best practices between
their sanitary and phytosanitary authorities. Minister Sitharaman and Ambassador Froman recognized
each other’s requests, agreeing to explore the possibility of enhanced market access for specific
agricultural products, such as the export of grapes from India and the export of cherries and alfalfa hay
603 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS503; United States—Measures Concerning Non-Immigrant Visas” (accessed
March 15, 2017).
604 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS430; India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural
Products” (accessed March 31, 2017).
605 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS510; United States—Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector”
(accessed March 15, 2017).
606 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS456; India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules”
(accessed March 6, 2017).
607 USTR, “India and United States Joint Statement on the Trade Policy Forum,” October 20, 2016.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |167
from the United States. The two sides also discussed regulations relating to the import and export of
boric acid, as well as U.S. concerns regarding market access for dairy products.608
Services
The United States and India recognized the role of the services sector in the United States and India and
discussed efforts to promote foreign investment in key service sectors. The United States called upon
India to relax local-sourcing requirements in single-brand retail trade. Both parties agreed to address
market access and trade costs for pharmaceutical products and medical devices through technical
discussions, and also agreed to continue their work on visa issues to facilitate the movement of
professionals and experts. The two sides agreed to promote the digital economy through an open
Internet and to explore the adoption of joint principles that ensure an open Internet. They also agreed
to further the digital agenda that was adopted at the India-U.S. Information Communication and
Technology Working Group.609
Manufacturing
The United States and India committed to exchange information on standards, conformity assessment
procedures, and the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement in the electronics sector, a mutual-
recognition arrangement for information technology security evaluations. Both parties highlighted the
importance of predictability and transparency in the creation of new rules and agreed to continue to
share best practices and information on public stakeholder consultations before framing laws or policy.
In addition, both parties noted their desire to take appropriate action on the recommendations of the
U.S.-India CEO Forum.610
Intellectual Property
India has been on USTR’s Priority Watch List or has been designated a priority foreign country since
1989. India remained on the Priority Watch List in the 2016 Special 301 Report due to concerns about
weak protection and enforcement of IPR. Of concern are inadequate trade secret protection; the
production, domestic distribution, and export of counterfeit pharmaceuticals; and online piracy. The
High-Level Working Group on Intellectual Property under the Trade Policy Forum (discussed above) held
several meetings in 2016 focusing on creating stronger IPR protection and enforcement in India. In 2016,
workshops were also held on copyright and trade secrets.611
Similarly, USTR notes in its 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets report that “numerous
markets in India have appeared in past lists, with no identified meaningful, effective response by the
Indian government.”612 Several markets were highlighted for counterfeit apparel, pirated media, and
counterfeit auto parts.613
608 Ibid.
609 Ibid.
610 Ibid.
611 USTR, 2016 Special 301 Report to Congress, April 2016, 38–45.
612 USTR, 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, December 2016, 20.
613 Ibid.

The Year in Trade 2016
168| www.usitc.gov
Taiwan
U.S.-Taiwan Trade
In 2016, Taiwan was the United States’ 10th-largest single-economy trading partner, dropping from the
9th position that it held in 2015. U.S. trade with Taiwan accounted for 1.8 percent of total U.S. trade
with the world. U.S. two-way merchandise trade with Taiwan amounted to $65.4 billion in 2016, a
decrease of 2.1 percent from $66.8 billion in 2015. The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan fell
$1.8 billion, from $15.0 billion in 2015 to $13.3 billion in 2016 (figure 6.15). As described below, U.S.
trade flows with Taiwan remained heavily dependent upon consumer electronics—most notably
computer components. Also in 2016, the U.S. services trade surplus with Taiwan fell $763 million
relative to the year before, from $4.3 billion in 2015 to $3.5 billion in 2016. The decline in the services
trade surplus was attributable to a $739 million (6.2 percent) decline in U.S. services exports to Taiwan
and a $24 million (0.3 percent) increase in U.S. services imports from Taiwan in 2016 (figure 6.16).
In 2016, U.S. merchandise exports to Taiwan amounted to $26.0 billion, a 0.7 percent increase from
$25.9 billion in 2015. Leading U.S. exports to Taiwan were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts; machines
for semiconductor or integrated circuit manufacturing; processors and controllers; memories; and
microchips.
In 2016, U.S. merchandise imports from Taiwan amounted to $39.3 billion, a 3.9 percent decrease from
$40.9 billion in 2015. Leading U.S. imports were microchips, telecommunications equipment, computer
parts and accessories, processors and controllers, and semiconductor storage devices. U.S.-Taiwan
merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.55 through A.58.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |169
Figure 6.15 U.S. merchandise trade with Taiwan, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.16 U.S. private services trade with Taiwan, 2012–16a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

The Year in Trade 2016
170| www.usitc.gov
Trade Developments
As described below, the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) has served as a
key mechanism for U.S.-Taiwan dialogue on trade issues in the absence of official diplomatic ties. In
2016, U.S.-Taiwan trade relations focused on IPR-related issues; access to Taiwan’s agricultural market;
certain technical barriers to trade; and issues associated with Taiwan’s investment review procedures.
U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement
The U.S.-Taiwan TIFA, signed in 1994, has served as the main forum for discussing bilateral trade and
investment issues and strengthening commercial ties.614 The 10th annual TIFA Council meeting, which
continues to be held under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic
and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, was on October 4, 2016, in Washington, DC.615
Discussions in that forum, and in the working groups leading up to that forum, focused on IPR-related
issues and market access for U.S. agricultural, biotech, and medical device exports.616 Other prominent
points raised during the 2016 TIFA meetings included certain technical barriers in Taiwan’s agricultural
and cosmetics industry and certain investment approval procedures, both described in greater detail
below.
Intellectual Property Rights
At the 2016 TIFA meeting, the United States recognized progress that was made with respect to
Taiwan’s pharmaceutical IPR protection and its commitment to strengthen engagement on IPR
legislation. 617 The United States also recognized Taiwan’s enhanced promotion of intellectual property-
related educational material, and its enhanced enforcement cooperation with the United States.618 In
September 2016, Taiwan also extended the mandatory notice and comment period for new trade,
investment, and IPR-related regulations and laws from 14 to 60 days, especially helpful to foreign
firms.619 With regard to transparency, both the United States and Taiwan agreed to continue exchanging
views on pending revisions to Taiwan’s Copyright Act.620
Agricultural Barriers
At the 2016 TIFA meeting, the United States and Taiwan also agreed that more progress was needed on
a broad range of agricultural trade issues. The United States was mostly concerned about the degree to
which biotechnology played a role in Taiwan’s agricultural trade policies, and expressed strong interest
that Taiwan remove bans on U.S. pork and certain beef products produced using ractopamine.621 During
614 USTR, “United States and Taiwan Deepen Dialogue on Trade and Investment Priorities,” October 2016.
615 Ibid.; American Institute in Taiwan, “United States and Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreements
Council Meeting,” September 2016.
616 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 141.
617 Ibid.
618 Ibid.
619 Ibid., 413.
620 USTR, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report, March 2017, 141.
621 Ibid.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |171
the 2016 discussions, the U.S. trade negotiators also expressed continued concerns over barriers U.S.
beef offal exporters have experienced in Taiwan.622 A resolution to these issues is still pending.
Technical Barriers to Trade
Technical barriers to trade have been one of the most pronounced U.S.-Taiwan bilateral trade issues in
recent years. During the 2016 TIFA Council meeting, discussions of these technical barriers largely
revolved around the labeling of agricultural goods, the regulation of cosmetic products, and procedures
for registering new chemicals.623
With respect to the first issue, discussion at the 2016 TIFA Council meeting addressed the transparency
and rationale for Taiwan’s newly implemented biotechnology labeling requirements for prepackaged
foods, food additives, and unpackaged foods.624 The new rules require corn syrup, for example, to be
labeled “genetically engineered,” as it is made from biotechnology corn, yet beverages made using corn
syrup are exempt from such labeling. While the rationale for this difference in labeling is based on a 3
percent biotechnology content threshold, the United States sought clarity in its bilateral dialogues with
Taiwan regarding the justification for regulatory measures that have been implemented. 625
On September 9, 2016, Taiwan’s Cabinet imposed new regulatory requirements for Taiwan’s cosmetic
industry by amending the Statute for Control of Cosmetic Hygiene (recently renamed the Cosmetic
Hygiene Control Act). While such measures still require legislative approval, the Taiwan Food and Drug
Administration drafted guidelines in 2016 on the new approval processes. These guidelines require
additional product information files, product notifications, and good manufacturing practices, while also
affecting product claims, advertisements, and confidential business information.
U.S. stakeholders have been concerned about short transition times associated with the changes, and
that such additional requirements would place a large burden on the industry by requiring them to
provide additional pre-market documentation. After consultations with the Taiwan Food and Drug
Administration, U.S. stakeholders were assured that both pre-market approval and the documentation
associated with post-market surveillance would not be needed during the transition to the new system.
Since those consultations, USTR has been advocating for appropriate transition periods for related
products, such as toothpaste, breath fresheners, and sunscreen. These were not previously covered
under the Statute for Control of Cosmetic Hygiene, and their manufacturers would need time to adapt
to the new regulatory system. In 2016, USTR also raised concerns about the proportionality of
punishment for infractions in advertising for related products. 626
Investment Barriers
During the October 2016 TIFA meeting, U.S. and Taiwanese trade officials discussed issues related to
Taiwan’s investment review practices. Specifically, USTR was concerned about transparency and
consistency in Taiwan’s practices for reviewing proposed foreign investments, given that proposed
amendments to eliminate approval requirements for foreign investments that were less than $1 million
622 USTR, 2017 National Trade Estimate Report, March 2017, 414.
623 Ibid., 413.
624 Ibid.
625 Ibid.
626 Ibid., 414.

The Year in Trade 2016
172| www.usitc.gov
did not pass Taiwan’s legislative branch.627 Following those bilateral consultations in 2016, Taiwan’s
Ministry of Economic Affairs proposed a new set of related amendments, whose outcomes are not yet
known.
In 2016, USTR expressed concerns about the predictability of Taiwan’s investment approval procedures
and openness to foreign investment in areas deemed sensitive (e.g., in the media industry and for
transactions involving private equity).628 In that year, authorities in Taiwan closely scrutinized several
foreign investment applications, which contributed to ongoing concerns by U.S. stakeholders. According
to USTR, investment applications can be subject to long review periods, repetitive requests for
documentation, and ad hoc interventions from elected officials who are not part of the normal
regulatory review process.629
Brazil
U.S.-Brazil Trade
In 2016, Brazil was the United States’ largest South American trading partner. Two-way merchandise
trade between the United States and Brazil decreased 4.5 percent to $56.5 billion from $59.1 billion in
2015, and although Brazil’s share of total U.S. merchandise trade remained at 1.6 percent, its position
dropped from the 12th-largest single-country merchandise trading partner in 2015 to the 14th-largest in
2016. This downward trend in bilateral merchandise trade was primarily caused by a decrease in U.S.
exports to Brazil in recent years, in part due to an overall economic downturn, political uncertainty
highlighted by the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, and low international crude oil prices.630
Nonetheless, the United States recorded a merchandise trade surplus with Brazil of $4.1 billion in 2016,
slightly less than the 2015 surplus of $4.2 billion (figure 6.17). In terms of services trade, U.S. exports of
services to Brazil fell for a second year, declining $3.2 billion (11.4 percent) to $24.8 billion. U.S. services
imports from Brazil declined by a larger share (13.4 percent), but less by value ($1.0 billion), to reach
$6.7 billion in 2016 (figure 6.18). As a result of the larger decline in exports, the services trade surplus
dropped 10.7 percent, from $20.2 billion in 2015 to $18.0 billion in 2016, and Brazil became the United
States’ ninth-largest single-country trading partner in services, falling from eighth in 2015.
In 2016, U.S. merchandise exports to Brazil fell 4.3 percent, from $31.7 billion in 2015 to $30.3 billion in
2016. U.S. exports to Brazil in most sectors declined in 2016, but exports of energy-related products and
agricultural products increased in 2016, though they did not reach 2014 levels. As in previous years, the
top U.S. exports to Brazil were civilian aircraft, engines, and parts (14.6 percent of total U.S.
merchandise exports to Brazil) and refined petroleum products (9.8 percent of total U.S. exports). Other
leading U.S. exports included light oils, medicaments, and bituminous coal.
627 Ibid., 419.
628 Ibid.
629 Ibid.
630 IMF, Brazil, IMF Country Report No. 16/348, November 2016, 3–10; EIA, “Spot Prices for Crude Oil” (accessed
March 15, 2017).

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |173
Figure 6.17 U.S. merchandise trade with Brazil, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Figure 6.18 U.S. private services trade with Brazil, 2012–16 a
Source: USDOC, BEA, U.S. International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions data, tables 1.2 and 1,3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.7.
aData for 2016 are preliminary.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Total exports General imports Merchandise trade balance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bi
lli
on
$
Exports Imports Services trade balance

The Year in Trade 2016
174| www.usitc.gov
U.S. merchandise imports from Brazil dropped 4.7 percent, from $27.5 billion in 2015 to $26.2 billion in
2016, largely driven by declines in U.S. imports of energy-related products and of minerals and metals.
Leading U.S. imports from Brazil included airplanes and other aircraft; crude petroleum; unroasted
coffee; chemical wood pulp, soda, or sulfate; and semifinished iron or non-alloy steel products. U.S.-
Brazil merchandise trade data are shown in appendix tables A.59 through A.62.
Trade Developments
In 2016, the United States and Brazil continued to advance their bilateral trade relationship via the third
meeting of the United States-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation (first ministerial
meeting) and via the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue. In these official meetings, participants discussed
topics including economic cooperation, trade facilitation, and standards and conformity assessment.
Also, after years of talks, Brazil’s barriers to U.S. exports of beef and beef products were removed. These
topics are described in more detail below. Additionally, on November 11, Brazil requested consultations
at the WTO with the United States over U.S. countervailing duty measures on hot- and cold-rolled steel
products from Brazil.631
U.S.-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation—Third
Meeting
The Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the United States and Brazil, which was
signed in March 2011, was designed to expand the trade and investment relationship between the two
countries on a broad range of key issues, including trade facilitation, IPRs, and technical barriers to
trade.632 To achieve the Agreement’s goals, the two countries have held three formal meetings. The
March 30, 2016, meeting, held in Washington, DC, was the third meeting of the United States-Brazil
Commission on Economic and Trade Relations and the first ministerial-level meeting. Preceding the
official meeting, officials held technical-level discussions focused on trade and investment issues such as
market access; the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), of which Brazil is a beneficiary; tax and
labor issues; and greater cooperation on WTO issues and agricultural trade. 633
At the ministerial meeting, topics discussed included national trade agendas, bilateral and multilateral
trade, WTO issues, and the challenges of global excess steel capacity. Ministers also highlighted several
developments, such as the signing and delivery of Brazil’s letter of acceptance of the Trade Facilitation
Agreement to the WTO and the work of the United States-Brazil Commercial Dialogue. Additionally,
ministers discussed the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cotton (which
concluded a WTO dispute on cotton); 634 reducing restrictions on the participation of U.S. insurance firms
631 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS514; United States—Countervailing Measures on Cold- and Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products from Brazil” (accessed April 4, 2017). In November 2016, Brazil requested consultations at the WTO with
the United States over two countervailing duty cases on hot- and cold-rolled steel. For more information, see the
section on WTO dispute settlement in Chapter 3.
632 USDOC, ITA, “Joint Statement of the 14th Edition of the Brazil-U.S. Commercial Dialogue,” June 29, 2016.
633 USTR, “United States and Brazil Hold Third Meeting of the Commission on Economic and Trade Relations under
the United States-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation,” March 2016; USTR, “GSP in Use-Country
Specific Information” (April 5, 2017).
634 WTO, “Dispute Settlement: DS267; United States—Subsidies on Upland Cotton” (accessed March 2, 2017). On
October 16, 2014, the United States and Brazil mutually agreed to end this dispute. Currently it is being
implemented; for more information, refer to USITC’s The Year in Trade 2014, chapter 6.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |175
in the Brazilian market; cooperation on standards and conformity assessment; and the development and
passing of a Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program by U.S. and Brazilian intellectual property
agencies that would accelerate review of patent applications and facilitate information sharing between
the two offices to speed the patenting process.635 Brazil is expected to host the next meeting of the
Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation in 2017.636
U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue
On June 28–29, 2016, U.S. and Brazilian officials met in Washington, DC, for the 14th meeting and 10th
anniversary of the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue. The U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue encourages the
exchange of ideas on a number of subjects assigned to the following five working groups: Trade
Partnership, Industry and Investments, Services, Standards, and Innovation and Intellectual Property
Rights.637
In this meeting, officials continued to discuss ways to strengthen the U.S.-Brazil bilateral trade
relationship. Officials stated that working groups have helped expedite trade procedures by encouraging
the use of electronic signatures and fostering greater collaboration on measurement sciences to
standardize trade administrative procedures. Other topics discussed were advances in trade facilitation;
support for SMEs; retail and e-commerce; concerns on express delivery; greater interaction in
professional services; cooperation in business intelligence to provide services trade data; and regulatory
cooperation.638 Moreover, officials announced plans to continue advancing discussions by encouraging
greater collaboration across working groups, incorporating other relevant government stakeholders, and
increasing private sector participation. Finally, officials also participated in a roundtable briefing hosted
by the Brazil-U.S. Business Council.639
Bilateral Trade of Beef and Beef Products
On August 1, 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the USDA and
Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply had agreed to allow access for U.S. beef and
beef products in the Brazilian market for the first time since 2003. Although beef and beef products
from the United States have been classified as a negligible risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy by
the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), U.S. beef and beef products had been banned from the
Brazilian market due to concerns about the disease. Given this decision to allow U.S. beef products to
enter the Brazilian market, the USDA also stated that both Brazil and the United States would update
their administrative procedures to immediately start trade.640
In a separate decision, after completing a multiyear review on U.S. food safety regulations for countries
that export meat, poultry, and egg products to the United States, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service concluded that Brazil’s food safety standards for meat products such as beef are equivalent to
those of the United States. As a result, the United States can import fresh, chilled, or frozen beef from
635 USTR, “United States and Brazil Hold Third Meeting of the Commission,” March 2016; USDOC, USPTO,
“Memorandum of Understanding on a Patent Prosecution,” November 24, 2015.
636 USTR, “United States and Brazil Hold Third Meeting of the Commission,” March 2016.
637 USDOC, ITA, “Joint Statement of the 14th Edition of the Brazil-U.S. Commercial Dialogue,” June 29, 2016.
638 Ibid.
639 USDOC, ITA, “United States and Brazil Celebrate the 10th Anniversary,” June 29, 2016.
640 USDA, “USDA Announces Reopening of Brazilian Market,” August 1, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
176| www.usitc.gov
Brazil.641 As of September 2016, five plants were considered eligible to export fresh beef to the United
States, and expectations for increasing trade were high.642
Cuba
U.S.-Cuba Trade
Although U.S. restrictions have limited bilateral trade, the U.S.-Cuba bilateral trade relationship has
changed markedly since President Obama’s December 2014 statement announcing a shift in U.S. policy
toward Cuba.643 Since then, government officials from both countries have held a number of meetings
and U.S. policies were amended to allow increased trade. In 2015, at the request of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance, the Commission examined the effects of U.S. restrictions on U.S. exports to
Cuba, as well as potential barriers to trade and investment in Cuba, in Overview of Cuban Imports of
Goods and Services and Effects of U.S. Restrictions. This report was the third report on Cuba trade
published by the Commission.644
Cuba continues to be a small export market for the United States, with total exports reaching $247.2
million in 2016 (figure 6.19). Before the 2014 policy change, exports to Cuba were limited to medicine
and medical goods as well as products allowed under the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000; the vast majority of these were agricultural
commodities.645 The 2015 and 2016 amendments to U.S. regulations (see below) removed certain
financing restrictions on non-agricultural goods and allowed an expanded range of U.S. exports of
manufactured goods to Cuba, including telecommunications equipment. U.S. exports to Cuba had
declined consistently from 2012 to 2015, but increased 37.2 percent in 2016 from 2015 levels, although
they are still below 2014 levels.
While U.S. exports of manufactured goods to Cuba have increased since 2014, a significant portion
(nearly 90 percent) of U.S. exports continues to be agricultural products, with much of the remaining
U.S. exports consisting largely of crop protection chemicals and medical supplies. As in recent years,
frozen chicken was the top U.S. export to Cuba in 2016, valued at $106 million and accounting for 42.9
percent of all U.S. exports to Cuba. Other major U.S. exports to Cuba included corn ($39 million, or 15.8
percent of U.S. exports to Cuba) and soybean oilcake ($36 million, or 14.6 percent of U.S. exports).
These, plus soybeans and soybean oil, make up the top five U.S. exports to Cuba, and together
accounted for over 85 percent of U.S. exports to Cuba in 2016. Data on U.S. merchandise exports to
Cuba are shown in appendix tables A.63 through A.64.
641 USDA, “USDA Announces Reopening of Brazilian Market,” August 1, 2016.
642 USDA, FAS, Brazil: Livestock and Products Annual, September 8, 2016, 4. As of March 2017, due to investigations
of a corruption scandal in Brazil’s beef processing plants, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service instituted
additional pathogen testing of all shipments of Brazilian beef products and increased testing at ports of entry
across the United States. USDA, “USDA on Tainted Brazilian Meat: None Has Entered U.S.,” March 22, 2017.
643 White House, “Statement by the President on Cuba Policy Changes,” December 17, 2014.
644 USITC, Overview of Cuban Imports of Goods and Services, March 2016. The two earlier reports on Cuba
published by the USITC were The Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with Respect to Cuba, February 2001, and U.S.
Agricultural Sales to Cuba, July 2007.
645 For more information, see chapter 3, “Current U.S. Restrictions,” in USITC, Overview of Cuban Imports of Goods
and Services, March 2016.

Chapter 6: U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
U.S. International Trade Commission |177
Figure 6.19 U.S. merchandise trade with Cuba, 2012–16
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Underlying data can be found in appendix table B.5.
Due to U.S. restrictions dating from the 1960s, there were no direct U.S. imports from Cuba in 2016.646
However, as a result of changes in U.S. policy that allowed the importation of certain goods produced by
independent Cuban entrepreneurs, some coffee produced in Cuba was imported, indirectly, into the
United States that year.647 Nespresso USA secured licensing from the U.S. Department of Treasury to
ship coffee, grown in Cuba and processed and packaged in Europe, to the United States. 648 The first
shipments of the Nespresso coffee product went on sale in the United States in August 2016.649
Trade Developments
Commercial travel to Cuba, which had been previously restricted, resumed in 2016. In June, six U.S.
airlines were approved to begin scheduled flights to Cuba, and the first commercial flight in 55 years
between the two countries occurred on August 31, 2016, with a JetBlue Airways flight from Fort
Lauderdale to Santa Clara, Cuba.650 The Adonia, owned by Carnival Corporation, became the first cruise
ship to travel between the United States and Cuba on May 2, 2016.651 As a result of the amendments to
646 The first direct U.S. import of goods from Cuba in over 50 years occurred in January 2017, with the importation
of 40 tons of Cuban charcoal made from marabu. Marsh, “Charcoal Becomes First Cuban Export to United States,”
January 5, 2017.
647 USDOS, “The State Department’s Section 515.582 List,” April 22, 2016.
648 Baertlein and Nicholson, “Cuban Coffee Returning to U.S.,” June 20, 2016.
649 Sesin, “Nestle’s Nespresso Now Selling Cuban Coffee for U.S. Market,” August 19, 2016.
650 USDOT, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Approves U.S. Airlines to Begin Scheduled Service to Cuba,” June
10, 2016; USDOT, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Arrives in Cuba on First Scheduled Flight in Over 50 Years,”
August 31, 2016.
651 Herrara, “Carnival’s Adonia, the Ship That Took Americans to Cuba,” November 23, 2016.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
M
ill
io
n
$
Total exports

The Year in Trade 2016
178| www.usitc.gov
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) since
January 2015, described below, other U.S. firms have entered the Cuban market. In March 2016,
Starwood Hotels signed three new hotel deals in Cuba, taking over and renovating three existing hotels
in Havana.652 The first of those hotels reopened in July 2016.653 In December 2016, Google signed a deal
with the Cuban government to allow the company to install servers in Cuba that will store some of the
company’s most popular content, increasing the speed of Google websites on the island.654
Amendments to the CACR and EAR
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Department of
Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced three sets of amendments to the CACR
and EAR in 2016. The amendments that went into effect on January 27 authorized additional U.S.
exports to Cuba, including telecommunications equipment and additional agricultural products;
removed restrictions on payment and credit financing terms for the authorized export of non-
agricultural goods; and facilitated travel to Cuba for authorized purposes.655
In March 2016, OFAC and BIS further amended the CACR and EAR, easing restrictions on exports to the
Cuban private sector and authorizing individual people-to-people educational travel. The amendments
also authorized fund transfers from banks outside of the United States that pass through U.S. financial
institutions before being transferred to banks outside the United States (known as “U-turn
transactions”) in which Cuba or Cuban nationals have an interest. Additionally, U.S. banking institutions
were authorized to process U.S. dollar-denominated transactions presented indirectly by Cuban banks,
and U.S. banks were authorized to open bank accounts for Cuban nationals. The amendments also
expanded the definition of an authorized “business presence” in Cuba to include exporters of goods that
are authorized for export or re-export to Cuba, and the mail, shipping, and parcel services that facilitate
these transactions.656
In October 2016, OFAC and BIS further amended the CACR and EAR. These amendments authorized,
among other things, trade in more products, including consumer goods for personal use; removed limits
on the value of Cuban-origin products brought back by U.S. travelers; clarified that only authorized
“agricultural commodities” are subject to the payment and finance limitations of the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act; authorized joint medical research projects with Cuban nationals;
and allowed the importation of Cuban-origin pharmaceuticals approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration into the United States. 657
652 Starwood, “Starwood Hotels & Resorts Announces Groundbreaking Expansion,” April 4, 2016.
653 Starwood, “Starwood Hotels & Resorts Makes Historic Debut,” July 7, 2016.
654 Frank, “Google Signs Internet Deal with Cuba’s Telecommunications Monopoly,” December 12, 2016.
655 U.S. Treasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments,” January 27, 2016.
656 U.S. Treasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Significant Amendments,” March 15, 2016.
657 U.S. Treasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions Regulations,”
October 14, 2016.

U.S. International Trade Commission |179
Bibliography
American Institute in Taiwan. “United States and Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreements
Council Meeting.” Press release, September 2016. https://ait.org.tw/en/pressrelease-
pr1650.html.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “APEC 2016: Quality Growth and Human Development.”
http://www.apec2016.pe/peru-host-2016/ (accessed April 14, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Peru’s Priorities for 2016.” http://www.apec2016.pe/perus-
priorities-for-2016/ (accessed January 20, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). 2016 Committee on Trade and Investment Annual Report to
Ministers, November 2016. http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1788.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “About APEC.” http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC
(accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Annex A: Lima Declaration on FTAAP.” In 2016 Leaders’
Declaration. 24th APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting, Lima, Peru, November 20, 2016.
http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-
Declarations/2016/2016_aelm/2016_Annex%20A.aspx (accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Annex A: The Beijing Roadmap for APEC’s Contribution to
the Realization of the FTAAP.” In 2014 Leaders’ Declaration. 22nd APEC Economic Leaders’
Meeting, Beijing, China, November 11, 2014. http://www.apec.org/meeting-papers/leaders-
declarations/2014/2014_aelm/2014_aelm_annexa.aspx (accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Annex B: APEC Strategic Blueprint for Promoting Global
Value Chains Development and Cooperation.” In 2014 Leaders’ Declaration. 22nd APEC
Economic Leaders’ Meeting, Beijing, China, November 11, 2014. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-
Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2014/2014_aelm/2014_aelm_annexb.aspx (accessed January 23,
2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC at a Glance, 2015, February 2015.
http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1610.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Bogor Goals.” Fact sheet, May 13, 2015.
http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Fact-Sheets/Bogor%20Goals.aspx.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Events Calendar, 2016.” http://www.apec.org/Events-
Calendar.aspx?year=2016 (accessed April 6, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “How APEC Operates.” http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-
APEC-Operates.aspx (accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “How APEC Operates: Policy Level.”
http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates/Policy-Level (accessed March 21, 2017).

https://ait.org.tw/en/pressrelease-pr1650.html

APEC Peru 2016

http://www.apec2016.pe/perus-priorities-for-2016/

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1788

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2016/2016_aelm/2016_Annex%20A.aspx

http://www.apec.org/meeting-papers/leaders-declarations/2014/2014_aelm/2014_aelm_annexa.aspx

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2014/2014_aelm/2014_aelm_annexb.aspx

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1610

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Fact-Sheets/Bogor%20Goals.aspx

http://www.apec.org/Events-Calendar.aspx?year=2016

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates.aspx

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates/Policy-Level

The Year in Trade 2016
180| www.usitc.gov
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “How APEC Operates: Working Level.”
http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates/Working-Level (accessed March 21, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Member Economies.” http://www.apec.org/About-
Us/About-APEC/Member-Economies.aspx (accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “News Releases in 2016.” http://www.apec.org/Press/News-
Releases.aspx?year=2016&topic=All (accessed January 20, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Pathways to FTAAP.” http://www.apec.org/Meeting-
Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2010/2010_aelm/pathways-to-ftaap.aspx (accessed January 23,
2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Regional Economic Integration Agenda.”
http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Fact-Sheets/Regional-Economic-Integration-
Agenda.aspx (accessed March 22, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Scope of Work.” http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-
APEC-Operates/Scope-of-Work.aspx (accessed January 23, 2017).
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Second-Term Review of APEC’s Progress towards the Bogor
Goals: APEC Region, November 2016. http://publications.apec.org/publication-
detail.php?pub_id=1775.
Baertlein, Lisa, and Marcy Nicholson. “Cuban Coffee Returning to U.S. but Only for Nespresso Brewers.”
Reuters, June 20, 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-coffee-nestle-idUSKCN0Z61E3.
Balding, Christopher. “Why China Can’t Stop Capital Outflows.” Bloomberg, December 5, 2016.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-06/why-china-can-t-stop-capital-outflows.
Baschuk, Bryce. “Environment––Environmental Trade Talks Collapse over Product List Discord.”
Bloomberg BNA: International Trade Daily, no. 234, December 6, 2016.
Bloomberg. “Japanese Government Seeks to Privatize Japan Post,” January 16, 2017.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=10852227.
Castano Freeman, Ivan. “Bright Outlook for Haiti’s Apparel Industry in 2016.” Just-style.com, February
16, 2016. http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=120614 (fee required).
Castano Freeman, Ivan. “Haiti Garment Exports Set to Rise despite Hurricane.” Just-style.com, October
13, 2016. http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=129049 (fee required).
Castano Freeman, Ivan. “Hong Kong’s Winds Group to Open Haiti Factory.” Just-style.com, October 26,
2016. http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=129144 (fee required).
Cheng, Evelyn. “Mexican Peso Plunges More Than 12% to Record Low vs. Dollar on Trump Election
Upset.” CNBC.com, November 9, 2016. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/mexican-peso-hits-2-
month-high-against-us-dollar-as-election-day-kicks-off.html.

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates/Working-Level

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Member-Economies.aspx

http://www.apec.org/Press/News-Releases.aspx?year=2016&topic=All

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2010/2010_aelm/pathways-to-ftaap.aspx

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Fact-Sheets/Regional-Economic-Integration-Agenda.aspx

http://www.apec.org/About-Us/How-APEC-Operates/Scope-of-Work.aspx

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1775

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-coffee-nestle-idUSKCN0Z61E3

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-06/why-china-can-t-stop-capital-outflows

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=10852227

http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=120614

http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=129049

http://www.just-style.com/pap.aspx?ID=129144

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/mexican-peso-hits-2-month-high-against-us-dollar-as-election-day-kicks-off.html

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |181
Coalition of Services Industries (CSI). “The Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).”
https://servicescoalition.org/negotiations/trade-in-services-agreement (accessed March 13,
2017).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “About Submission on Enforcement Matters.”
http://www.cec.org/about-us/public-engagement-and-transparency/about-submissions-
enforcement-matters (accessed March 15, 2017).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “About the CEC.” http://www.cec.org/about-
us/about-cec (accessed March 17, 2017).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “CEC Ministerial Statement—2016: Twenty-third
Regular Session of the CEC Council.” Council statement, Mérida, Yucatan, Mexico, September 9,
2016. http://www.cec.org/about-us/council-statements/cec-ministerial-statement-2016.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation.” http://www.cec.org/about-us/NAAEC (accessed March 17, 2017).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Submission on Enforcement Matters Compliance
Tracker. “Active Submissions.” http://www4.cec.org/sem-tracker/tracker.html (accessed March
13, 2017).
Congressional Research Service (CRS). Digital Trade and U.S. Policy, by Rachel F. Fefer, Shayerah Ilias
Akhtar, and Wayne M. Morrison. CRS Report R44565, January 13, 2017.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44565 .
Congressional Research Service (CRS). Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firm, by Rachel F. Fefer. CRS
Report RS20210, September 1, 2016. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20210 .
Congressional Research Service (CRS). Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role, by J.F. Hornbeck.
CRS Report R41922, August 5, 2013. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41922 .
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 .
Congressional Research Service (CRS). U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress, by
Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Martin A. Weis. CRS Report R43052, April 29, 2013.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43052 .
Corrigan, Dara. Remarks to the Food and Drug Law Institute’s Global Business Conference, Washington,
DC, March 16, 2016. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/speeches/ucm500667.htm.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: Brazil, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=405276824&mode=pdf (fee required).
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: Canada, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=785282062&mode=pdf (fee required).

https://servicescoalition.org/negotiations/trade-in-services-agreement

http://www.cec.org/about-us/public-engagement-and-transparency/about-submissions-enforcement-matters

http://www.cec.org/about-us/about-cec

http://www.cec.org/about-us/council-statements/cec-ministerial-statement-2016

http://www.cec.org/about-us/NAAEC

http://www4.cec.org/sem-tracker/tracker.html

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44565

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20210

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41922

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44354

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43052

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/speeches/ucm500667.htm

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=405276824&mode=pdf

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=785282062&mode=pdf

The Year in Trade 2016
182| www.usitc.gov
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: China, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=925308076&mode=pdf (fee required).
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: India, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=2005272584&mode=pdf (fee required).
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: Japan, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=45302388&mode=pdf (fee required).
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: Mexico, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=845308868&mode=pdf (fee required).
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Country Report: South Korea, April 2017.
http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=1565299740&mode=pdf (fee required).
EcoNote. China: Assessing the Global Impact of a Chinese Slowdown. Société Générale Report no. 32,
July 2016. https://www.societegenerale.com/sites/default/files/documents/Econote/Chinese-
slowdown-assessing-the-global-impact-EcoNote .
Dreyer, Iana. “EU, US Negotiators Officially Drop Aim of Concluding TTIP in 2016.” EurActive, October 10,
2016. http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/eu-us-negotiators-officially-drop-
aim-of-concluding-ttip-in-2016/.
European Commission (EC). Economic Outlook after the UK Referendum: A First Assessment for the Euro
Area and the EU. Institutional Paper 32, July 20, 2016.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economy-finance/economic-outlook-after-uk-
referendum-first-assessment-euro-area-and-eu_en.
European Commission (EC). “Fourteenth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP): Joint Press Conference by Ignacio Garcia Bercero, and Dan
Mullaney.” Video, July 15, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I124723.
European Commission (EC). “Interoperability and E-Mobility.” https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-
topic/interoperability-and-e-mobility (accessed February 27, 2017).
European Commission (EC). Report of the 14th Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, July 2016.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/august/tradoc_154837 .
European Commission (EC). Report of the 15th Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, October 2016.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155027 .
European Commission (EC). “Transatlantic Economic Council: Cooperation on Innovation for Growth.”
News release, November 30, 2016. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1591.
European Commission (EC). “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—State of Play,”
April 27, 2016. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154477 .

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=925308076&mode=pdf

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=2005272584&mode=pdf

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=45302388&mode=pdf

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=845308868&mode=pdf

http://country.eiu.com/FileHandler.ashx?issue_id=1565299740&mode=pdf

https://www.societegenerale.com/sites/default/files/documents/Econote/Chinese-slowdown-assessing-the-global-impact-EcoNote

EU, US negotiators officially drop aim of concluding TTIP in 2016

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economy-finance/economic-outlook-after-uk-referendum-first-assessment-euro-area-and-eu_en

http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I124723

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/interoperability-and-e-mobility

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/august/tradoc_154837

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155027

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1591

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154477

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |183
European Commission (EC). “TTIP: The Finish Line and How to Get There.” Speech by Cecilia Malmström,
Atlantic Council, Washington, DC, June 29, 2016.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/june/tradoc_154698 .
European Commission (EC). The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP). Public report, March 2016.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391 .
European Parliament. Directorate-General for External Policies. Policy Department. “The Trade in
Services Agreement (TiSA): An End to Negotiations in Sight?” by Elina Viilup. Policy paper, DG
EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2015_311 EN, October 12, 2015.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/570448/EXPO_IDA(2015)570448_
EN .
European Parliament. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). EU-US Negotiations on TTIP: A
Survey of Current Issues, by Laura Puccio. EPRS Report PE586.606, July 2016.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2016)5866
06.
EY. “EY Global Trade: Quarterly Update.” TradeWatch 15, no. 2 (June 2016).
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-trade-watch-june-2016/$FILE/ey-trade-watch-
june-2016 .
Foreso, Cynthia, Wen Jin Yuan, and Anton Yang. “Africa’s Crude Petroleum Exports Declined Due to a
Shrinking U.S. Market.” Executive Briefings on Trade, U.S. International Trade Commission, July
2015.
https://usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_africancrudeoilexportsforesoyangy
uan7-6-15 .
Frank, Marc. “Google Signs Internet Deal with Cuba’s Telecommunications Monopoly.” Reuters,
December 12, 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/cuba-usa-google-idUSL1N1E717E.
Government of Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). “Trade in Services
Agreement––News.” http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/trade-in-services-
agreement/news/Pages/news.aspx (accessed March 23, 2017).
Government of Canada. “Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council E-Newsletter,” March
2016 (modified April 15, 2016). https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-
secretariat/corporate/transparency/acts-regulations/canada-us-regulatory-cooperation-
council/e-newsletter-march-2016.html.
Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada (GAC). “WTO Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA),”
modified December 14, 2016. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-
commerciaux/topics-domaines/env/plurilateral.aspx?lang=eng.
Government of Colombia. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Tourism (MinComercio). “Rondas de
Negociación e Informes del Acuerdo sobre el Comercio de Servicios (TiSA)” [Negotiating rounds
and reports on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)], last modified March 17, 2017.
http://www.tlc.gov.co/publicaciones/31213/descargar.php?id=80463.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/june/tradoc_154698

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/570448/EXPO_IDA(2015)570448_EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2016)586606

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-trade-watch-june-2016/$FILE/ey-trade-watch-june-2016

https://usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_africancrudeoilexportsforesoyangyuan7-6-15

http://www.reuters.com/article/cuba-usa-google-idUSL1N1E717E

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/trade-in-services-agreement/news/Pages/news.aspx

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/corporate/transparency/acts-regulations/canada-us-regulatory-cooperation-council/e-newsletter-march-2016.html

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/env/plurilateral.aspx?lang=eng

http://www.tlc.gov.co/publicaciones/31213/descargar.php?id=80463

The Year in Trade 2016
184| www.usitc.gov
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/agreements-
under-negotiation/tisa/ (accessed March 24, 2017).
Government of the United States of America and Government of Canada. Agreement between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Extending the
Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Canada, as Amended. Article 1––Extension of the SLA 2006, January 23, 2012.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) website,
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/factsheets/Trade%20Topics/enforcement/softwood
%20lumber/Extension%20to%20the%20U.S.-
Canada%202006%20Softwood%20Lumber%20Agreement .
Government of Germany. “Participants of the G20 Summit in Hamburg.”
https://www.g20.org/Webs/G20/EN/G20/Participants/participants_node.html (accessed
January 19, 2017).
Herrara, Chabeli. “Carnival’s Adonia, the Ship That Took Americans to Cuba, Will Leave the Island in
June.” Miami Herald, November 23, 2016.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article116771698.html.
IHS Markit. Global Trade Atlas (GTA) database. http://www.gtis.com/ (accessed February 27, 2017).
Inside U.S. Trade. “TPP’s Fate in Lame-Duck Uncertain As Congress Leaves Until November.” Vol. 34, No.
38, September 29, 2016. https://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/tpps-fate-lame-duck-
uncertain-congress-leaves-until-november.
Inside U.S. Trade. “WTO Members Stalled over Future Negotiations, U.S. Advocates Plurilaterals.” Vol.
34, no. 20, May 20, 2016. https://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/wto-members-stalled-over-
future-negotiations-us-advocates-plurilaterals.
International Air Transport Association (IATA). “Air Passenger Market Analysis,” January 2016.
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/passenger-analysis-jan-2017 .
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Goods Agreement
Negotiators Bargain on Coverage.” Bridges 20, no. 24, June 30, 2016.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-
negotiators-bargain-on-coverage.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Goods Agreement
Negotiators Discuss Tariff Cut Offers.” Bridges 20, no. 15, April 28, 2016.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-
negotiators-discuss-tariff-cut-offers.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Goods Agreement
Negotiators Eye Next Steps.” Bridges 20, no. 9, March 10, 2016. http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-
news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-negotiators-eye-next-steps.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/tisa/

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/factsheets/Trade%20Topics/enforcement/softwood%20lumber/Extension%20to%20the%20U.S.-Canada%202006%20Softwood%20Lumber%20Agreement

https://www.g20.org/Webs/G20/EN/G20/Participants/participants_node.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article116771698.html

http://www.gtis.com/

https://insidetrade.com/inside-us-trade/wto-members-stalled-over-future-negotiations-us-advocates-plurilaterals

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/passenger-analysis-jan-2017

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-negotiators-bargain-on-coverage

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-negotiators-discuss-tariff-cut-offers

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-negotiators-eye-next-steps

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |185
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Goods Agreement
Participants Prepare Final Push.” Bridges 20, no. 32, September 29, 2016.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-
participants-prepare-final-push.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Goods Agreement
Negotiators Prepare for December Deadline.” Bridges 20, no. 36, October 27, 2016.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-
negotiators-prepare-for-december-deadline.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Ministerial Talks to Clinch
Environmental Goods Agreement Hit Stumbling Block.” Bridges, Biores, December 8, 2016.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/ministerial-talks-to-clinch-environmental-
goods-agreement-hit-stumbling.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Brazil. IMF Country Report no. 16/348, November 2016.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16348 .
International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook Database. April 2017 Edition.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx (accessed May 15,
2017).
Marsh, Sarah. “Charcoal Becomes First Cuban Export to United States in Half a Century.” Reuters,
January 5, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-usa-export-idUSKBN14Q0DB.
Mussell, Al. “Understanding the Dynamics of Milk Pricing and Revenue in a Time of Change.” Agri-Food
Economic Systems (Canada). Independent Agri-Food Policy Note, May 2016.
http://www.agrifoodecon.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/milk%20pricing%20briefing%20note%20ma
y%2018%202016 .
NAFTA Secretariat. “Overview of the Dispute Settlement Provisions.” https://www.nafta-sec-
alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions (accessed
March 15, 2017).
NAFTA Secretariat. “Status Report of Panel Proceedings—Chapter 19 Active Cases.” https://www.nafta-
sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Status-Report-of-Panel-Proceedings (accessed March
15, 2017).
North American Development Bank (NADB). “Summary of Project Implementation Activities: Active
Projects,” December 31, 2016. http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/ProjectMatrix
(accessed March 15, 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “2016 Ministerial Council
Statement––’Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth.’” Meeting of the Council at
Ministerial Level, June 1–2, 2016. C/MIN(2016)8/FINAL, June 2, 2016.
https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-participants-prepare-final-push

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/environmental-goods-agreement-negotiators-prepare-for-december-deadline

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/ministerial-talks-to-clinch-environmental-goods-agreement-hit-stumbling

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16348

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-usa-export-idUSKBN14Q0DB

http://www.agrifoodecon.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/milk%20pricing%20briefing%20note%20may%2018%202016

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Status-Report-of-Panel-Proceedings

http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/ProjectMatrix

https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/

The Year in Trade 2016
186| www.usitc.gov
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Capacity Developments in the
World Steel Industry,” February 2016. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/Capacity-Developments-
Steel-Industry .
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Chair’s Summary––’Enhancing
Productivity for Inclusive Growth.’” Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, June 1–2, 2016.
C/MIN(2016)9, June 7, 2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Country Statistical Profiles: Key
Tables from OECD.” http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profiles-key-
tables-from-oecd_20752288 (accessed April 11, 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive
Growth.” https://www.oecd.org/mcm/ (accessed January 17, 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Global Interim Economic Outlook,”
March 7, 2017. http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/Will-risks-derail-the-modest-recovery-OECD-
Interim-Economic-Outlook-March-2017-presentation .
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Global Value Chains.”
http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm (accessed April 3, 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Members and Partners.”
http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/ (accessed January 17, 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “OECD Economic Surveys: Japan
2017,” April 13, 2017. http://www.oecdbookshop.org/browse.asp?pid=title-
detail&lang=en&ds=&ISB=9789264272170.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Agenda: Trade Committee––3–4 November 2016––OECD
Conference Centre, Paris, France.” TAD/TC/A(2016)2, October 14, 2016.
https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Agenda: Trade Committee––Confidential Session––4
November 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France.” TAD/TC/A(2016)2/ANN, October 14,
2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Agenda: Working Party of the Trade Committee––13–14
December 2016––Paris, France.” TAD/TC/WP/A(2016)4, December 9, 2016.
https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) 2017–18 of the
Trade Committee.” TAD/TC(2016)1/REV2, May 31, 2016.
https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/Capacity-Developments-Steel-Industry

https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profiles-key-tables-from-oecd_20752288

https://www.oecd.org/mcm/

http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/Will-risks-derail-the-modest-recovery-OECD-Interim-Economic-Outlook-March-2017-presentation

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm

http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

http://www.oecdbookshop.org/browse.asp?pid=title-detail&lang=en&ds=&ISB=9789264272170

https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |187
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Summary Record: Trade Committee––Confidential Session–
–22 April 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France.” TAD/TC/M(2016)1/ANN, September
26, 2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Draft Summary Record: Trade Committee––Plenary Session––
21–22 April 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France.” TAD/TC/M(2016)1, September 26,
2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Reforming Trade in Services––Insights from New OECD Analysis–
–OECD Conference Centre––3–4 November 2016.” TAD/TC(2016)10, October 13, 2016.
https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Report from the Chair of the Working Party of the Trade
Committee (WPTC)––21–22 April 2016––OECD Headquarters, Paris.” TAD/TC/RD(2016)2, April
20, 2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade and Agriculture Directorate
(TAD). Trade Committee (TC). “Report from the Chair of the Working Party of the Trade
Committee (WPTC)––3–4 November 2016––OECD Conference Centre, Paris.”
TAD/TC/RD(2016)1, November 2, 2016. https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/.
Reuters. “China’s Foreign Reserves Just Plunged to the Lowest since 2011.” Fortune, November 7, 2016.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/07/china-foreign-reserves-yuan-depreciation/.
Reuters. “U.S. Dollar Soars on Bets That Donald Trump Could Spur Inflation.” Fortune, November 14,
2016. http://fortune.com/2016/11/14/donald-trump-victory-dollar-inflation/.
Sesin, Carmen. “Nestle’s Nespresso Now Selling Cuban Coffee for U.S. Market.” NBCNews, August 19,
2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/nestle-s-nespresso-now-selling-cuban-coffee-u-s-
market-n634286.
Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol (Haiti). Sonapi Parc Industriel de Caracol 2016 Year End Report.
http://www.ute.gouv.ht/bm/documents/Q4_YEAR_2016_PIC .
Starwood Hotels & Resorts. “Starwood Hotels & Resorts Announces Groundbreaking Expansion to
Cuba,” April 4, 2016.
http://www.starwoodmediacentre.com/eame/starwood/news/2016/04/04/starwood-hotels-
and-resorts-announces-groundbreaking-expansion-to-cuba?locale=en_GB.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts. “Starwood Hotels & Resorts Makes Historic Debut with the Opening of Four
Points Havana,” July 7, 2016. http://www.starwoodmediacentre.com/uki/four-
points/news/2016/07/07/starwood-hotels-resorts-makes-historic-debut-with-the-opening-of-
four-points-havana?locale=en_GB.

https://www.oecd.int/olis/portal/site/olisnet/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/07/china-foreign-reserves-yuan-depreciation/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/14/donald-trump-victory-dollar-inflation/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/nestle-s-nespresso-now-selling-cuban-coffee-u-s-market-n634286

http://www.ute.gouv.ht/bm/documents/Q4_YEAR_2016_PIC

http://www.starwoodmediacentre.com/eame/starwood/news/2016/04/04/starwood-hotels-and-resorts-announces-groundbreaking-expansion-to-cuba?locale=en_GB

http://www.starwoodmediacentre.com/uki/four-points/news/2016/07/07/starwood-hotels-resorts-makes-historic-debut-with-the-opening-of-four-points-havana?locale=en_GB

The Year in Trade 2016
188| www.usitc.gov
Trade Reports International Group (TRIG). “EGA Negotiators Miss Mark.” Washington Trade Daily,
December 5, 2016.
Trans-Atlantic Business Council. “TABC Welcomes U.S.-EU Agreement Permitting Continued Access to EU
Market for U.S. Insurers and Reinsurers.” Press release, January 13, 2016.
http://www.transatlanticbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TABC-Press-Release-TABC-
Welcomes-U.S.-EU-Agreement-Permitting-Continued-Access-to-EU-Market-for-U.S.-Insurers-
and-Reinsurers .
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Conference of the Parties (COP) to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Session 21. Paris
Agreement.http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_
english_ .
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “U.S. Chamber Launches Trilateral Digital Economy Steering Committee,”
August 30, 2016. https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-launches-trilateral-
digital-economy-steering-committee.
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. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “USDA on Tainted Brazilian Meat: None Has Entered U.S., 100
Percent Re-Inspection Instituted.” Press release, March 22, 2017.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/03/22/usda-tainted-brazilian-meat-none-
has-entered-us-100-percent-re.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). Foreign Agricultural Trade of
the United States (FATUS): Calendar Year; By Year; Top 15 U.S. Agricultural Export Destinations,
by Year, March 31, 2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-
of-the-united-states-fatus/calendar-year/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). “Japan—Trade,” last updated
October 11, 2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/countries-
regions/japan/trade (accessed March 11, 2017).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Japan: Grain and Feed
Update, by Keiko Fujibayashi. GAIN Report Number JA6040, October 18, 2016.
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Update_T
okyo_Japan_10-18-2016 .
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Japan Issues New Safety
Standards for Agriculture and Food; Report Categories: Sanitary/Phytosanitary/Food Safety, by
Suguru Sato. GAIN Report Number 6001, January 25, 2016.
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Japan%20Issues%20New%20Safety
%20Standards%20for%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20_Tokyo_Japan_1-25-2016 .

http://www.transatlanticbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TABC-Press-Release-TABC-Welcomes-U.S.-EU-Agreement-Permitting-Continued-Access-to-EU-Market-for-U.S.-Insurers-and-Reinsurers

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_

https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-launches-trilateral-digital-economy-steering-committee

https://www.uscc.gov/Research/december-2016-trade-bulletin

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/03/22/usda-tainted-brazilian-meat-none-has-entered-us-100-percent-re

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-of-the-united-states-fatus/calendar-year/

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/countries-regions/japan/trade

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Update_Tokyo_Japan_10-18-2016

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Japan%20Issues%20New%20Safety%20Standards%20for%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20_Tokyo_Japan_1-25-2016

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |189
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Japan: Livestock and Products
Annual; 2016 Market Situation Update and 2017 Outlook, by Kakuyu Obara. GAIN Report
Number JA6019, September 9, 2016.
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20A
nnual_Tokyo_Japan_9-10-2016 .
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Livestock and Products
Annual, by Joao Silva and Nicolas Rubio. GAIN Report Number BR 1614, September 8, 2016.
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20A
nnual_Brasilia_Brazil_8-30-2016 .
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “USDA Announces Reopening
of Brazilian Market to U.S. Beef Exports.” Press release, August 1, 2016.
https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda-announces-reopening-brazilian-market-us-beef-
exports.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework Principles Issued by the U.S.
Department of Commerce,” February 29, 2016.
https://www.privacyshield.gov/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=015t00000004qAg.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Fact Sheet: High-Level Economic Dialogue; Three Years of
Achievements.” U.S.-Mexico HLED, December 8, 2016.
http://trade.gov/hled/HLED%20Fact%20Sheet-Dec82016 .
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Fact Sheet: Overview of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework
for Interested Participants,” July 12, 2016.
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/fact_sheet-_eu-
us_privacy_shield_7-16_sc_cmts .
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Key New Requirements: EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework;
Key New Requirements for Participating Companies.” https://www.privacyshield.gov/Key-New-
Requirements (accessed February 23, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Privacy Shield Overview.”
https://www.privacyshield.gov/Program-Overview (accessed February 23, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “Statement by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman Following the Launch of the Global Forum on Steel
Excess Capacity.” Press release, December 17, 2016. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-
releases/2016/12/statement-us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-and-us-trade.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework: FAQs.”
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/faqs-eu-
us_privacy_shield_7-16_sc_cmts (accessed February 23, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “U.S. and Mexican Officials Celebrate the Inauguration of the
Port of Entry and International Bridge in Tornillo, Texas.” Press release, February 4, 2016.
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2016/02/us-and-mexican-officials-celebrate-
inauguration-port-entry-and.

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20Annual_Tokyo_Japan_9-10-2016

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Livestock%20and%20Products%20Annual_Brasilia_Brazil_8-30-2016

https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda-announces-reopening-brazilian-market-us-beef-exports

https://www.privacyshield.gov/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=015t00000004qAg

http://trade.gov/hled/HLED%20Fact%20Sheet-Dec82016

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/fact_sheet-_eu-us_privacy_shield_7-16_sc_cmts

https://www.privacyshield.gov/Key-New-Requirements

https://www.privacyshield.gov/Program-Overview

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2016/12/statement-us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-and-us-trade

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2016/faqs-eu-us_privacy_shield_7-16_sc_cmts

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2016/02/us-and-mexican-officials-celebrate-inauguration-port-entry-and

The Year in Trade 2016
190| www.usitc.gov
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “U.S. Departments of Commerce and Energy Appoint Inaugural
U.S. Section of the Newly Formed U.S.-Mexico Energy Business Council.” Press release, June 30,
2016. http://www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-departments-of-commerce-and-
energy-appoint-inaugural-us-section-of-us-mexico-energy-business-council-063016.asp.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Delivers Remarks
at Inauguration of the Tornillo-Guadalupe Port of Entry and International Bridge.” Press release
with speech, February 4, 2016. https://www.commerce.gov/news/secretary-
speeches/2016/02/us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-delivers-remarks-inauguration.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Annual Revision of the
U.S. International Transactions Accounts,” by C. Omar Kebbeh and Eric Bryda. Survey of Current
Business 96, no. 7 (July 2016).
https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/07%20July/0716_annual_revision_of_international_transac
tions_accounts .
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “Gross Domestic Product:
Fourth Quarter and Annual 2016 (Third Estimate).” News release, March 30, 2017.
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.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, 2017.
https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed March 21, 2017).
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, 2017.
https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed March 21, 2017).
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, December 19,
2016. https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm (accessed March 22, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). “U.S. International
Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2016.” News release, March 21, 2017.
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2017/pdf/trans416 .
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Economic Development Administration (EDA). Fiscal Year 2015
Annual Report to Congress: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program.
https://www.eda.gov/pdf/annual-reports/taaf/FY15-TAAF-Annual-Report-to-Congress
(accessed March 13, 2017).
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
(accessed March 2, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “AGOA: General
Country Eligibility Provisions.” http://trade.gov/agoa/eligibility/ (accessed March 21, 2017).

http://www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-departments-of-commerce-and-energy-appoint-inaugural-us-section-of-us-mexico-energy-business-council-063016.asp

https://www.commerce.gov/news/secretary-speeches/2016/02/us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-delivers-remarks-inauguration

https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/07%20July/0716_annual_revision_of_international_transactions_accounts

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

https://bea.gov/iTable/index_ita.cfm

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2017/pdf/trans416

https://www.eda.gov/pdf/annual-reports/taaf/FY15-TAAF-Annual-Report-to-Congress

https://www.eda.gov/pdf/about/TAAF-Program-1-Pager

http://trade.gov/agoa/eligibility/

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |191
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “AGOA Preferences:
Country Eligibility, Apparel Eligibility, and Textile Eligibility (Category 0 and Category 9).” Excel
table, December 20, 2016.
http://otexa.trade.gov/SpreadSheets/AGOA_ELIGIBILITY_INCL_CAT_0.xls.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “Japan Country
Commercial Guide: Japan—Openness to and Restriction on Foreign Investment,” January 24,
2017. https://www.export.gov/article?id=Japan-openness-to-foreign-investment.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “Joint Statement of
the 14th Edition of the Brazil-U.S. Commercial Dialogue.” Press release, June 29, 2016.
www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-brazil-comm-dialogue-statement .
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “Trade Data Basics,”
updated August 25, 2015. http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/referenceinfo/tg_ian_001872.asp.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). International Trade Administration (ITA). “United States and
Brazil Celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue.” Press release,
June 29, 2016. http://www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-brazil-celebrate-10th-
anniversary-of-us-brazil-commercial-dialogue-062916.asp.
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.” http://trade.gov/rcc/ (accessed March 20, 2017).
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “Major Shippers
Report: U.S. General Imports by Country,” May 1, 2017.
http://otexa.trade.gov/msrcty/v2450.htm.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP). “CBP Commissioner Inaugurates Cargo Pre-Inspection
Program Pilot at Mesa de Otay.” Press release, January 12, 2016.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-commissioner-inaugurates-cargo-
pre-inspection-program-pilot-mesa.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). “Memorandum of
Understanding on a Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program,” November 24, 2015.
www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PPH_MOU_and_Workplan_USPTO-INPI .
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). “Submission under U.S.-Colombia TPA.”
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade/fta-submissions (accessed March 14, 2017).
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). “The Colombian Labor
Action Plan: A Five Year Update,” April 11, 2016.
https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/2016_Colombia_action_plan_report_FINAL .

http://otexa.trade.gov/SpreadSheets/AGOA_ELIGIBILITY_INCL_CAT_0.xls

https://www.export.gov/article?id=Japan-openness-to-foreign-investment

http://www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-brazil-comm-dialogue-statement

http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/referenceinfo/tg_ian_001872.asp

http://www.trade.gov/press/press-releases/2016/us-brazil-celebrate-10th-anniversary-of-us-brazil-commercial-dialogue-062916.asp

http://trade.gov/rcc/

http://otexa.trade.gov/msrcty/v2450.htm

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-commissioner-inaugurates-cargo-pre-inspection-program-pilot-mesa

http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PPH_MOU_and_Workplan_USPTO-INPI

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade/fta-submissions

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/2016_Colombia_action_plan_report_FINAL

The Year in Trade 2016
192| www.usitc.gov
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). “Fifth Periodic Review of
Implementation of Recommendations in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Public Report of Review
of Submission 2011-03 (Dominican Republic),” October 5, 2016.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/Fifth%20Periodic%20Review%
20of%20Implementation%20of%20Recommendations%20in%20DOL%27s%20Report%20of%20
Review%20of%20Submission%202011-03 .
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and
Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Division of Monitoring and Enforcement of Trade Agreements (META).”
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/about/offices/ (accessed March 15, 2017).
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: A Guide,” October
2005. http://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/naalcgd.htm.
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: Public Report of Review
of U.S. Submission 2015-04 (Mexico), July 8, 2016.
https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/070816-Chedraui-report .
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and
Labor Affairs (OTLA). Public Report on Outreach Events Pursuant to U.S.-Mexico Ministerial
Consultations on Public Communications MEX 2003-1, 2005-1, and 2011-1 under the North
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, 2016.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/Public%20Report%20-%20H-
2%20Events%20(FINAL%20for%20Publication) .
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and
Labor Affairs (OTLA). “Submissions under the Labor Provisions of Free Trade Agreements.”
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade/fta-submissions (accessed March 1, 2017).
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB). Office of Trade and
Labor Affairs (OTLA). United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement: Public Report of Review of
U.S. Submission 2015-01 (Peru), March 18, 2016.
https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/Public_Report_of_Review_of_US_Submission_2015-
01 .
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). “TAA Program
Benefits and Services under the 2015 Amendments,” updated June 28, 2016.
https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/2015_amend_benfits.cfm.
U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Workers Program—Fiscal Year 2015.
https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/AnnualReport15 (accessed March 15, 2017).
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “AGOA Forum 2016,” September 26, 2016. https://2009-
2017.state.gov/p/af/rt/agoa/2016/index.htm.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/Fifth%20Periodic%20Review%20of%20Implementation%20of%20Recommendations%20in%20DOL%27s%20Report%20of%20Review%20of%20Submission%202011-03

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/about/offices/

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/trade/agreements/naalcgd.htm

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/070816-Chedraui-report

https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/Public%20Report%20-%20H-2%20Events%20(FINAL%20for%20Publication)

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade

https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/pdf/Public_Report_of_Review_of_US_Submission_2015-01

https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/2015_amend_benfits.cfm

https://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/AnnualReport15

https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/af/rt/agoa/2016/index.htm

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |193
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “Joint Statement on the 3rd U.S.-Republic of Korea ICT Policy
Forum.” Press release, September 12, 2016. https://2009-
2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/09/261772.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). “Joint Statement on the Second India-U.S. Strategic and Commercial
Dialogue,” August 31, 2016. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/08/261405.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB). “2012 Investment
Climate Statement—Canada,” June 2012.
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2012/191123.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EUR). “The State
Department’s Section 515.582 List,” April 22, 2016.
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/515582/237471.htm.
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,” 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 on
the 7th U.S.-EU SME Best Practices Workshop in the Framework of the Transatlantic Economic
Council,” June 2, 2016. https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260932.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 European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR). “Transatlantic
eHealth/Health IT Cooperation Roadmap,” July 28, 2016.
https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260926.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR). “Transatlantic
eHealth/Health IT Cooperation Roadmap: Annex—Actions and Deliverables,” July 28, 2016.
https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260928.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA). “U.S. Relations with
Haiti.” Fact sheet, March 23, 2017. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm.
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Office of the Legal Adviser. International Claims and Investment
Disputes (L/CID). https://www.state.gov/s/l/c3433.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).
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.” http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).
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.” http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).

https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/09/261772.htm

https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/08/261405.htm

https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2012/191123.htm

https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/515582/237471.htm

https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/130772.htm

https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260932.htm

https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/265818.htm

https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260926.htm

https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2016/260928.htm

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm

https://www.state.gov/s/l/c3433.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3740.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3742.htm

The Year in Trade 2016
194| 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 States of
America.” http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).
U.S. Department of State (USDOS). Secretary of State, Washington, DC. “19th Round of TiSA
Negotiations (State 84866),” July 28, 2016.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Approves U.S. Airlines
to Begin Scheduled Service to Cuba.” News release, June 10, 2016.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-approves-us-
airlines-begin-scheduled-service-cuba.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Arrives in Cuba on First
Scheduled Flight in Over 50 Years.” News release, August 31, 2016.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-arrives-cuba-
first-scheduled-flight-over-50-years.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
“Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates (Mexican-Owned or Mexico-Domiciled Carriers),” March 24, 2017.
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,” March 24, 2017.
https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptRoadside.aspx?rpt=RDOOS.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
United States Cross-Border Long-Haul Trucking Pilot Program: Report to Congress, January 2015.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/united-states-mexico-cross-border-long-haul-
trucking-pilot-program-report-congress.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
“United States to Expand Trade Opportunities with Mexico through Safe Cross-Border Trucking.”
News release, January 9, 2015. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/united-states-expand-
trade-opportunities-mexico-through-safe-cross-border-trucking.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology (OST-R). Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. “Connected
Vehicle Basics.” https://www.its.dot.gov/cv_basics/cv_basics_what.htm (accessed April 5,
2017).
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-Agreement-
Fact-Sheet-(011317)-FINAL.PDF.
U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Improvements in EU-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation.”
Press release, July 19, 2016. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-
releases/Pages/jl0521.aspx.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3741.htm

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-approves-us-airlines-begin-scheduled-service-cuba

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-arrives-cuba-first-scheduled-flight-over-50-years

https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptMex.aspx?rpt=MXOOS

https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptRoadside.aspx?rpt=RDOOS

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/united-states-mexico-cross-border-long-haul-trucking-pilot-program-report-congress

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/united-states-expand-trade-opportunities-mexico-through-safe-cross-border-trucking

https://www.its.dot.gov/cv_basics/cv_basics_what.htm

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/Covered-Agreement-Fact-Sheet-(011317)-FINAL.PDF

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0521.aspx

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |195
U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Joint U.S.-EU Financial Regulatory Forum Joint
Statement.” Press release, July 25, 2016. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-
releases/Pages/jl0528.aspx.
U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further
Amendments to Cuba Sanctions Regulations.” Fact sheet, October 14, 2016.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_fact_sheet_10142016 .
U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further
Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions Regulations.” Fact sheet, January 27, 2016.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fact_sheet_01262016 .
U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury). “Treasury and Commerce Announce Significant
Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions Regulations Ahead of President Obama’s Historic Trip to
Cuba.” Fact sheet, March 15, 2016. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_fact_sheet_03152016 .
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Crude Oil Production database.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm (accessed April 14, 2017).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Despite Growth Late in the Year, U.S. Crude Oil
Production Decreased in 2016,” by Matt French. Today in Energy, March 20, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30412.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Petroleum and Other Liquids: Exports by Destination
database. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_a.htm (accessed
April 9, 2016).
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_d.htm
(accessed March 16, 2017).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Exports database.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_a_EP00_EEX_mbblpd_a.htm (accessed April 14,
2017).
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_mbblpd_a.htm (accessed
April 14, 2017).
U.S. Federal Reserve. “Foreign Exchange Rates—H.10.”
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/summary/indexn96_b.htm (accessed April 12,
2017).
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.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0528.aspx

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_fact_sheet_10142016

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fact_sheet_01262016

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_fact_sheet_03152016

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30412

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_a.htm

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_a_EP00_EEX_mbblpd_a.htm

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/summary/indexn96_b.htm

https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650894.txt

The Year in Trade 2016
196| www.usitc.gov
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, 22nd Report
2013–14. USITC Publication 4567. Washington, DC: USITC, September 2015.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4567 .
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 .
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 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with Respect to Cuba.
USITC Publication 3398. Washington, DC: USITC, February 2001.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3398 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). “Frequently Asked Questions.” Shifts in U.S. Merchandise
Trade, 2015. USITC Publication 4641. Washington, DC: USITC, September 2016.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2015/d3/digest_ht
s8_dir_-final .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2017)
Basic Edition, February 2017. USITC Publication 4660. Washington, DC: USITC, 2017.
https://hts.usitc.gov/current.
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2016),
Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes, 2016. USITC Publication 4588. Washington, DC:
USITC, 2016. https://hts.usitc.gov/view/release?release=chapter98.
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Hot-Rolled Steel Products from India. USITC Publication
4599. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2016.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub4599 .
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). Overview of Cuban Imports of Goods and Services and
Effects of U.S. Restrictions. USITC Publication 4597. Washington, DC: USITC, March 2016.
http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4597 .
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 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the
U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors. USITC Publication 4607. Washington, DC: USITC,
May 2016. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607 .

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4567

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4226

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4199

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3398

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2015/d3/digest_hts8_dir_-final

https://hts.usitc.gov/current

https://hts.usitc.gov/view/release?release=chapter98

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub4599

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4597

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |197
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba: Certain Economic Effects of
U.S. Restrictions. USITC Publication 3932. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2007.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3932 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2015: Operation of the Trade Agreement
Program, 67th Report, USITC Publication 4627. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2016.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4627 .
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.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/old_pub4543 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2013: Operation of the Trade Agreement
Program, 65th Report. USITC Publication 4481. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2014.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4481 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2012: Operation of the Trade Agreement
Program, 64th Report. USITC Publication 4416. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2013.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4416 .
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 .
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 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2009: Operation of the Trade Agreement
Program, 61st Report. USITC Publication 4174. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2010.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4174_0 .
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The Year in Trade 2008: Operation of the Trade Agreement
Program, 60th Report. USITC Publication 4091. Washington, DC: USITC, July 2009.
https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4091_0 .
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 .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual Report of the President of
the United States on the Trade Agreements Program. Washington, DC: USTR, March 2017,
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/AnnualReport/AnnualReport2017 .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2016 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.
Washington, DC: USTR, March 2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-NTE-Report-
FINAL .

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3932

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4627

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/old_pub4543

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4481

https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4416

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4336

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4247_0

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4174_0

https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4091_0

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2017/AnnualReport/AnnualReport2017

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-NTE-Report-FINAL

The Year in Trade 2016
198| www.usitc.gov
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets. Washington, DC:
USTR, December 2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-Out-of-Cycle-Review-
Notorious-Markets .
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 .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2016 Special 301 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: USTR, April
2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR-2016-Special-301-Report .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2016 Trade Policy Agenda and 2015 Annual Report. Washington, DC:
USTR, March 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-
publications/2016/2016-trade-policy-agenda-and-2015-Annual-Report.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2015 Trade Policy Agenda and 2014 Annual Report. Washington, DC:
USTR, March 2015.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2015%20AR%20Compiled%20FINAL_0 .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Addressing Steel Excess Capacity and Its Impacts: Ensuring a Level
Playing Field for American Businesses and Workers.” Fact sheet, April 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2016/april/addressing-steel-
excess-capacity-its.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Beyond AGOA—Looking to the Future of U.S.-Africa Trade and
Investment, September 2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-AGOA-Report .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “GSP in Use—Country Specific Information.” https://ustr.gov/issue-
areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/gsp-use-
%E2%80%93-coun (accessed April 4, 2017).
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “India and United States Joint Statement on the Trade Policy Forum.”
Press release, October 20, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2016/october/%E2%80%8BIndia-US-Joint-Statement-TPF.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement of the U.S.-Tunisia Council on Trade and
Investment.” Press release, March 22, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/march/joint-statement-US-Tunisia-council-trade-investment.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the 2nd Joint U.S.-Nepal Trade and Investment
Framework (TIFA) Council Meeting.” Press release, June 10, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-
us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/june/joint-statement-2nd-joint-us-nepal.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the 12th Joint U.S.-Sri Lanka Trade and
Investment Framework Council Meeting.” Press release, April 28, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-
us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/joint-statement-12th-joint-us-sri.

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-Out-of-Cycle-Review-Notorious-Markets

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-China-Report-to-Congress

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR-2016-Special-301-Report

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/reports-and-publications/2016/2016-trade-policy-agenda-and-2015-Annual-Report

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2015%20AR%20Compiled%20FINAL_0

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2016/april/addressing-steel-excess-capacity-its

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-AGOA-Report

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/gsp-use-%E2%80%93-coun

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/october/%E2%80%8BIndia-US-Joint-Statement-TPF

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/march/joint-statement-US-Tunisia-council-trade-investment

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/june/joint-statement-2nd-joint-us-nepal

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/joint-statement-12th-joint-us-sri

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |199
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the Results of the Council Meeting of the U.S.-
Central Asia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).” Press release, April 5, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/joint-statement-
results-council.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on the United States-Ukraine Trade and Investment
Council.” Press release, October 5, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/october/joint-statement-united-states.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement on U.S.-EU Negotiations for a Bilateral Agreement
on Insurance and Reinsurance Measures.” Press release, December 12, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/december/joint-
statement-us-eu-negotiations.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Joint Statement Regarding Fisheries Subsidies,” September 14, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/09142016_STATEMENT_joint_statement_fisheries_partners
_FINAL .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Obama Administration Takes Action to Address European Union’s
Unfair Trade Practices against U.S. Beef Industry.” Press release, December 22, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/december/obama-
administration-takes-action.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Obama Administration Undertaking Global Initiative to Prohibit
Harmful Fishing Subsidies.” Press release, September 14, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-
us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/september/obama-administration-
undertaking.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators for the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) Round 15 Press Conference.” Press
release, October 7, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2016/october/opening-remarks-us-and-eu-chief.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Opening Remarks by U.S. and EU Chief Negotiators from the New
York Round of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations.” Press release,
April 29, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/speechestranscripts/2016/april/opening-remarks-us-and-eu-chief.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Statement by Assistant USTR Dan Mullaney at the 14th Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiating Round.” Speech transcript, July 15, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2016/july/statement-
assistant-ustr-dan.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Statement on Meeting of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.”
Press release, December 15, 2014. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2014/December/Statement-on-meeting-US-Korea-FTA-Joint-Committee.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/joint-statement-results-council

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/october/joint-statement-united-states

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/december/joint-statement-us-eu-negotiations

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/09142016_STATEMENT_joint_statement_fisheries_partners_FINAL

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/december/obama-administration-takes-action

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/september/obama-administration-undertaking

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/october/opening-remarks-us-and-eu-chief

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2016/april/opening-remarks-us-and-eu-chief

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2016/july/statement-assistant-ustr-dan

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2014/December/Statement-on-meeting-US-Korea-FTA-Joint-Committee

The Year in Trade 2016
200| www.usitc.gov
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements.”
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/trade-investment-framework-agreements (accessed March
15, 2017).
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.”
https://ustr.gov/ttip (accessed March 22, 2017).
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Argentina Hold Ministerial-Level Meeting of the
Council on Trade and Investment under the United States-Argentina Trade and Investment
Framework Agreement.” Press release, November 7, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-
offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/november/us-and-argentina-hold-ministerial.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Argentina Sign Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement.” Press release, March 23, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/march/united-states-and-argentina-sign.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Brazil Hold Third Meeting of the Commission on
Economic and Trade Relations under the United States-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic
Cooperation.” Press release, March 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/march/united-states-and-brazil-hold-third.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Indonesia Explore Initiatives to Increase Trade and
Investment.” Press release, April 12, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/april/united-states-and-indonesia-explore.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Laos Sign Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement.” Press release, February 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/february/united-states-and-laos-sign-trade.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Philippines Strengthen Engagement on Trade.”
Press release, March 18, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2016/march/united-states-and-philippines.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Taiwan Deepen Dialogue on Trade and Investment
Priorities.” Press release, October 2015. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2015/october/united-states-and-taiwan-deepen.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Taiwan Hold Dialogue on Trade and Investment
Priorities.” Press release, October 4, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/press-releases/2016/october/united-states-and-taiwan-hold.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States and Uruguay Hold Meeting of the Trade and
Investment Council under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.” Press release,
May 11, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2016/may/US-Uruguay-Hold-Trade-Investment-Council-Meeting-Under-TIFA.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/trade-investment-framework-agreements

https://ustr.gov/ttip

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/november/us-and-argentina-hold-ministerial

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/march/united-states-and-argentina-sign

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/march/united-states-and-brazil-hold-third

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/united-states-and-indonesia-explore

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/february/united-states-and-laos-sign-trade

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/march/united-states-and-philippines

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/united-states-and-taiwan-deepen

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/october/united-states-and-taiwan-hold

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/may/US-Uruguay-Hold-Trade-Investment-Council-Meeting-Under-TIFA

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |201
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “United States Reinstates Trade Preference Benefits for Burma
Following Review of Eligibility Criteria.” Press release, September 14, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/september/united-
states-reinstates-trade.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S.-China Joint Fact Sheet on the 27th U.S.-China Joint Commission
on Commerce and Trade,” Fact sheet, January 17, 2017. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-
offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2017/january/us-china-joint-fact-sheet-27th-us.
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/press-
releases/2017/january/us-eu-joint-report-t-tip-progress-0.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook, September
2016. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP-Guidebook-September-16-2016 .
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.” https://ustr.gov/trade-
agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta (accessed April 4, 2017).
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S. Press Statement at the Close of the T-TIP Round in Brussels.”
Speech transcript, February 26, 2016. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-
office/speechestranscripts/2016/February/US-Press-Statement-TTIP-Round-Brussels.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Froman, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack Announce Continued
EU Market Access for American Producers of High-Quality Beef.” Press release, August 1, 2013.
http://www.ustr.gov/Froman-Vilsack-Announce-Continued-EU-Market-Access-for-American-
Beef-Producers.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “USTR Releases Special 301 Report on Protection of American
Intellectual Property Rights Across the World.” Press release, April 30, 2016.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/ustr-releases-
special-301-report.
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/reports-
and-notices/Documents/Covered%20Agreement%20Letters%20to%20Congress .
Ward, Jill, and Lukanyo Mnyanda. “Brexit Pains: The Pound Takes a Serious Pounding.” Bloomberg
Businessweek, October 28, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-
28/brexit-pains-the-pound-takes-a-serious-pounding.
White House. “Fact Sheet: United States-Argentina Relationship.” March 23, 2016.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/23/fact-sheet-united-states-
%E2%80%93-argentina-relationship-0.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/september/united-states-reinstates-trade

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2017/january/us-china-joint-fact-sheet-27th-us

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/january/us-eu-joint-report-t-tip-progress-0

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP-Guidebook-September-16-2016

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2016/February/US-Press-Statement-TTIP-Round-Brussels

http://www.ustr.gov/Froman-Vilsack-Announce-Continued-EU-Market-Access-for-American-Beef-Producers

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/april/ustr-releases-special-301-report

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/Covered%20Agreement%20Letters%20to%20Congress

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/brexit-pains-the-pound-takes-a-serious-pounding

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/23/fact-sheet-united-states-%E2%80%93-argentina-relationship-0

The Year in Trade 2016
202| www.usitc.gov
White House. “Fact Sheet: United States-Canada Relationship.” March 10, 2016.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/fact-sheet-united-states-
%E2%80%93-canada-relationship.
White House. “Global Economic Growth and Steel Excess Capacity,” by Adewale Adeyemo. White House
Blog, September 14, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/14/global-
economic-growth-and-steel-excess-capacity.
White House. “Joint Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President.” Press release, June
29, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/30/joint-statement-
prime-minister-canada-and-president.
White House. “Joint Statement: The United States and India: Enduring Global Partners in the 21st
Century.” Press release, June 7, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2016/06/07/joint-statement-united-states-and-india-enduring-global-partners-21st.
White House. “Remarks by President Obama at Hannover Messe Trade Show Opening.” Speech
transcript, April 24, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2016/04/24/remarks-president-obama-hannover-messe-trade-show-opening.
White House. “Statement by the President on Cuba Policy Changes.” Press release, December 17, 2014.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/statement-president-
cuba-policy-changes.
White House. Office of the Vice President. “Fact Sheet: U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue.”
Press release, September 20, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/09/20/fact-sheet-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue.
White House. Office of the Vice President. “Joint Statement: 2016 U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic
Dialogue.” Press release, February 25, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2016/02/25/joint-statement-2016-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue.
World Bank. “Research: Commodity Markets; World Bank Commodity Price Data, Annual Prices, 2014–
2016,” April 3, 2017, http://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Accessions: DG Azevêdo Welcomes Afghanistan as 164th WTO
member.” News release, July 29, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/acc_afg_29jul16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Accessions: DG Azevêdo Welcomes Liberia as 163rd WTO member.”
News release, July 14, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/acc_lbr_14jul16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Agreement on Government Procurement: Parties, Observers and
Accessions.” Trade Topics. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm
(accessed April 13, 2017).

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/fact-sheet-united-states-%E2%80%93-canada-relationship

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/14/global-economic-growth-and-steel-excess-capacity

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/30/joint-statement-prime-minister-canada-and-president

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/07/joint-statement-united-states-and-india-enduring-global-partners-21st

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/24/remarks-president-obama-hannover-messe-trade-show-opening

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/statement-president-cuba-policy-changes

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/20/fact-sheet-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/25/joint-statement-2016-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue

http://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/acc_afg_29jul16_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/acc_lbr_14jul16_e.htm

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |203
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Briefing Note: Negotiations on Rules—Anti-dumping and Subsidy
Disciplines (including Fisheries Subsidies) and Regional Trade Agreements.” Updated March
2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc10_e/briefing_notes_e/brief_antidumping
_e.htm.
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
March 5, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS267; United States—Subsidies on Upland
Cotton.” Trade Topics. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm
(accessed April 4, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS316; European Communities—Measures
Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm (accessed May 22, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS353; United States—Measures Affecting
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft—Second Complaint.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm (accessed May 22, 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 22, 2017).
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 22, 2017).
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 31,
2017).
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 31,
2017).
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 March 28,
2016).
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 22, 2017).

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc10_e/briefing_notes_e/brief_antidumping_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds353_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds427_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds456_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds464_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds471_e.htm

The Year in Trade 2016
204| www.usitc.gov
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS477; Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural
Products, Animals and Animal Products.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds477_e.htm (accessed May 22, 2017).
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 22, 2017).
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 22, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS489; China—Measures Related to
Demonstration Bases and common Service Platforms Programmes.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds489_e.htm (accessed May 22, 2017).
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 April 4, 2017).
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 22, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS508; China―Export Duties on Certain Raw
Materials.” Trade Topics. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds508_e.htm
(accessed March 5, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS509; China—Duties and other Measures
concerning the Exportation of Certain Raw Materials.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds509_e.htm (accessed May 22, 2017).
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 31,
2017).
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 March 5,
2017).
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 April 4, 2017).

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds477_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds478_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds487_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds489_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds503_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds505_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds508_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds509_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds510_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds511_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds514_e.htm

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |205
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS515; United States―Measures Related to
Price Comparison Methodologies.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds511_e.htm (accessed March 5,
2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute Settlement: DS516; European Union—Measures Related to
Price Comparison Methodologies.” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds516_e.htm (accessed May 22, 2017).
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 March 5,
2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA).” Trade Topics.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/ega_e.htm (accessed March 16, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). “The Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA
Expansion).” Briefing note, December 16, 2015.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/itabriefingnotes161215_e .
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Information Technology.”
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/inftec_e.htm (accessed March 14, 2017).
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 March 14, 2017).
World Trade Organization (WTO). 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.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/145357.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conferences––Dates Fixed for 2017 Ministerial
Conference in Buenos Aires.” News release, December 8, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/minis_08dec16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conferences––Ministers Support Call for Increased Efforts
to Find Possible Areas of Agreement for MC11.” News release, June 2, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/minis_02jun16_e.htm.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds511_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds516_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds517_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/ega_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/itabriefingnotes161215_e

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/inftec_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/ita_01nov16_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/inftec_e/itaintro_e.htm

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/145357.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/minis_08dec16_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/minis_02jun16_e.htm

The Year in Trade 2016
206| www.usitc.gov
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conferences—Ninth Session. Bali, 3–6 December 2013.
Agreement on Trade Facilitation––Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013.” WT/MIN(13)/36––
WT/L/911, December 11, 2013.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc9_e/bali_texts_combined_e .
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Ministerial Conference, Singapore—Ministerial Declaration on Trade
in Information Technology Products—Singapore.” WT/MIN(96)/16, December 13, 1996.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Progress Made on Environmental Goods Agreement, Setting Stage
for Further Talks.” News release, December 4, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/ega_04dec16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). Report (2016) of the Committee on Government Procurement.
GPA/141, November 29, 2016. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=233339,233038&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=1&FullTextHa
sh=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True.
World Trade Organization (WTO). 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/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=232459&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718
57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Roberto Azevêdo Reappointed WTO Director-General; Second Term
Begins in September.” News release, February 28, 2017.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/dgra_28feb17_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Trade Facilitation––WTO Members Welcome Entry into Force of the
Trade Facilitation Agreement.” News release, February 27, 2017.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/fac_27feb17_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Trade Facilitation––WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement Enters into
Force.” News release, February 22, 2017.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/fac_31jan17_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “Understanding the WTO: The Organization; Members and
Observers,” July 29, 2016. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “WTO Members Affirm Interest in New International Fisheries
Subsidies Rules, but Differ on Way Forward.” News release, June 29, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/rule_06jul16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). “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.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc9_e/bali_texts_combined_e

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/ega_04dec16_e.htm

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=233339,233038&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=1&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=232459&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/dgra_28feb17_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/fac_27feb17_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/fac_31jan17_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/rule_06jul16_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/ita_16dec15_e.htm

Bibliography
U.S. International Trade Commission |207
World Trade Organization (WTO). “WTO Members Engage on New Fisheries Subsidies Proposals.” Press
release, December 9, 2016.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/fish_09dec16_e.htm.
World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council (GC). “Agenda Item 2––Report by the Chairman of the
Trade Negotiations Committee––Monday, 27 February 2017––Director-General’s Report at the
Informal Heads of Delegation Meeting on 23 February 2017.” JOB/GC/118, March 1, 2017.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=234811&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718
57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True.
World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council (GC). “Declaration on the Expansion of Trade in
Information Technology Products––Communication from the European Union.” WT/L/956, July
28, 2015. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=225119,133572&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=1&FullTextHa
sh=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True.
World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council (GC). “Minutes of the Meeting Held in the Centre
William Rappard on 3 October 2016.” WT/GC/M/164, October 11, 2016.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=232581&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718
57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=False.
World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council (GC). “Minutes of the Meeting––Held in the Centre
William Rappard on 3 October 2016: Annex 2––The Director-General’s Report at the Informal
Heads of Delegation Meeting Held on 30 September 2016.” WT/GC/M/164, November 10, 2016.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=232581&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718
57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=False.
World Trade Organization (WTO). General Council (GC). World Trade Organization Annual Report 2016.
WT/GC/182, December 21, 2016. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=233493&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=3718
57150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True.
Zhang, Longmei. “Rebalancing in China—Progress and Prospects.” IMF Working Paper Series no. 16183,
2016. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16183 .

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/fish_09dec16_e.htm

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=234811&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=225119,133572&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=1&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=232581&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=False

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=233493&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=371857150&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16183

208| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |209
Appendix A
Data Tables

210| www.usitc.gov

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |211
Table A.1 U.S. total exports to the world, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 164,420 146,630 148,772 1.5
2 Forest products 41,169 39,061 37,962 -2.8
3 Chemicals and related products 234,954 227,882 218,143 -4.3
4 Energy-related products 161,165 109,703 99,414 -9.4
5 Textiles and apparel 23,985 23,274 21,615 -7.1
6 Footwear 1,456 1,464 1,366 -6.7
7 Minerals and metals 152,914 135,659 128,621 -5.2
8 Machinery 145,881 138,719 128,005 -7.7
9 Transportation equipment 336,495 327,286 319,379 -2.4
10 Electronic products 267,833 264,079 260,535 -1.3
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 47,636 47,377 47,760 0.8
12 Special provisions 43,263 41,439 42,149 1.7
Total 1,621,172 1,502,572 1,453,721 -3.3
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 136,333 136,959 139,465 1.8
2 Forest products 42,212 42,378 43,147 1.8
3 Chemicals and related products 251,542 260,278 259,908 -0.1
4 Energy-related products 351,626 194,068 158,045 -18.6
5 Textiles and apparel 121,687 126,548 120,312 -4.9
6 Footwear 26,017 27,650 25,634 -7.3
7 Minerals and metals 205,502 189,255 183,618 -3.0
8 Machinery 185,530 185,858 179,627 -3.4
9 Transportation equipment 404,024 426,207 418,355 -1.8
10 Electronic products 439,079 449,865 450,110 0.1
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 114,426 124,842 125,058 0.2
12 Special provisions 78,388 84,326 85,904 1.9
Total 2,356,366 2,248,232 2,189,183 -2.6
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

The Year in Trade 2016
212| www.usitc.gov
Table A.3 Leading U.S. total exports to the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 113,130 119,453 120,784 1.1
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 73,324 47,367 38,561 -18.6
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 37,087 25,277 25,453 0.7
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 23,871 18,883 22,869 21.1
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 25,412 21,754 21,941 0.9
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 17,461 18,151 19,851 9.4
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 20,929 18,323 18,846 2.9
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 17,232 18,504 18,844 1.8
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 20,824 20,870 18,816 -9.8
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 22,418 20,674 18,546 -10.3
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 20,779 19,077 17,522 -8.2
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 11,080 13,241 16,060 21.3
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. 15,856 15,699 15,510 -1.2
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 11,685 11,863 12,313 3.8
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 10,630 11,770 10,462 -11.1
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 10,704 8,380 10,049 19.9
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 11,208 10,494 9,917 -5.5
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 9,432 9,091 9,350 2.9
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 9,135 8,771 9,289 5.9
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 9,742 9,110 9,005 -1.1
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 7,468 8,237 8,841 7.3
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 8,215 7,641 8,679 13.6
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 12,184 8,769 8,251 -5.9
9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand-executed works of art, framed or not framed 7,374 7,866 8,114 3.2
2711.12 Propane, liquefied 7,716 5,553 7,472 34.5
Total of items shown 534,897 484,816 485,344 0.1
All other products 1,086,274 1,017,757 968,377 -4.9
Total of all commodities 1,621,172 1,502,572 1,453,721 -3.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 |213
Table A.4 Leading U.S. general imports from the world, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc
but not over 3,000 cc 83,891 97,426 106,378 9.2
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 246,969 126,064 101,848 -19.2
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 39,526 47,882 51,063 6.6
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 60,202 57,659 50,111 -13.1
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 53,026 52,706 49,797 -5.5
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 33,532 40,067 45,289 13.0
8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit,
keyboard and a display 42,111 39,243 35,858 -8.6
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 24,054 23,086 23,025 -0.3
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of these
oils, not biodiesel or waste 48,793 29,320 21,785 -25.7
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 17,762 18,171 20,887 14.9
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 14,749 17,838 19,633 10.1
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 27,631 19,685 17,271 -12.3
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 12,685 13,516 15,889 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. 17,188 16,617 15,203 -8.5
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 12,819 10,131 15,193 50.0
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 15,185 14,467 14,406 -0.4
9503.00 Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dolls’ carriages; dolls; other toys; etc. 12,157 13,519 13,914 2.9
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 12,617 13,662 13,846 1.3
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 7,096 9,027 13,493 49.5
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 13,567 13,611 13,356 -1.9
8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, color, n.e.s.o.i. 15,508 15,877 12,600 -20.6
8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 12,069 12,303 11,829 -3.9
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 5,592 7,016 10,962 56.2
8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 6,381 8,424 10,737 27.5
8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets for vehicles, aircraft and ships 10,103 10,741 10,475 -2.5
Total of items shown 845,212 728,059 714,847 -1.8
All other products 1,511,153 1,520,174 1,474,336 -3.0
Total of all commodities 2,356,366 2,248,232 2,189,183 -2.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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.

The Year in Trade 2016
214| www.usitc.gov
Table A.5 U.S. merchandise trade with top 15 single-country trading partners, 2016
Rank Country Total Exports General Imports Total % of total trade
Million $
1 China 115,775 462,813 578,588 15.9
2 Canada 265,961 278,067 544,027 14.9
3 Mexico 230,959 294,151 525,110 14.4
4 Japan 63,264 132,202 195,466 5.4
5 Germany 49,362 114,227 163,589 4.5
6 South Korea 42,266 69,932 112,199 3.1
7 United Kingdom 55,396 54,326 109,722 3.0
8 France 30,941 46,765 77,706 2.1
9 India 21,689 45,998 67,687 1.9
10 Taiwan 26,045 39,313 65,358 1.8
11 Italy 16,754 45,210 61,964 1.7
12 Switzerland 22,701 36,374 59,075 1.6
13 Netherlands 40,377 16,152 56,529 1.6
14 Brazil 30,297 26,176 56,473 1.6
15 Ireland 9,556 45,504 55,060 1.5
Top countries 1,021,343 1,707,209 2,728,553 74.9
All others 432,377 481,973 914,351 25.1
Total 1,453,721 2,189,183 3,642,904 100.0
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Table A.6 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise export markets, 2016
Rank Country Million $ % of total exports
1 Canada 265,961 18.3
2 Mexico 230,959 15.9
3 China 115,775 8.0
4 Japan 63,264 4.4
5 United Kingdom 55,396 3.8
6 Germany 49,362 3.4
7 South Korea 42,266 2.9
8 Netherlands 40,377 2.8
9 Hong Kong, China 34,908 2.4
10 Belgium 32,271 2.2
11 France 30,941 2.1
12 Brazil 30,297 2.1
13 Singapore 26,868 1.8
14 Taiwan 26,045 1.8
15 Switzerland 22,701 1.6
Top 15 countries 1,067,393 73.4
All others 386,328 26.6
Total 1,453,721 100.0
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. Exports here are measured in total exports.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |215
Table A.7 Top 15 U.S. single-country merchandise import sources, 2016
Rank Country Million $ % of total imports
1 China 462,813 21.1
2 Mexico 294,151 13.4
3 Canada 278,067 12.7
4 Japan 132,202 6.0
5 Germany 114,227 5.2
6 South Korea 69,932 3.2
7 United Kingdom 54,326 2.5
8 France 46,765 2.1
9 India 45,998 2.1
10 Ireland 45,504 2.1
11 Italy 45,210 2.1
12 Vietnam 42,109 1.9
13 Taiwan 39,313 1.8
14 Malaysia 36,687 1.7
15 Switzerland 36,374 1.7
Top 15 countries 1,743,678 79.6
All others 445,504 20.4
Total 2,189,183 100.0
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. Imports here are measured in general imports.

The Year in Trade 2016
216| www.usitc.gov
Table A.8 U.S. private services exports to the world, by category, 2014–16 (million dollars)
Service industry 2014 2015 2016
% change,
2015–16
Travel 191,325 204,523 206,836 1.1
Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. 129,890 124,664 122,227 -2.0
Financial services 107,712 102,461 96,752 -5.6
Professional and management consulting services 59,623 64,912 73,964 13.9
Air passenger fares 44,071 41,704 39,148 -6.1
Research and development services 32,946 34,526 36,155 4.7
Technical, trade-related, and other business services 36,248 35,210 30,495 -13.4
Maintenance and repair services, n.i.e. 22,132 24,036 26,484 10.2
Air transporta 23,982 22,968 22,783 -0.8
Sea transportb 18,161 18,044 18,141 0.5
Insurance services 17,312 17,142 17,743 3.5
Other 39,530 40,400 41,824 3.5
Total 722,932 730,590 732,552 0.3
Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, &IIP, International Transactions Data, “Table 3.1 U.S. International
Trade in Services,” March 21, 2017.
Note: Data for 2016 are preliminary. N.i.e. = not indicated elsewhere.
aAir transport includes airport and air freight services.
bSea transport includes sea port and sea freight services.
Table A.9 U.S. private services imports from the world, by category, 2014–16 (million dollars)
Service industry 2014 2015 2016
% change,
2015–16
Travel 105,529 112,873 121,526 7.7
Insurance services 51,824 47,772 48,400 1.3
Charges for the use of intellectual property n.i.e. 42,208 39,495 42,744 8.2
Professional and management consulting services 38,937 40,436 41,186 1.9
Air passenger fares 34,890 35,494 37,387 5.3
Sea transporta 36,254 37,295 35,085 -5.9
Research and development services 30,902 32,022 34,983 9.2
Computer services 27,093 27,785 29,689 6.9
Financial services 24,906 25,162 25,231 0.3
Technical, trade-related, and other business services 24,730 26,896 24,485 -9.0
Other 39,755 41,912 41,235 -20.6
Total 457,028 467,142 481,951 3.2
Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, &IIP, International Transactions Data, “Table 3.1 U.S. International
Trade in Services,” March 21, 2017.
Note: Data for 2016 are preliminary. N.i.e. = not indicated elsewhere.
aSea transport includes sea port and sea freight services.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |217
Table A.10 Antidumping cases active in 2016, by USITC investigation number
USITC
investigation
number Product Country of origin
Date of
institution
USITC
prelim ITAaprelim
ITA
final
USITC
final
Date of final
actionb
Affirmative = A; Negative = N
731-TA-1264 Uncoated paper Australia 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
731-TA-1265 Uncoated paper Brazil 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
731-TA-1266 Uncoated paper China 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
731-TA-1267 Uncoated paper Indonesia 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
731-TA-1268 Uncoated paper Portugal 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
731-TA-1269 Silicomanganese Australia 2/19/2015 A A A N 4/6/2016
731-TA-1270 Polyethylene terephthalate resin Canada 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
731-TA-1271 Polyethylene terephthalate resin China 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
731-TA-1272 Polyethylene terephthalate resin India 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
731-TA-1273 Polyethylene terephthalate resin Oman 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
731-TA-1274 Corrosion-resistant steel products China 3/10/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
731-TA-1275 Corrosion-resistant steel products India 3/10/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
731-TA-1276 Corrosion-resistant steel products Italy 3/10/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
731-TA-1277 Corrosion-resistant steel products Korea 3/10/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
731-TA-1278 Corrosion-resistant steel products Taiwan 3/10/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
731-TA-1279 Hydrofluorocarbon blends China 6/25/2015 A A A A 8/5/2016
731-TA-1280 Heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes Korea 7/21/2015 A A A A 9/6/2016
731-TA-1281 Heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes Mexico 7/21/2015 A A A A 9/6/2016
731-TA-1282 Heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes Turkey 7/21/2015 A A A A 9/6/2016
731-TA-1283 Cold-rolled steel flat products Brazil 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
731-TA-1284 Cold-rolled steel flat products China 7/28/2015 A A A A 7/7/2016
731-TA-1285 Cold-rolled steel flat products India 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
731-TA-1286 Cold-rolled steel flat products Japan 7/28/2015 A A A A 7/7/2016
731-TA-1287 Cold-rolled steel flat products Korea 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
731-TA-1289 Cold-rolled steel flat products Russia 7/28/2015 A A A N 9/12/2016
731-TA-1290 Cold-rolled steel flat products U.K. 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
731-TA-1291 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Australia 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1292 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Brazil 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1293 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Japan 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1294 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Korea 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1295 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Netherlands 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1296 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Turkey 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1297 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products U.K. 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
731-TA-1298 Welded stainless pressure pipe India 9/30/2015 A A A A 11/9/2016
731-TA-1299 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Oman 10/28/2015 A A A A 12/12/2016
731-TA-1300 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Pakistan 10/28/2015 A A A A 12/12/2016
731-TA-1302 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe United Arab Emirates 10/28/2015 A A A A 12/12/2016
731-TA-1303 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Vietnam 10/28/2015 A A A N 12/12/2016
731-TA-1304 Iron mechanical transfer drive components Canada 10/28/2015 A A A N 12/12/2016
731-TA-1305 Iron mechanical transfer drive components China 10/28/2015 A A A N 12/12/2016
731-TA-1306 Large residential washers China 12/16/2015 A A (c) (c) (c)

The Year in Trade 2016
218| www.usitc.gov
USITC
investigation
number Product Country of origin
Date of
institution
USITC
prelim ITAaprelim
ITA
final
USITC
final
Date of final
actionb
731-TA-1307 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires China 1/8/2016 N (c) (c) (c) 3/2/2016
731-TA-1308 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires India 1/8/2016 N A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1309 Biaxial integral geogrid products China 1/13/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1310 Amorphous silica fabric China 1/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1311 Truck and bus tires China 1/29/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1312 Stainless steel sheet and strip China 2/12/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1313 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) China 3/3/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1314 Phosphor copper Korea 3/9/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1315 Ferrovanadium Korea 3/28/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1316 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) China 3/31/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1317 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Austria 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1318 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Belgium 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1319 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Brazil 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1320 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate China 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1321 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate France 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1322 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Germany 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1323 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Italy 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1324 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Japan 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1325 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Korea 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1326 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate South Africa 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1327 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Taiwan 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1328 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Turkey 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1329 Ammonium sulfate China 5/25/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1330 Dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) Korea 6/30/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1331 Finished carbon steel flanges India 6/30/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1332 Finished carbon steel flanges Italy 6/30/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1333 Finished carbon steel flanges Spain 6/30/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1334 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Brazil 7/21/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1335 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Korea 7/21/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1336 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Mexico 7/21/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1337 Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber Poland 7/21/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1338 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Japan 9/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1339 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Taiwan 9/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1340 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Turkey 9/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1341 Hardwood plywood China 11/18/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
731-TA-1342 Softwood lumber Canada 11/25/2016 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c)
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
Note: “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”
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, 2016.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |219
Table A.11 Antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2016
Country Commodity
Effective date of original
action
Argentina Lemon juice (suspended) September 10, 2007
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
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
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
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

The Year in Trade 2016
220| www.usitc.gov
Country Commodity
Effective date of original
action
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
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 sheet-fed 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
France Brass sheet & strip March 6, 1987
Low enriched uranium February 13, 2002

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |221
Country Commodity
Effective date of original
action
Germany Brass sheet & strip March 6, 1987
Seamless pipe August 3, 1995
Sodium nitrite August 27, 2008
Non-oriented electrical steel December 3, 2014
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
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
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 sheet-fed 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
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
Cold-rolled steel flat products July 14, 2016
Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products October 3, 2016
Kazakhstan Silicomanganese May 23, 2002
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

The Year in Trade 2016
222| www.usitc.gov
Country Commodity
Effective date of original
action
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
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
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
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
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
Spain Stainless steel bar March 2, 1995
Chlorinated isocyanurates June 24, 2005
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

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |223
Country Commodity
Effective date of original
action
Steel wire garment hangers December 10, 2012
Oil country tubular goods September 10, 2014
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
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
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
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.
Note: “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”

The Year in Trade 2016
224| www.usitc.gov
Table A.12 Countervailing duty cases active in 2016, 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-528 Uncoated paper China 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
701-TA-529 Uncoated paper Indonesia 1/21/2015 A A A A 2/22/2016
701-TA-531 Polyethylene terephthalate resin China 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
701-TA-532 Polyethylene terephthalate resin India 3/10/2015 A A A A 4/28/2016
701-TA-533 Polyethylene terephthalate resin Oman 3/10/2015 A N N (c) 3/14/2016
701-TA-534 Corrosion-resistant steel products China 6/3/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
701-TA-535 Corrosion-resistant steel products India 6/3/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
701-TA-536 Corrosion-resistant steel products Italy 6/3/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
701-TA-537 Corrosion-resistant steel products Korea 6/3/2015 A A A A 7/15/2016
701-TA-538 Corrosion-resistant steel products Taiwan 6/3/2015 A A N (c) 6/2/2016
701-TA-539 Heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes Turkey 7/21/2015 A A A A 9/6/2016
701-TA-540 Cold-rolled steel flat products Brazil 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
701-TA-541 Cold-rolled steel flat products China 7/28/2015 A A A A 7/7/2016
701-TA-542 Cold-rolled steel flat products India 7/28/2015 A A A A 9/12/2016
701-TA-543 Cold-rolled steel flat products Korea 7/28/2015 A N A A 9/12/2016
701-TA-545 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Brazil 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
701-TA-546 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Korea 8/11/2015 A A A A 9/26/2016
701-TA-547 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Turkey 8/11/2015 A A A N 9/26/2016
701-TA-548 Welded stainless pressure pipe India 9/30/2015 A A A A 11/9/2016
701-TA-549 Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe Pakistan 10/28/2015 A A A N 12/12/2016
701-TA-550 Iron mechanical transfer drive components China 10/28/2015 A A A N 12/12/2016
701-TA-551 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires China 1/8/2016 N (c) (c) (c) 3/2/2016
701-TA-552 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires India 1/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-553 Pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires Sri Lanka 1/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-554 Biaxial integral geogrid products China 1/13/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-555 Amorphous silica fabric China 1/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-556 Truck and bus tires China 1/29/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-557 Stainless steel sheet and strip China 2/12/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-558 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) China 3/31/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-559 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Brazil 4/8/2016 N (c) (c) (c) 5/31/2016
701-TA-560 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate China 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-561 Carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate Korea 4/8/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-562 Ammonium sulfate China 5/25/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-563 Finished carbon steel flanges India 6/30/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-564 Steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) Turkey 9/20/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-565 Hardwood plywood China 11/18/2016 A A (c) (c) (c)
701-TA-566 Softwood lumber Canada 11/25/2016 (c) (c) (c) (c) (c)
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
Note: “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”
a “ITA” is the International Trade Administration of the USDOC.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |225
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, 2016.

The Year in Trade 2016
226| www.usitc.gov
Table A.13 Countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements in effect as of December 31, 2016
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
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
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
Certain lined paper September 28, 2006
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

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |227
Country Commodity
Effective date of
original action
Italy Pasta July 24, 1996
Corrosion-resistant steel products July 25, 2016
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
Russia Uranium (suspended) October 16, 1992
South Africa Stainless steel plate in coils May 11, 1999
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
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.
Note: “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”

The Year in Trade 2016
228| www.usitc.gov
Table A.14 Reviews of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspended
investigations completed in 2016, by date of completiona
USITC
investigation
number Product
Country
of origin Action
Completion
datea
701-TA-468 Magnesia carbon bricks China Continued 1/15/2016
731-TA-1166 Magnesia carbon bricks China Continued 1/15/2016
731-TA-1167 Magnesia carbon bricks Mexico Continued 1/15/2016
731-TA-125 Potassium permanganate China Continued 2/2/2016
701-TA-469 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China Continued 3/2/2016
731-TA-1168 Seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe China Continued 3/2/2016
731-TA-167 Pressure sensitive plastic tape Italy Continued 4/4/2016
701-TA-462 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1043 Polyethylene retail carrier bags China Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1044 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Malaysia Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1045 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Thailand Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1156 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Indonesia Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1157 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Taiwan Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-1158 Polyethylene retail carrier bags Vietnam Continued 4/18/2016
731-TA-282 Petroleum wax candles China Continued 5/10/2016
731-TA-1070-B Tissue paper China Continued 6/23/2016
731-TA-1071 Magnesium China Continued 6/30/2016
731-TA-298 Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware China Continued 7/22/2016
731-TA-770 Stainless steel wire rod Italy Revoked 7/25/2016
731-TA-771 Stainless steel wire rod Japan Continued 7/25/2016
731-TA-772 Stainless steel wire rod Korea Continued 7/25/2016
731-TA-773 Stainless steel wire rod Spain Revoked 7/25/2016
731-TA-775 Stainless steel wire rod Taiwan Continued 7/25/2016
731-TA-308 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Brazil Continued 8/3/2016
731-TA-309 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Japan Continued 8/3/2016
731-TA-310 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Taiwan Continued 8/3/2016
731-TA-520 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings China Continued 8/3/2016
731-TA-521 Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings Thailand Continued 8/3/2016
731-TA-856 Ammonium nitrate Russia Revoked 8/20/2016
701-TA-467 Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge China Continued 9/9/2016
731-TA-1164 Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge China Continued 9/9/2016
731-TA-1165 Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge Taiwan Continued 9/9/2016
731-TA-TA-385 Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Italy Revoked 9/18/2016
731-TA-808 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products Russia Continued 9/29/2016
731-TA-1082 Chlorinated isocyanurates China Continued 11/16/2016
731-TA-1083 Chlorinated isocyanurates Spain Continued 11/16/2016
731-TA-1174 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube China Continued 12/2/2016
731-TA-1175 Seamless refined copper pipe and tube Mexico Continued 12/2/2016
731-TA-457-A-D Heavy forged hand tools China Continued 12/15/2016
731-TA-TA-340-E Solid urea Russia Revoked 12/20/2016
731-TA-TA-340-H Solid urea Ukraine Revoked 12/20/2016
701-TA-249 Iron construction castings Brazil Continued 12/21/2016
731-TA-262 Iron construction castings Brazil Continued 12/21/2016
731-TA-263 Iron construction castings Canada Continued 12/21/2016
731-TA-265 Iron construction castings China Continued 12/21/2016
701-TA-379 Stainless steel plate in coils South Africa Continued 12/22/2016
701-TA-470 Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses China Continued 12/22/2016
701-TA-471 Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses Indonesia Continued 12/22/2016
731-TA-1169 Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses China Continued 12/22/2016
731-TA-1170 Coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses Indonesia Continued 12/22/2016
731-TA-788 Stainless steel plate in coils Belgium Continued 12/22/2016
731-TA-792 Stainless steel plate in coils South Africa Continued 12/22/2016
731-TA-793 Stainless steel plate in coils Taiwan Continued 12/22/2016
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
Note: “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”
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.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |229
Table A.15 Section 337 investigations and related proceedings completed by the Commission during
2016 and those pending on December 31, 2016
Status of
investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb
Completed
337-TA-567 Certain Foam Footwear Canada One related (ancillary) advisory opinion
proceeding; advisory opinion issued.
337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the
Same
Hong Kong, Taiwan One related (ancillary) remand
enforcement proceeding; terminated
based on a settlement agreement.
337-TA-823 Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components
Thereof
China, Sweden,
Netherlands
Eleven related (ancillary) rescission
proceedings; remedial orders rescinded.
337-TA-833 Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment
Plans for Use, in Making Incremental Dental
Positioning Adjustment Appliances, the Appliances
Made Therefrom, and Methods of Making the Same
Pakistan One related (ancillary) remand
proceeding; remedial orders rescinded.
337-TA-921 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including
Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing
the Same, and Components Thereof
Taiwan One related (ancillary) modification
proceeding; remedial orders modified.
337-TA-926 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems, Products
Containing the Same, and Components Thereof
Taiwan One related (ancillary) modification
proceeding and one related (ancillary)
rescission proceeding; modification
denied; remedial orders rescinded.
337-TA-929 Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing the Same
China, Hong Kong Issued limited exclusion order and cease
and desist orders.
337-TA-930 Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments Canada, Italy, Sweden Terminated based on a settlement
agreement and withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-933 Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for
Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain
Products Containing Same
India, Germany, Taiwan Issued limited exclusion order and cease
and desist order.
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) advisory opinion
proceeding and one related (ancillary)
bond forfeiture proceeding; request for
advisory opinion denied and request for
forfeiture denied.
337-TA-934 Certain Dental Implants Brazil Issued limited exclusion order.
337-TA-935 Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof,
and Manuals Therefor
China Issued general exclusion order, limited
exclusion order, and cease and desist
order.
337-TA-936 Certain Footwear Products Canada, Italy, Australia,
Japan, China
Issued general exclusion order.
337-TA-937 Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof Mexico Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-939 Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and
Components Thereof
Korea Issued limited exclusion order and cease
and desist orders.
337-TA-941 Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip,
and Products Containing the Same
Taiwan, Hong Kong Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-943 Certain Wireless Headsets Japan, Germany,
Australia, Singapore,
Ireland, Denmark
Terminated based on a finding of no
violation.
337-TA-944 Certain Network Devices, Related Software and
Components Thereof (I)
No foreign respondents Issued limited exclusion order and cease
and desist order.
337-TA-946 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong Issued general exclusion order and
cease and desist orders.
337-TA-949 Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and
Products Containing Same
Taiwan, China, Japan Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-951 Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials,
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Products
Containing Same, and Power Tools Products With
Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same
Belgium, Japan Issued limited exclusion order.
337-TA-952 Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless
Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet
Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras
No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.

The Year in Trade 2016
230| www.usitc.gov
Status of
investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb
337-TA-953 Certain Wireless Standard Compliant Electronic
Devices, Including Communication Devices and Tablet
Computers
No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-954 Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and
Automobiles Containing the Same
Mexico, Italy, Serbia,
United Kingdom
Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-956 Certain Recombinant Factor VIII Products Denmark Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-957 Certain Touchscreen Controllers and Products
Containing the Same
China Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-958 Certain Automated Teller Machines and Point of Sale
Devices and Associated Software Thereof
Canada Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-962 Certain Resealable Packages with Slider Devices No foreign respondents Terminated based on a finding of no
violation.
337-TA-963 Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and
Components Thereof
Mauritius Terminated based on a finding of no
violation.
337-TA-964 Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof Mexico Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-966 Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers France Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-966 Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers France One related (ancillary) sanctions
proceeding; sanctions denied.
337-TA-967 Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use
Therewith
No foreign respondents Issued limited exclusion order and cease
and desist order.
337-TA-969 Certain Blood Cholesterol Test Strips and Associated
Systems Containing Same
Korea Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-970 Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and
Components Thereof
No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-974 Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof China Terminated based on a consent order.
337-TA-975 Certain Computer Cables, Chargers, Adapters,
Peripheral Devices and Packaging Containing the Same
China Issued limited exclusion order.
337-TA-978 Certain Chassis Parts Incorporating Movable Sockets
and Components Thereof
Canada Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-980 Certain Rack Mountable Power Distribution Units France Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-981 Certain Electronic Devices Containing Strengthened
Glass and Packaging Thereof
No foreign respondents Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-983 Certain Laser-Driven Light Sources, Subsystems
Containing Laser-Driven Light Sources, and Products
Containing Same
Netherlands, Germany Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-984 Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components
Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same
Germany, Japan Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-985 Certain Surgical Stapler Devices and Components
Thereof
China Terminated based on a consent order.
337-TA-986 Certain Diaper Disposal Systems and Components
Thereof, Including Diaper Refill Cassettes
China, Canada Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-987 Certain Hospital Beds and Components Thereof Canada Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-991 Certain Nanopores and Products Containing Same United Kingdom Terminated based on a consent order.
337-TA-992 Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and
Components Thereof
No foreign respondents Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.
337-TA-993 Certain Overflow and Drain Assemblies for Bathtubs
and Components Thereof
Taiwan Terminated based on a consent order.
337-TA-994 Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components
Thereof
Canada, Taiwan, Korea,
China, Sweden, Japan
Terminated based on a finding of no
violation.
337-TA-996 Certain Quartz Slabs and Portions Thereof No foreign respondents Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
337-TA-999 Certain Air Mattress Bed Systems and Components
Thereof
No foreign respondents Terminated based on a consent order, a
settlement agreement, and withdrawal
of the complaint.
337-TA-1009 Certain Inflatable Products and Processes for Making
the Same
Hong Kong, China Terminated based on a consent order.
337-TA-1011 Certain Inkjet Printers, Printheads, and Ink Cartridges,
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same
Ireland, Australia Terminated based on a settlement
agreement.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |231
Status of
investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb
337-TA-1017 Certain Quartz Slabs and Portions Thereof (II) China, Vietnam Terminated based on withdrawal of the
complaint.
Pending
337-TA-698 Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the
Same
Hong Hong, Taiwan One related (ancillary) rescission
proceeding; pending before the
Commission
337-TA-854 Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication
Devices, Systems and Components Thereof
No foreign respondents One related (ancillary) rescission
proceeding; pending before the
Commission
337-TA-890 Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems
and Components Thereof
China One related (ancillary) remand
proceeding; pending before the
Commission.
337-TA-921 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including
Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing
the Same, and Components Thereof
No foreign respondents One related (ancillary) enforcement
proceeding; pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-929 Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing the Same
No foreign respondents One related (ancillary) enforcement
proceeding and one related (ancillary)
rescission 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 Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-947 Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and
Components Thereof
China, Taiwan Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-959 Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and
Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing Same
China, Korea, United
Kingdom, Canada, Israel
Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-965 Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury
Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof
Germany Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-967 Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use
Therewith
No foreign respondents One related (ancillary) rescission
proceeding; pending before the
Commission
337-TA-968 Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning
Software, and Components Thereof
Sweden, United Kingdom,
Germany, China
Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-971 Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof,
and Methods of Using the Same
No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-972 Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules,
Components Thereof, and Products Containing the
Same
Korea Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-973 Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems,
and Components Thereof
No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-976 Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing
Same
India Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-977 Certain Arrowheads With Deploying Blades and
Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor
China Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-979 Certain Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”)
Products and Components Thereof
Canada, Thailand, Hong
Kong
Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-982 Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products
Containing the Same
Korea Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-988 Certain Pumping Bras China Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-989 Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules,
Components Thereof, and Products Containing the
Same
No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ.
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-995 Certain Electrical Conductor Composite Cores and
Components Thereof
China Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-997 Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems
and Components Thereof
China Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-998 Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components
Thereof
Germany Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1000 Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.

The Year in Trade 2016
232| www.usitc.gov
Status of
investigation Article Countrya Commission determinationb
337-TA-1001 Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and
Software Components Thereof
United Kingdom, France Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1002 Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products China Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1003 Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and
Methods for Manufacturing the Same
China Pending before the ALJ.
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-1005 Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and
Their Methods of Production
Korea, Indonesia Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1006 Certain Passenger Vehicle Automotive Wheels No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1007 Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof,
and Packaging and Manuals Therefor
No foreign respondents Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1008 Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar and
Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and
Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues,
Product Inserts, and Components Thereof
China Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-1010 Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device
Packages, and Products Containing Same
Taiwan, Singapore,
United Kingdom, France
Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1012 Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges
Containing the Same
Japan Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1013 Certain Potassium Chloride Powder Products Canada Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-1014 Certain Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers China Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1015 Certain Hand Dryers and Housings for Hand Dryers United Kingdom, China Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1016 Certain Access Control Systems and Components
Thereof
China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1018 Certain Athletic Footwear No foreign respondents Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-1019 Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production
of Krill Oil Products
Canada, Norway, New
Zealand
Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1020 Certain Industrial Control System Software, Systems
Using Same, and Components Thereof
Germany, Taiwan Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-1021 Certain Personal Transporters and Components
Thereof
Netherlands, China,
Turkey
Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1022 Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Mask
Systems and Components Thereof
New Zealand Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1023 Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof,
and Products Containing Same
Korea Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1024 Certain Integrated Circuits with Voltage Regulators and
Products Containing Same
China, Ireland, Vietnam,
Israel, Malaysia
Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1025 Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers France Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1026 Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and
Products Containing the Same
Korea Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1027 Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including
Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and
Products Containing the Same
India Pending before the Commission.
337-TA-1028 Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components
Thereof
China, Hong Kong Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1029 Certain Mobile Electronic Devices China Pending before the ALJ.
337-TA-1030 Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for
Making Same, and Products Containing Same
China Pending before the ALJ.
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 ALJ.
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
a The country designation is based on the address of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. “Hong Kong” refers to
“Hong Kong, China”; “Macau” refers to “Macau, China”; and “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea (South Korea).”
b ALJ = administrative law judge.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |233
Table A.16 Outstanding section 337 exclusion orders as of December 31, 2016
Investigation
no. Article Countrya
Date patent
expiresb
337-TA-69 Certain Airtight Cast-Iron Stoves Taiwan, Korea Nonpatent
337-TA-87 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games and Components
Thereof
Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-105 Certain Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games and Components
Thereof (viz., Rally-X and Pac-Man)
Japan, Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-112 Certain Cube Puzzles Taiwan, Japan Nonpatent
337-TA-114 Certain Miniature Plug-In Blade Fuses Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-118 Certain Sneakers with Fabric Uppers and Rubber Soles Korea Nonpatent
337-TA-137 Certain Heavy-Duty Staple Gun Tackers Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea Nonpatent
337-TA-152 Certain Plastic Food Storage Containers Hong Kong, Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-167 Certain Single Handle Faucets Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-174 Certain Woodworking Machines Taiwan, South Africa Nonpatent
337-TA-195 Certain Cloisonne Jewelry Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-197 Certain Compound Action Metal Cutting Snips and Components
Thereof
Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-229 Certain Nut Jewelry and Parts Thereof Philippines, Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-231 Certain Soft Sculpture Dolls, Popularly Known as “Cabbage Patch
Kids,” Related Literature and Packaging Therefor
No foreign respondents Nonpatent
337-TA-266 Certain Reclosable Plastic Bags and Tubing Singapore, Taiwan, 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-481/491 Certain Display Controllers with Upscaling Functionality and
Products Containing Same; and Certain Display Controllers and
Products Containing Same
Taiwan Feb. 24, 2017
337-TA-486 Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers,
and Components Thereof
China Nonpatent
337-TA-487c Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof China, Netherlands, France,
Germany, Canada
Nonpatent
337-TA-494 Certain Automotive Measuring Devices, Products Containing
Same, and Bezels for Such Devices
Taiwan Nonpatent
337-TA-498 Certain Insect Traps No foreign respondents Jan. 30, 2018
337-TA-500 Certain Purple Protective Gloves Malaysia Nonpatent
337-TA-505 Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Training Systems Switzerland, Netherlands Aug. 25, 2017
337-TA-512 Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same Malaysia Sept. 22, 2017
Sept. 22, 2017
Sept. 22, 2017
Sept. 22, 2017
Sept. 22, 2017
July 27, 2018
July 27, 2018
July 27, 2018
337-TA-514 Certain Plastic Food Containers China Dec. 23, 2017
Dec. 23, 2017
337-TA-522 Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof China, India, Korea, Hong Kong Nonpatent
337-TA-541 Certain Power Supply Controllers and Products Containing Same Taiwan Sept. 24, 2019
Sept. 24, 2019
337-TA-545 Certain Laminated Floor Panels Canada, China, Malaysia June 10, 2017
June 10, 2017
Sept. 26, 2017

The Year in Trade 2016
234| www.usitc.gov
Investigation
no. Article Countrya
Date patent
expiresb
337-TA-549 Certain Ink Sticks for Solid Ink Printers Korea Apr. 29, 2022
Apr. 29, 2022
Apr. 29, 2022
337-TA-557 Certain Automotive Parts Taiwan June 22, 2018
July 27, 2018
Sept. 28, 2018
Oct. 5, 2018
Oct. 26, 2018
Mar. 1, 2019
Mar. 22, 2019
337-TA-563 Certain Portable Power Stations and Packaging Therefor China Feb. 4, 2017
Nonpatent
337-TA-565 Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof Hong Kong, China, Germany,
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
Oct. 17, 2017
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-644 Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing
Same
India, Italy Aug. 27, 2017
337-TA-650d Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and
Products Containing Same
Taiwan, China Aug. 2, 2017
Jan. 24, 2020
337-TA-655 Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, 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
Korea May 9, 2017
Jan. 16, 2023
337-TA-722 Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs Therefore China Jan. 3, 2020
337-TA-723 Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components
Thereof
Taiwan, 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

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |235
Investigation
no. Article Countrya
Date patent
expiresb
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,
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 Oct. 18, 2025
Nonpatent
337-TA-780 Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof China, Hong Kong Sept. 29, 2023
May 11, 2024
June 15, 2024
June 15, 2024
Mar. 22, 2025
Apr. 19, 2025
Jan. 25, 2029
Nonpatent
337-TA-791/826 Certain 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 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-TA-861/867 Certain 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 May 12, 2027
Nonpatent
337-TA-890 Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and
Components Thereof
China May 11, 2017
Feb. 16, 2018
March 19, 2023
March 19, 2023
July 20, 2027
337-TA-894 Certain Tires and Products Containing Same China, Thailand June 4, 2016
March 9, 2018
Jan. 19, 2024
March 2, 2024
March 2, 2024
337-TA-895 Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof China, Hong Kong May 4, 2027

The Year in Trade 2016
236| www.usitc.gov
Investigation
no. Article Countrya
Date patent
expiresb
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
March 24, 2028
337-TA-919 Certain Archery Products and Related Marketing Materials China March 30, 2018
Jan. 15, 2023
Nonpatent
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
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-935e Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof and Manuals
Therefor
China June 4, 2019
June 4, 2019
Oct. 13, 2020
Sept. 25, 2021
Sept. 25, 2021
Nonpatent
337-TA-936 Certain Footwear Products Canada, Italy, China, Australia,
Japan
Nonpatent
337-TA-939 Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and Components
Thereof
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-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-951 Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for
Power Tool Products Containing Same, and Power Tool Products
with Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same
Belgium, Japan Oct. 19, 2021
Nov. 2, 2021
337-TA-967 Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith No foreign respondents Jan. 28, 2030
337-TA-975 Certain Computer Cables, Chargers, Adapters, Peripheral Devices
and Packaging Containing the Same
China Nonpatent
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission.
a This column lists the countries of the foreign respondents named in the notice of investigation. “Hong Kong” refers to “Hong Kong, China”;
“Macau” refers to “Macau, China”; and “Korea” refers to the “Republic of Korea.”
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-650.
e There are two outstanding exclusion orders in Inv. no. 337-TA-935.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |237
Table A.17 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by source, 2014–16
Source 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Thousand $
India 4,472,886 4,602,068 4,655,881 1.2
Thailand 3,499,151 3,593,352 3,961,033 10.2
Brazil 1,904,893 1,930,605 2,155,839 11.7
Indonesia 1,689,219 1,678,214 1,775,895 5.8
Philippines 1,334,269 1,375,669 1,465,384 6.5
Turkey 1,150,426 1,220,606 1,411,691 15.7
South Africa 1,365,643 1,128,093 981,769 -13.0
Ecuador 291,243 317,065 390,348 23.1
Pakistan 160,906 180,443 246,891 36.8
Sri Lanka 179,794 177,767 172,589 -2.9
Cambodia 57,092 77,101 163,997 112.7
Bolivia 101,006 100,823 114,807 13.9
Tunisia 81,011 216,965 113,689 -47.6
Uruguay 76,636 86,733 94,258 8.7
Venezuela 91,009 94,382 92,137 -2.4
Kazakhstan 213,705 104,649 89,354 -14.6
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 96,618 111,010 78,941 -28.9
Egypt 67,194 69,947 75,482 7.9
Serbia 39,065 49,834 71,553 43.6
Paraguay 60,533 66,317 68,345 3.1
Côte d`Ivoire 76,371 58,324 67,857 16.3
Lebanon 40,215 43,110 65,064 50.9
Georgia 165,657 88,733 57,887 -34.8
Ukraine 26,421 40,860 46,057 12.7
Ghana 23,285 24,716 36,527 47.8
Subtotal, top 25 GSP beneficiaries in 2016 17,264,246 17,437,387 18,453,275 5.8
All other beneficiaries 1,534,941 256,625 231,170 -9.9
Total U.S. imports for consumption under GSP 18,799,187 17,694,012 18,684,445 5.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Table A.18 Value of U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by USITC digest sector,
2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 2,658 2,951 3,193 8.2
2 Forest products 643 681 571 -16.2
3 Chemicals and related products 3,534 3,367 3,789 12.5
4 Energy-related products 846 0 2 797.3
5 Textiles and apparel 527 584 625 7.1
6 Footwear 10 7 11 47.7
7 Minerals and metals 4,208 3,511 3,319 -5.5
8 Machinery 2,296 2,086 2,120 1.7
9 Transportation equipment 1,808 2,161 2,305 6.7
10 Electronic products 1,078 1,062 1,115 4.9
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,192 1,283 1,634 27.4
Total U.S. imports for consumption under GSP 18,799 17,694 18,684 5.6
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23,
2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

The Year in Trade 2016
238| www.usitc.gov
Table A.19 Share of U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by USITC digest sector,
2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
Percent of eligible imports
1 Agricultural products 14.1 16.7 17.1
2 Forest products 3.4 3.8 3.1
3 Chemicals and related products 18.8 19.0 20.3
4 Energy-related products 4.5 0.0 0.0
5 Textiles and apparel 2.8 3.3 3.3
6 Footwear 0.1 0.0 0.1
7 Minerals and metals 22.4 19.8 17.8
8 Machinery 12.2 11.8 11.3
9 Transportation equipment 9.6 12.2 12.3
10 Electronic products 5.7 6.0 6.0
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 6.3 7.3 8.7
Total U.S. imports for consumption under GSP 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |239
Table A.20 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under GSP, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 267 338 554 64.1
2202.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. (including milk-based drinks and nonalcoholic beer) 228 274 359 30.9
7202.41 Ferrochromium, containing more than 4% (wt.) carbon 458 259 263 1.6
8415.90 Parts, n.e.s.o.i., of air conditioning machines 381 262 261 -0.3
4015.19 Gloves, except surgical and medical gloves, of vulcanized rubber, n.e.s.o.i. 209 249 239 -4.0
6802.99 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of stone n.e.s.o.i. 181 187 232 24.1
7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 274 222 224 0.8
2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 204 199 204 2.7
8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 191 166 204 23.3
8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes for motor vehicles 157 212 203 -4.4
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 206 209 200 -4.3
4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing cars) 186 163 197 21.1
3907.60 Polyethylene terephthalate, in primary forms 86 89 189 112.8
6802.91 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of marble, travertine and alabaster 135 175 189 8.3
4011.20 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 53 88 180 105.7
8708.70 Road wheels and parts and accessories thereof for motor vehicles 113 147 177 20.5
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. 165 164 176 7.3
1701.14 Cane sugar in solid form, raw, not containing added flavoring or coloring matter, n.e.s.o.i. 129 100 170 70.0
7323.93 Table, kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof, of stainless steel 140 164 167 1.9
8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets for vehicles, aircraft and ships 73 70 162 129.8
8501.10 Electric motors of an output not exceeding 37.5 w 109 143 160 12.0
1704.90 Sugar confectionary (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa, n.e.s.o.i. 127 123 159 29.5
2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 57 81 158 95.3
8408.20 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel), for the propulsion of vehicles except railway or
tramway stock 14 33 150 358.5
3923.21 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene 112 123 137 11.7
Total of items shown 4,255 4,239 5,316 25.4
All other HTS products 14,544 13,455 13,369 -0.6
Total of all commodities 18,799 17,694 18,684 5.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017). Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
240| www.usitc.gov
Table A.21 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under AGOA, by source, 2014–16
Source 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Thousand $
Nigeria 2,798,015 1,403,195 3,474,962 147.6
Angola 3,539,542 1,830,054 1,954,781 6.8
South Africa 1,750,421 1,730,110 1,864,038 7.7
Chad 1,632,682 1,478,697 775,178 -47.6
Kenya 417,148 428,224 389,992 -8.9
Lesotho 288,892 299,314 295,426 -1.3
Mauritius 218,173 207,083 188,032 -9.2
Madagascar 42 39,831 93,419 134.5
Congo, Republic of 360,168 254,572 61,681 -75.8
Ethiopia 35,675 40,897 61,564 50.5
Gabon 607,486 167,003 60,050 -64.0
Mauritania 0 0 47,711 (a)
Malawi 57,386 40,952 44,882 9.6
Tanzania 17,486 28,166 36,952 31.2
Ghana 57,055 9,626 29,691 208.4
Cameroon 23,005 53 16,758 31,473.6
Botswana 9,458 8,251 4,766 -42.2
Mozambique 802 284 1,470 418.0
Rwanda 187 435 1,220 180.7
Cape Verde 333 523 586 12.1
Sierra Leone 0 0 523 (a)
Uganda 59 144 288 99.8
Burkina Faso 10 3 167 6,323.4
Côte d`Ivoire 555 530 120 -77.3
Senegal 24 15,544 87 -99.4
Seychelles 0 0 34 (a)
Zambia 36 265 32 -87.9
Togo 3 11 20 80.0
Liberia 0 0 17 (a)
Benin 0 0 15 (a)
Mali 6 14 13 -7.7
Djibouti 411 464 11 -97.6
Guinea 0 4 7 60.5
Niger 2 0 3 (a)
Swaziland 59,076 (b) (b) (a)
Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 (a)
Namibia 0 0 0 (a)
São Tomé and Prîncipe 0 0 0 (a)
Total U.S. imports for consumption under AGOA 11,874,139 7,984,250 9,404,497 17.8
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Undefined.
b Swaziland was not AGOA eligible in 2015 and 2016.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |241
Table A.22 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under AGOA, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
%
change
2015–16
Million $
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 7,919 4,814 6,159 27.9
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 1,298 1,349 1,498 11.1
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not containing
biodiesel, not waste oils 580 278 225 -19.1
6203.42 Men’s or boys’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 166 179 193 7.6
6205.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 148 148 143 -3.7
6110.30 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of manmade fibers, knitted or crocheted 98 102 109 6.9
6204.62 Women’s or girls’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 95 88 98 10.8
6104.63 Women’s or girls’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of synthetic fibers, knitted or crocheted 84 98 92 -6.4
0802.62 Macadamia nuts, shelled, fresh or dried 71 103 85 -17.3
6105.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts of manmade fibers, knitted or crocheted 53 60 78 28.7
6109.90 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, of textile materials n.e.s.o.i., knitted or crocheted 53 47 52 11.5
3823.70 Industrial fatty alcohols 46 42 47 12.3
0805.10 Oranges, fresh 41 46 38 -18.8
7202.11 Ferromanganese, containing more than 2% (wt.) carbon 183 87 33 -61.4
2401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 48 26 32 24.5
2204.21 Wine of fresh grapes (other than sparkling wine) and grape must with fermentation prevented, etc. by adding alcohol, containers of not
over 2 liters 33 35 31 -10.6
6103.43 Men’s or boys’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of synthetic fibers, knitted or crocheted 32 31 30 -1.8
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum
oils, not biodiesel or waste 514 55 29 -47.6
6204.63 Women’s or girls’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of synthetic fibers, not knitted or crocheted 36 32 28 -13.2
7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 0 0 23 (a)
6203.43 Men’s or boys’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of synthetic fibers, not knitted or crocheted 15 19 23 16.8
6403.99 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather and uppers of leather n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 16 15 19 23.0
6104.62 Women’s or girls’ trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts of cotton, knitted or crocheted 19 21 15 -30.0
0805.20 Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas); clementines, wilkings and similar citrus hybrids, fresh or dried 9 12 14 15.2
8111.00 Manganese and articles thereof, including waste and scrap 25 19 12 -33.5
Total of items shown 11,582 7,706 9,105 18.1
All other HTS products 293 278 299 7.8
Total of all commodities 11,874 7,984 9,404 17.8
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
242| www.usitc.gov
Table A.23 Leading U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under CBERA, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
2905.11 Methanol (methyl alcohol) 1,024 651 258 -60.4
6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments of cotton, knitted or crocheted 247 272 207 -23.9
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 192 145 86 -40.5
6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 121 121 84 -30.3
3903.11 Polystyrene, expandable, in primary forms 156 87 67 -23.3
0714.30 Yams (dioscorea spp.), fresh, chilled, frozen or dried 18 20 21 3.5
2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 10 13 16 18.2
2933.61 Melamine 17 4 12 185.8
6109.90 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, of textile materials n.e.s.o.i., knitted or crocheted 13 18 12 -32.4
2103.90 Sauces and preparations therefor, n.e.s.o.i.; mixed condiments and mixed seasonings 14 13 11 -11.1
0804.50 Guavas, mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried 13 14 8 -39.0
2009.19 Orange juice, other than frozen, whether or not sweetened 7 8 6 -18.2
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 5 6 14.4
2005.99 Vegetables and mixtures of vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar, acetic acid or sugar, not frozen 4 4 5 29.5
2009.11 Orange juice, frozen, whether or not sweetened 9 6 5 -19.6
8504.31 Electrical transformers n.e.s.o.i., having a power handing capacity not exceeding 1 kva (a) 3 4 21.8
2208.40 Rum and tafia 3 3 3 17.8
0807.20 Papayas (papaws), fresh 8 8 3 -61.6
2202.90 Nonalcoholic beverages, n.e.s.o.i. (including milk-based drinks and nonalcoholic beer) 4 4 3 -27.5
0406.30 Cheese, processed, not grated or powdered 3 4 3 -31.3
2202.10 Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, sweetened or flavored 5 3 3 -9.8
2104.10 Soups and broths and preparations therefor 2 2 2 24.4
8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of electricity, for a voltage not
exceeding 1,000 v 2 2 2 -8.8
0910.99 Spices, n.e.s.o.i. 1 2 2 5.8
0812.90 Fruit, n.e.s.o.i., and nuts, provisionally preserved, but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption 1 2 2 5.9
Total of items shown 1,879 1,414 832 -41.1
All other HTS products 94 128 43 -66.1
Total of all commodities 1,973 1,542 876 -43.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; kva = kilovolt-amps.
a Less than $500,000.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |243
Table A.24 U.S. imports for consumption claiming eligibility under CBERA, by source, 2014–16
Source 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Thousand $
Trinidad and Tobago 1,234,474 830,265 383,460 -53.8
Haiti 405,395 433,411 317,860 -26.7
Jamaica 71,779 81,563 75,189 -7.8
Bahamas 158,191 88,389 68,403 -22.6
Belize 60,582 36,881 17,136 -53.5
St. Kitts and Nevis 18,341 10,481 7,304 -30.3
Barbados 5,295 22,570 2,254 -90.0
Grenada 443 1,728 1,809 4.7
Guyana 11,857 34,912 1,552 -95.6
St. Lucia 1,162 1,301 561 -56.8
Curaçao 5,365 3 85 3,168.9
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 182 16 45 186.6
Antigua Barbuda 19 82 37 -54.1
Dominica 66 77 22 -71.0
Aruba 75 93 15 -84.1
British Virgin Islands 50 9 9 2.5
Montserrat 0 0 0 (a)
Total U.S. imports for consumption under CBERA 1,973,277 1,541,778 875,744 -43.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Undefined.

The Year in Trade 2016
244| www.usitc.gov
Table A.25 WTO dispute settlement cases to which the United States was a party, developments in
2016
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).
Arbitrator finds that U.S. has failed to implement the DSB
recommendations and rulings (01/15/04).
Arbitrator circulates decisions relating to a level of suspension of
concessions to offset disbursements under the CDSOA (08/31/04).
Authority to retaliate granted (11/26/04, 12/17/04).
DSB authorizes or takes note of various requests or agreements to suspend
concessions (2004–05).
U.S. states at DSB meeting that recent changes bring U.S. law into
conformity with its WTO obligations (02/17/06).
Japan and EC notify DSB annually of the new list of products on which the
additional import duty would apply, before the entry into force of a level of
suspension of concessions (2006–14).
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).
Japan notifies DSB that it will continue its non-application of the suspension
of concessions because the authorized level continues to be marginal
(09/18/15).
Japan notifies DSB that it will continue its non-application of the suspension
of concessions because the authorized level continues to be marginal
(08/22/16).
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 panel (03/30/12); panel
established (04/13/12).
Panel report issued (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 of its decision to appeal certain issues of
law and interpretation in the panel report (11/10/16).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |245
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS322 United States—Measures
Relating to Zeroing and Sunset
Reviews
Japan Japan requests consultations (11/24/04).
Panel is established (02/28/05) and composed (04/15/05).
Panel report is circulated (09/20/06).
Japan informs DSB it will appeal the decision (10/11 /06); U.S. informs DSB
it will also appeal (10/23/06).
Appellate Body report is circulated (01/9/07).
DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (01/23/07).
Implementation of adopted reports. Japan asks that a reasonable period of
time for implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3(c) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) (03/29/07);
DSB appoints arbitrator ((04/27/07). U.S. and Japan inform DSB they have
agreed on a reasonable period of time, expiring December 24, 2007, and no
longer seek to have the reasonable period of time determined through
binding arbitration (05/04/07).
Compliance proceedings. Japan requests establishment of a compliance
panel (04/07/08), and DSB refers to the original panel (04/18/08). Article
21.5 compliance panel report is circulated (04/24/09). U.S. notifies DSB it
will appeal compliance panel decision to the Appellate Body (05/20/09).
Article 21.5 Appellate Body report is circulated (08/18/09), and DSB adopts
Appellate Body and compliance panel reports (08/31/09).
Proceedings under Article 22 of the DSU (remedies). Japan seeks
authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU
(01/10/08). U.S. objects to the level of suspension and requests the matter
be referred to arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU (01/18/08). DSB
agrees to refer to arbitration (01/21/08). U.S. and Japan ask arbitrator to
suspend work (06/06/08); Japan asks arbitrator to resume (04/23/10); U.S.
and Japan ask arbitrator to suspend work (12/15/10); and U.S. and Japan
inform DSB of a memorandum of understanding regarding the dispute
(02/06/12). Japan withdraws request for authorization to suspend
concessions/obligations under Article 22.6 after U.S. completes steps
notified to DSB in February 2012 (08/03/12). Following receipt of a request
from Japan and U.S., arbitrator informs DSB that no award is necessary,
that it is not necessary to issue a decision, and that work is considered
completed (08/14/12).
DS350 United States—Continued
Existence and Application of
Zeroing Methodology
European
Communities
EC requests consultations (10/02/06).
Panel is established (06/04/07) and composed (07/06/07).
Panel report is circulated (10/01/08).
EC (11/06/08) and U.S. (11/18/08) notify DSB of decision to appeal.
Appellate Body report is circulated (02/04/09); DSB adopts Appellate Body
and panel reports (02/19/09).
U.S. and EC agree that a reasonable period for U.S. to implement DSB’s
recommendations and rulings is by December 19, 2009 (06/02/09).
EU and U.S. notify DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22
(01/04/10).
EU and U.S. inform DSB of a memorandum between the U.S. and the
European Commission which envisages a roadmap addressing the dispute
(02/06/12).

The Year in Trade 2016
246| www.usitc.gov
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 composed (10/30/12). The chair initially
informs DSB that, due to the scale and complexity of the dispute, the panel
expects to circulate its report within the first half of 2014 (01/15/13). The
chair later informs DSB that the panel does not expect to complete its work
before mid-2015 (05/27/14); still later, that it will not complete it before
mid-2016 (06/27/16).
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 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).
DS363 China—Measures Affecting
Trading Rights and Distribution
Services for Certain Publications
and Audiovisual Entertainment
Products
United States U.S. requests consultations with China (04/10/07).
Panel is established (11/27/07) and composed (03/27/08).
Panel report is circulated (08/12/09).
China (09/22/09) and U.S. (10/05/09) notify DSB of their respective
decisions to appeal the panel decision to the Appellate Body.
Appellate Body report is circulated (12/21/09).
DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (01/19/10).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a reasonable period
for China to implement DSB recommendations and rulings is by March 14,
2011 (07/12/10).
China reports to DSB that it has made efforts to implement DSB
recommendations and rulings, but U.S. expresses concern about lack of
progress by China (03/25/11).
U.S. and China inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of
the DSU (04/13/11).
China reports to DSB it has completed amendments to most measures and
has signed a memorandum of understanding with U.S. (02/22/12).
China tells DSB that it has ensured full implementation of DSB
recommendations and rulings except for measures concerning films for
theatrical release. U.S. states that it is not in a position to agree that China
has fully implemented DSB recommendations and rulings in all areas except
films for theatrical release (03/23/12).
China and U.S. inform DSB of key elements relating to theatrical release as
set forth in the memorandum of understanding noted at the February 22,
2012, DSB meeting (05/09/12).
China tells DSB it has taken all necessary steps and has complied with DSB
recommendations. U.S. says that the memorandum of understanding
(MOU) represented significant progress but not a final resolution
(05/24/12).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |247
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS379 United States—Definitive Anti-
dumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Products from
China
China China requests consultations with U.S. (09/19/08).
Panel is established (01/20/09) and composed (03/04/09).
Panel report is circulated (10/22/10).
China notifies DSB it will appeal the panel’s decision to the Appellate Body
(12/01/10).
Appellate Body report is circulated (03/11/11).
DSB adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (03/25/11).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that a reasonable time for
U.S. to implement DSB’s recommendations and rulings is by February 25,
2012 (07/05/11).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have modified the reasonable time
period, with the period to expire April 25, 2012 (01/17/12).
China and U.S. notify DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of
the DSU (05/11/12).
U.S. tells DSB it has brought the measures at issue into full compliance with
DSB recommendations and rulings (08/31/12); however, China says that it
does not agree with U.S. claim to that effect (09/28/12).
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 panel to resolve
disagreement over the U.S. final rule as amended in 2016.
Article 21.5 panel established and composed, as requested by Mexico
(07/11/16).
Due to the complexity of the case and ongoing arbitration proceedings,
both U.S. and Mexican Article 21.5 panels inform DSB they expect to submit
their reports by mid-May 2017 (11/18/16).

The Year in Trade 2016
248| www.usitc.gov
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS384 United States—Certain Country
of Origin Labelling (COOL)
Requirements
Canada Canada requests consultations with U.S. (12/01/08).
Single panel is established to examine this dispute and DS386 (11/19/09);
panel composed (05/10/10).
Panel report is circulated (11/18/11).
U.S. notifies DSB that it will appeal the decision to the Appellate Body
(03/23/12), and Canada notifies DSB it will do the same (03/28/12).
Appellate Body report is circulated (06/29/12); DSB adopts the Appellate
Body and panel reports (07/23/12).
Reasonable period of time, arbitration. U.S. informs DSB it intends to
implement DSB recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable
period of time to do so (08/21/12). Canada requests that reasonable time
to implement be determined through binding arbitration (09/13/12), and
requests that the Director-General appoint an arbitrator (09/26/12);
arbitrator appointed (10/04/12). Arbitrator determines that the reasonable
time is by May 23, 2013 (12/04/12). U.S. informs DSB that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a final rule that brings U.S.
labelling requirements into compliance (05/24/13). Canada disagrees that
changes bring U.S. requirements into compliance, and U.S. and Canada
inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of DSU
(06/10/13).
Compliance proceedings. Canada requests establishment of a compliance
panel (08/19/13); DSB refers to original panel if possible (09/25/13);
compliance panel composed (09/27/13) to review matters in DS384 and
DS386. Compliance panel issues report finding violation in this dispute and
DS386 (10/20/14). U.S. notifies DSB it will appeal decision to the Appellate
Body (11/28/14). Canada files appeal (12/12/14).
Compliance Appellate Body report is circulated to members (05/18/15).
DSB adopts Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports and panel reports, as
modified by Appellate Body reports (05/29/15).
Canada requests authorization from DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the
DSU, to suspend application of certain tariff concessions and related
obligations to U.S. under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) 1994 (06/04/15).
U.S. objects to level of suspension of concessions and obligations proposed
by Canada (06/16/15).
DSB takes note that the matter has been referred to arbitration as required
under Article 22.6 of the DSU ((06/17/15).
Decision of arbitrator is circulated to members (12/07/15).
Canada requests authorization from DSB to suspend application of certain
tariff concessions and related obligations to U.S. under GATT 1994 in the
amount of CAD $1,054,729 on an annual basis (12/07/15).
DSB authorizes Canada to suspend application to U.S. of concessions or
other obligations (12/21/15).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |249
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS386 United States—Certain Country
of Origin Labelling
Requirements
Mexico Mexico requests consultations with U.S. (12/17/08).
Single panel is established to examine this dispute and DS384 (11/19/09);
panel composed (05/10/10).
Panel report is circulated (11/18/11).
U.S. notifies DSB that it will appeal decision to the Appellate Body
(03/23/12), and Mexico notifies DSB it will do the same (03/28/12).
Appellate Body report is circulated (06/29/12); Appellate Body and panel
reports are adopted (07/23/12).
Reasonable period of time, arbitration. U.S. informs DSB it intends to
implement DSB recommendations and rulings (08/21/12). Mexico requests
that reasonable time to implement be determined through binding
arbitration (09/13/12), and requests that the Director-General appoint an
arbitrator (09/26/12); arbitrator appointed (10/04/12). Arbitrator
determines that the reasonable time is by May 23, 2013 (12/04/12). U.S.
informs DSB that USDA has issued a final rule that brings U.S. labeling
requirements into compliance (05/24/13). Mexico disagrees that changes
bring U.S. requirements into compliance, and U.S. and Mexico inform DSB
of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of DSU (06/10/13).
Compliance proceedings. Mexico requests establishment of a compliance
panel (08/19/13); DSB refers to original panel if possible (09/25/13);
compliance panel composed (09/27/13) to review matters in DS384 and
DS386. Compliance panel issues report finding violation in this dispute and
DS384 (10/20/14).
U.S. notifies DSB it will appeal decision to the Appellate Body (11/28/14).
Mexico files appeal (12/12/14).
Compliance Appellate Body report is circulated (05/18/15).
DSB adopts the Article 21.5 Appellate Body reports and panel reports, as
modified by the Appellate Body reports (05/29/15).
Mexico requests authorization from DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the
DSU, to suspend application of certain tariff concessions and related
obligations to U.S. under GATT 1994 (06/04/15).
Mexico submits corrigendum concerning requested amount of suspension
of concessions (06/12/15).
Mexico resubmits its request for DSB authorization to suspend concessions
to U.S. under GATT 1994 (06/17/15).
U.S. objects to level of suspension of concessions or other obligations
proposed by Mexico; parties agree that the matter has been referred to
arbitration (06/22/15).
Decision of arbitrator circulated to members (12/07/15).
Mexico requests authorization from DSB to suspend application to U.S. of
tariff concessions and other related obligations in the goods sector under
GATT 1994 in an amount of US$227,758, 000 annually (12/07/15).
DSB authorizes Mexico to suspend application to U.S. of concessions or
other obligations (12/21/15).
DS387 China—Grants, Loans and Other
Incentives
United States U.S. requests consultations (12/19/08).
DS389 European Communities—
Certain Measures Affecting
Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat
Products from the United States
United States U.S. requests consultations (01/16/09).
Panel established (11/19/09).
DS403 Philippines—Taxes on Distilled
Spirits
United States U.S. requests consultations (01/14/10).
Single panel established to consider DS403 and DS396 (complaint by EU)
(04/20/10); panel composed (07/05/10).
Panel report circulated to members (08/15/11).
Philippines notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body
(09/23/11), as does EU (09/28/11).
Appellate Body report is circulated (12/21/11), and DSB adopts the
Appellate Body and panel reports (01/20/12).
Philippines states that it intends to implement DSB’s recommendations and
rulings and will require a reasonable period of time to do so (02/22/12),
and Philippines and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the
reasonable period of time is by March 8, 2013 (04/20/12).
Philippines reports enactment of legislation that completes implementation
of DSB’s recommendations and rulings (01/28/13).

The Year in Trade 2016
250| www.usitc.gov
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS404 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures on Certain Shrimp
from Viet Nam
Vietnam Vietnam requests consultations (02/01/10).
Panel is established (05/18/10) and composed (07/26/10).
Panel report is circulated (07/11/11); and DSB adopts the panel report
(09/02/11).
Vietnam and U.S. inform DSB they have agreed that a reasonable period of
time for U.S. to implement DSB recommendations is by July 2, 2012
(10/31/11).
Vietnam and U.S. inform DSB they have reached a mutually agreed solution
(07/22/16).
DS406 United States—Measures
Affecting the Production and
Sale of Clove Cigarettes
Indonesia Indonesia requests consultations (04/07/10).
Panel established (07/20/10) and composed (09/09/10).
Panel report circulated to members (09/02/11).
U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body (01/05/12).
Appellate Body report is circulated to members (04/04/12) and adopted
(04/24/12).
U.S. informs DSB of its intent to implement DSB recommendations and
rulings in a manner that protects public health and respects its WTO
obligations, and states that it will need a reasonable period of time to do so
(05/24/12).
Indonesia and U.S. inform DSB that the reasonable period of time is by July
24, 2013 (06/14/12).
Proceedings under Article 22 of the DSU (remedies). Indonesia requests
authorization from DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under
Article 22.2 of the DSU (08/12/13). U.S. objects to level of suspension of
concessions or other obligations and refers the matter to arbitration
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU (08/22/13). Matter referred to
arbitration at DSB meeting (08/23/13). U.S. and Indonesia request
arbitrator to suspend circulation of arbitrator’s award (06/23/14), and
arbitrator does so (06/24/14). U.S. and Indonesia notify DSB they have
reached a mutually agreed solution, and that Indonesia is withdrawing its
request to suspend concessions or other obligations (10/03/14). Chair of
arbitrator notifies DSB it is not necessary to issue a decision, and that the
arbitrator has completed its work (10/08/14).
DS413 China—Certain Measures
Affecting Electronic Payment
Services
United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10).
Panel is established (03/25/11) and composed (07/04/11).
Panel report is circulated to members (07/16/12) and adopted by DSB
(08/31/12).
China states that it intends to implement DSB’s recommendations and
rulings and will need a reasonable period of time to do so (09/28/12).
China and U.S. inform DSB that the reasonable period of time for China to
implement is by July 31, 2013 (11/22/12).
China reports to DSB that it has fully implemented DSB’s recommendations
and rulings; U.S. states that it does not agree, and that it will monitor and
review China’s actions (07/23/13).
China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of
the DSU (08/19/13).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |251
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS414 China—Countervailing and Anti-
dumping Duties on Grain
Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical
Steel from the United States
United States U.S. requests consultations (09/15/10).
Panel established (03/25/11) and composed (05/10/11).
Panel report circulated to members (06/15/12).
China notifies DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body
(07/20/12).
Appellate Body report is circulated to members (10/18/12) and adopted by
DSB (11/16/12).
Reasonable period of time; arbitrator’s determination. China states that it
intends to implement DSB’s recommendations and rulings and will need a
reasonable period of time to do so (11/30/12). U.S. requests that the
reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU (02/08/13). Director-General
appoints arbitrator (02/28/13). Arbitration report circulated; arbitrator
determines that the reasonable period of time is by July 31, 2013
(05/03/13). China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles
21 and 22 of DSU (08/19/13). China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of DSU (08/19/13).
Compliance proceedings. U.S. requests consultations pursuant to Article
21.5 of the DSU (01/13/14). U.S. requests establishment of a compliance
panel (02/13/14); DSB agrees to refer to original panel if possible
(02/26/14); the panel is composed (03/17/14).
Compliance panel report circulated to members (07/31/15).
DSB adopts compliance panel report (08/31/15).
China informs DSB that the antidumping and countervailing duty measures
on imports of grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) from the U.S.
expired on April 10, 2015 (08/31/15).
DS419 China—Measures Concerning
Wind Power Equipment
United States U.S. requests consultations (12/22/10).
EU and Japan request to join consultations (01/12/11 and 01/17/11,
respectively).
DS420 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea
South Korea South Korea requests consultations (01/31/11).
South Korea requests establishment of a panel (09/15/11).
South Korea withdraws request for panel (09/27/11).
South Korea requests establishment of a panel (02/09/12).
South Korea informs DSB of agreement on procedures between U.S. and
South Korea (02/14/12).
Panel is established (02/22/12).
Before the panel is composed, South Korea requests that panel proceedings
be suspended in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU until further
notification (06/12/12).
DS422 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures on Shrimp and
Diamond Sawblades from China
China China requests consultations (02/28/11).
Panel is established (10/25/11) and composed (12/21/11).
Panel report is circulated (06/08/12), and DSB adopts panel report
(07/23/12).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the reasonable
period of time for U.S. to implement is by March 23, 2013 (07/27/12).
U.S. informs DSB that it has fully implemented DSB recommendations and
rulings; China states that it does not share U.S. view, as U.S. has not
revoked antidumping duty on sawblades (03/26/13).
DS424 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures on Imports of
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip
in Coils from Italy
European Union EU requests consultations (04/01/11).
Japan requests to join the consultations (04/18/11).

The Year in Trade 2016
252| www.usitc.gov
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).
DS429 United States—Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Shrimp
from Viet Nam
Vietnam Vietnam requests consultations (02/20/12).
Panel is established (02/27/13) and composed (07/12/13).
Panel report is circulated (11/17/14). Vietnam notifies DSB it will appeal
decision to the Appellate Body (01/06/15).
Appellate Body report is circulated to members (04/07/15).
DSB adopts Appellate Body report and panel report, as upheld by the
Appellate Body report (04/22/15).
U.S. informs DSB that it intends to implement DSB’s recommendations and
ruling, and will need a reasonable period of time to do so (05/20/15).
Vietnam requests that the reasonable period of time be determined
through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
(09/17/15).
Award of the arbitrator is circulated; arbitrator determines the reasonable
period of time is 15 months, to expire on July 22, 2016 (12/15/15).
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) and composed (02/18/13).
Panel report is circulated (10/14/14). India and U.S. request DSB to extend
period for filing an appeal by 60 days (11/06/14), and DSB agrees
(11/18/14).
India 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, to expire on June 19, 2016 (12/08/15).
U.S. requests authorization to suspend concessions for India’s failure to
comply with DSB recommendations (07/07/16).
India requests Article 22.6 arbitration of U.S. request to suspend
concessions (07/18/16).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |253
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS431 China—Measures Related to
the Exportation of Rare Earths,
Tungsten and Molybdenum
United States U.S. requests consultations (03/13/12).
Single panel is established to examine DS431 (as well as DS432 and DS433,
brought by EU and Japan) (07/23/12); panel is composed (09/24/12).
Panel report is circulated (03/26/14).
U.S. notifies DSB that it will appeal the decision to the Appellate Body
(04/08/14); China notifies DSB it will appeal the decision in this dispute
(04/17/14) and the other two disputes (04/25/14).
Appellate Body issues three reports in one document (08/07/14); DSB
adopts Appellate Body and panel reports (08/29/14).
China informs DSB that it intends to implement DSB’s recommendations
and rulings, and will need a reasonable period of time to do so (09/26/14).
China and U.S. inform DSB they have agreed that the reasonable period of
time will expire on May 2, 2015 (12/08/14).
China informs DSB that the export duties and export quotas and restrictions
on trading rights of exporting enterprises that were found to be
inconsistent with WTO rules have been removed and that China has fully
implemented DSB’s recommendations and rulings; U.S. indicates it does not
share China’s assessment that China has fully complied (05/20/15).
China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of
the DSU (05/21/15).
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) and composed (02/18/13).
Panel report is circulated (07/14/14).
India notifies DSB that it will appeal the decision (08/08/14); U.S. files an
appeal (08/13/14).
Appellate Body issues its report (12/08/14); and DSB adopts the Appellate
Body and panel reports (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 of agreed procedures under DSU Articles 21 and
22 for a reasonable period of time (05/06/16).
DS437 United States—Countervailing
Duty Measures on Certain
Products from China
China China requests consultations (05/25/12).
Panel is established (09/28/12) and composed (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).
China requests the Director-General to appoint the arbitrator (07/09/15);
the Director-General appoints the arbitrator (07/17/15).
Award of the arbitrator is circulated to members. The 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 an Article 21.5 panel (07/08/16).
Article 21.5 Panel is established (07/21/16) and composed (10/05/16).
DS440 China—Anti-dumping and
Countervailing Duties on
Certain Automobiles from the
United States
United States U.S. requests consultations (07/05/12).
Panel is established (10/23/12) and composed (02/11/13).
Panel report is circulated (05/23/14) and adopted by DSB (06/18/14).

The Year in Trade 2016
254| www.usitc.gov
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS444 Argentina—Measures Affecting
the Importation of Goods
United States U.S. requests consultations (08/21/12).
Single panel is established to examine DS438, DS44, and DS445 (01/28/13);
the panel is composed (05/27/13).
Panel report is circulated (08/22/14).
Argentina notifies DSB of its decision to appeal (09/26/14).
Appellate Body issues its reports in DS438, DS444, and DS445 (01/15/15);
DSB adopts the Appellate Body and panel reports (01/26/15).
Argentina 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 (02/23/15).
Argentina and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the reasonable
period of time will expire on December 31, 2015 (07/02/15).
U.S. and Argentina inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and
22 of the DSU (01/18/16).
DS447 United States—Measures
Affecting the Importation of
Animals, Meat and Other
Animal Products from Argentina
Argentina Argentina requests consultations (08/30/12).
Panel is established (01/28/13) and composed (08/08/13).
Panel report is circulated to members (07/24/15).
DSB adopts the panel report (08/31/15).
DS448 United States—Measures
Affecting the Importation of
Fresh Lemons
Argentina Argentina requests consultations (09/03/12).
Argentina requests establishment of a panel (12/06/12); establishment is
deferred (12/17/12).
DS449 United States—Countervailing
and Anti-dumping Measures on
Certain Products from China
China China requests consultations (09/17/12).
Panel is established (12/17/12) and composed (03/04/13).
Panel report is circulated (03/27/14).
China notifies DSB it will appeal the decision to the Appellate Body
(04/08/14); U.S. notifies DSB of its decision to appeal (04/17/14).
Appellate Body issues its report (07/07/14), and DSB adopts the Appellate
Body and panel reports (07/22/14); U.S. informs DSB it intends to
implement DSB recommendations and rulings and will need a reasonable
period of time to do so (08/21/14).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have agreed that the reasonable
period of time would expire on July 22, 2015 (02/20/15).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have mutually agreed to modify the
reasonable period time to expire on August 5, 2015 (07/23/15).
China and U.S. inform DSB of agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of
the DSU (08/21/15).
DS450 China—Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile and
Automobile-Parts Industries
United States U.S. requests consultations (09/17/12).
DS455 Indonesia—Importation of
Horticultural Products, Animals
and Animal Products
United States U.S. requests consultations (01/10/13).
Panel is established (04/24/13).
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) and composed (09/24/14).
Panel report is circulated to members (02/24/16).
Panel chair informs DSB that it issued the final report to the parties on
August 28, 2015, and that public circulation was originally scheduled for
late December 2015; due to several requests from the parties, circulation
has been delayed because of continuing discussions relating to the dispute
(02/25/16).
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).
DS464 United States—Anti-dumping
and Countervailing Measures
on Large Residential Washers
from Korea
South Korea South Korea requests consultations (08/29/13).
Panel is established (01/22/14) and composed (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 circulated (09/07/16).
Appellate Body and panel reports adopted (09/26/16).
South Korea requests arbitration of the reasonable period of time for
implementation (12/09/16).

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |255
Case no. Title Complainant Action (month/day/year)
DS465 Indonesia—Importation of
Horticultural Products, Animals
and Animal Products
United States U.S. requests consultations (08/30/13).
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) and composed (08/28/14).
Chair of panel informs DSB that the start of proceedings has been deferred
due to unavailability of Secretariat lawyers, and that in light of amount and
complexity of work involved, the panel expects to issue its final report in
June 2016 (02/23/15).
Panel report is circulated (10/19/16).
China notifies DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretation in the panel report (11/18/16).
DS478 Indonesia—Importation of
Horticultural Products, Animals
and Animal Products
United States U.S. requests consultations (05/08/14).
U.S. requests establishment of a panel (03/18/15); panel established
(05/20/15); panel composed (10/08/15).
Panel report is circulated (12/22/16).
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 report is circulated (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).
DS488 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures on Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods from
Korea
South Korea South Korea requests consultations (12/22/14).
South Korea requests establishment of a panel (02/23/15).
DSB establishes panel (03/25/15).
Parties agree on composition of the panel (07/13/15).
DS489 China—Measures Related to
Demonstration Bases and
Common Service Platforms
Programmes
United States U.S. requests consultations (02/11/15).
U.S. requests establishment of a panel (04/09/15).
DSB establishes a panel (04/22/15).
China and U.S. inform DSB that they have reached an agreement in relation
to the dispute in the form of a memorandum of understanding (04/14/16).
DS491 United States—Anti-dumping
Measures and Countervailing
Measures on Certain Coated
Paper from Indonesia
Indonesia Indonesia requests consultations (03/13/15).
Indonesia requests establishment of a panel (07/09/15).
DSB establishes a panel (09/28/15).
Indonesia requests the Director-General to compose the panel (01/25/16);
panel composed (02/04/16).
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).
Canada requests establishment of a panel (06/09/16).
DSB establishes a panel (07/21/16).
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).
DS511 China—Domestic Support for
Agricultural Producers
United States U.S. requests consultations (09/13/16).
DS514 United States—Countervailing
Measures on Cold- and 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).
DS517 China—Tariff Rate Quotas for
Certain Agricultural Products
United States U.S. requests consultations (12/15/16).
Source: WTO, “Chronological List of Dispute Cases,” https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

The Year in Trade 2016
256| www.usitc.gov
Table A.26 NAFTA Chapter 19 substantive challenges to original and five-year review determinations of
USITC and USDOC, developments in 2016
File 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 (04/21/17). Status: Active.
MEX-USA-2012-1904-02 Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (AD)
(Investigating authority: Secretaría de
Economía)
Request for panel review (10/09/12). Oral
argument hearing date (03/10/15).Decision
date (11/26/15). Status: Active.
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). Status:
Active.
MEX-USA-2016-1904-01 Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (AD)
(Investigating authority: Secretaría de
Economía)
Request for panel review (06/24/2016).
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). Status: Active.
USA-CDA-2015-1904-02 Supercalendered Paper from Canada (AD)
(Investigating authority: U.S. International
Trade Commission)
Request for panel review (12/30/15); request
withdrawn (01/13/16). Status: Terminated.
USA-CDA-2016-1904-01 Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from
Canada (Investigating authority: U.S.
International Trade Commission)
Request for panel review (06/06/16). Decision:
complaint not filed in a timely manner
(07/07/16). Status: Terminated.
USA-MEX-2014-1904-02 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico
and Turkey (AD) (Investigating authority: U.S.
International Trade Commission)
Request for panel review (12/01/14). Oral
argument hearing date (03/16/16). Decision
date (02/02/17). Status: Completed.
Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “Status Report: NAFTA and FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings,” http://www.nafta-sec-
alena.org/en/StatusReport.aspx (accessed June 6, 2017).
Note: This list includes active cases during 2016, including those in which little if any formal action occurred during 2016. AD stands for
antidumping duty.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |257
Table A.27 U.S. total exports to the EU, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 14,828 14,142 13,329 -5.8
2 Forest products 5,274 5,339 5,119 -4.1
3 Chemicals and related products 59,105 62,915 60,634 -3.6
4 Energy-related products 23,938 16,753 14,544 -13.2
5 Textiles and apparel 2,600 2,612 2,563 -1.9
6 Footwear 105 89 88 -1.4
7 Minerals and metals 24,460 22,405 21,973 -1.9
8 Machinery 21,126 20,777 20,035 -3.6
9 Transportation equipment 56,791 59,713 63,880 7.0
10 Electronic products 49,449 48,382 47,854 -1.1
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 10,511 10,445 12,043 15.3
12 Special provisions 8,022 8,417 8,264 -1.8
Total 276,208 271,988 270,325 -0.6
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 22,799 23,523 24,785 5.4
2 Forest products 4,974 5,121 5,337 4.2
3 Chemicals and related products 96,207 105,936 106,653 0.7
4 Energy-related products 22,336 14,271 12,067 -15.4
5 Textiles and apparel 6,229 6,068 5,687 -6.3
6 Footwear 2,092 2,054 2,054 0.0
7 Minerals and metals 32,715 30,020 27,204 -9.4
8 Machinery 47,764 46,092 44,147 -4.2
9 Transportation equipment 100,170 105,942 95,782 -9.6
10 Electronic products 45,290 44,970 48,570 8.0
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 17,890 19,262 18,787 -2.5
12 Special provisions 22,126 24,303 25,592 5.3
Total 420,591 427,562 416,665 -2.5
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

The Year in Trade 2016
258| www.usitc.gov
Table A.29 Leading U.S. total exports to the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 30,794 32,876 36,556 11.2
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 10,485 11,319 10,039 -11.3
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 6,904 8,351 10,010 19.9
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 15,440 10,499 7,595 -27.7
9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand-executed works of art, framed or not framed 3,839 3,593 4,908 36.6
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 4,382 4,393 4,373 -0.5
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 3,293 3,670 3,983 8.5
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 3,554 3,692 3,961 7.3
8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 3,754 3,855 3,870 0.4
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 4,355 3,535 3,692 4.4
8703.32 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc
but not over 2,500 cc 2,338 2,528 2,978 17.8
9018.39 Medical, etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 2,902 2,870 2,899 1.0
3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of heading 3002 or 3006 2,625 2,729 2,860 4.8
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 1,974 1,748 2,317 32.6
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 1,860 1,898 1,877 -1.1
2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 3,818 2,464 1,683 -31.7
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 1,597 1,541 1,642 6.6
0802.12 Almonds, fresh or dried, shelled 1,675 1,792 1,515 -15.4
8411.99 Parts of gas turbines, n.e.s.o.i. (other than parts for turbojets or turbopropellers) 1,300 1,186 1,497 26.2
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 193 302 1,466 386.4
3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 1,411 2,216 1,416 -36.1
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 992 1,230 1,402 14.0
9021.39 Artificial joints and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 1,451 1,443 1,390 -3.7
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 1,488 1,602 1,351 -15.7
9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus (and apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters)
n.e.s.o.i., and parts, etc. 1,481 1,381 1,319 -4.5
Total of items shown 113,902 112,712 116,599 3.4
All other products 162,306 159,276 153,727 -3.5
Total of all commodities 276,208 271,988 270,325 -0.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |259
Table A.30 Leading U.S. general imports from the EU, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc
but not over 3,000 cc 18,462 24,216 26,718 10.3
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 18,759 23,433 25,121 7.2
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 18,371 17,934 13,518 -24.6
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 5,009 6,499 8,303 27.7
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 12,981 9,023 7,641 -15.3
8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 7,323 7,561 6,949 -8.1
8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 6,642 7,259 5,476 -24.6
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. 3,738 4,535 5,370 18.4
9701.10 Paintings, drawings and pastels, hand-executed works of art, framed or not framed 4,931 6,759 5,236 -22.5
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 4,775 4,343 4,549 4.7
2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 4,852 7,245 4,343 -40.1
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 4,107 4,062 3,672 -9.6
3002.20 Vaccines for human medicine 3,065 4,988 3,615 -27.5
3004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 4,926 4,055 3,361 -17.1
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 572 508 2,937 478.5
2204.21 Wine of fresh grapes (other than sparkling wine) and grape must with fermentation prevented, etc. By adding alcohol,
containers of not over 2 liters 2,891 2,828 2,885 2.0
2935.00 Sulfonamides 2,038 2,609 2,885 10.6
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 2,544 2,447 2,878 17.6
2933.99 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only, n.e.s.o.i. 1,955 2,331 2,867 23.0
8411.12 Turbojets of a thrust exceeding 25 kN 4,169 3,598 2,602 -27.7
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 2,450 2,309 2,536 9.9
9021.39 Artificial joints and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 2,428 2,469 2,479 0.4
3002.90 Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, etc. Uses; toxins, cultures of micro-organisms (excluding yeasts) and
similar products n.e.s.o.i. 2,609 2,357 2,371 0.6
8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder
capacity 3,001 2,976 2,343 -21.3
3302.10 Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures (including alcoholic solutions) with a basis of these substances used in the food
or drink industries 2,125 2,404 2,259 -6.0
Total of items shown 144,722 158,746 152,913 -3.7
All other products 275,869 268,815 263,752 -1.9
Total of all commodities 420,591 427,562 416,665 -2.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; kN = kilonewtons.

The Year in Trade 2016
260| www.usitc.gov
Table A.31 U.S. total exports to China, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 25,735 21,687 22,923 5.7
2 Forest products 7,020 6,431 6,904 7.4
3 Chemicals and related products 14,727 14,360 14,437 0.5
4 Energy-related products 2,048 2,628 3,062 16.5
5 Textiles and apparel 1,274 1,010 892 -11.7
6 Footwear 56 81 90 10.5
7 Minerals and metals 10,931 8,002 7,347 -8.2
8 Machinery 10,104 10,024 9,621 -4.0
9 Transportation equipment 29,994 28,767 27,643 -3.9
10 Electronic products 19,882 21,171 20,958 -1.0
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 858 956 875 -8.4
12 Special provisions 992 955 1,023 7.1
Total 123,621 116,072 115,775 -0.3
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 7,008 6,801 6,724 -1.1
2 Forest products 8,875 9,512 9,568 0.6
3 Chemicals and related products 31,895 31,005 29,839 -3.8
4 Energy-related products 635 538 711 32.3
5 Textiles and apparel 47,220 48,892 45,221 -7.5
6 Footwear 17,065 17,276 14,820 -14.2
7 Minerals and metals 31,038 32,065 30,270 -5.6
8 Machinery 48,138 50,523 48,450 -4.1
9 Transportation equipment 21,560 23,929 24,255 1.4
10 Electronic products 186,700 189,254 180,413 -4.7
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 62,896 67,893 67,079 -1.2
12 Special provisions 5,454 5,558 5,462 -1.7
Total 468,484 483,245 462,813 -4.2
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |261
Table A.33 Leading U.S. total exports to China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 13,927 15,440 14,576 -5.6
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 14,476 10,523 14,204 35.0
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc
but not over 3,000 cc 7,237 6,606 6,959 5.3
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 2,749 3,474 3,848 10.7
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 1,136 1,423 1,764 24.0
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 1,094 1,317 1,558 18.3
7404.00 Copper waste and scrap 2,114 1,681 1,362 -19.0
4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, coniferous 830 850 1,062 24.9
8703.90 Passenger motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 678 399 1,026 157.3
4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or paperboard 1,024 1,091 1,023 -6.2
1007.90 Grain sorghum, other than seed 1,467 2,116 1,023 -51.6
7602.00 Aluminum waste and scrap 1,761 1,309 916 -30.0
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 840 720 878 21.9
4101.50 Whole hides and skins, of a weight exceeding 16 kg, or bovine/equine animals, whether or not dehaired or split 1,125 917 823 -10.3
2711.12 Propane, liquefied 285 912 821 -9.9
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 2,991 1,966 795 -59.5
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 764 737 763 3.5
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 520 586 753 28.4
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 713 835 722 -13.5
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 328 553 671 21.3
4403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood or roughly squared, not treated 866 523 616 17.8
9018.39 Medical, etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 379 469 586 25.0
4407.91 Oak wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed etc., over 6 mm (.236 in.) thick 514 457 576 25.9
3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of heading 3002 or 3006 446 455 565 24.1
8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or optical readers, transcribing
machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 520 529 563 6.5
Total of items shown 58,785 55,886 58,452 4.6
All other products 64,836 60,186 57,323 -4.8
Total of all commodities 123,621 116,072 115,775 -0.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
262| www.usitc.gov
Table A.34 Leading U.S. general imports from China, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 41,915 40,409 37,052 -8.3
8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit,
keyboard and a display 38,705 36,663 33,608 -8.3
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 13,288 16,862 18,892 12.0
9503.00 Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dolls’ carriages; dolls; other toys; etc. 10,319 11,533 12,006 4.1
8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or optical readers, transcribing
machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 10,631 10,819 10,205 -5.7
8504.40 Electrical static converters; power supplies for adp machines or units of 8471 4,479 4,717 4,423 -6.2
9504.50 Video game consoles and machines, other than those of subheading 9504.30 4,537 4,690 3,546 -24.4
9401.61 Seats with wooden frames, upholstered, n.e.s.o.i. 2,953 3,355 3,452 2.9
8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, color, n.e.s.o.i. 4,190 4,362 3,359 -23.0
8528.59 Monitors, not incorporating television reception apparatus, n.e.s.o.i. 2,037 2,427 3,307 36.3
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 2,901 3,230 3,256 0.8
8543.70 Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 2,373 2,938 3,236 10.1
8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying machines and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 3,918 3,544 3,219 -9.2
9403.20 Metal furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 2,843 3,111 3,193 2.6
8523.51 Solid-state non-volatile semiconductor storage devices 2,083 2,702 3,003 11.1
9405.40 Electric lamps and lighting fittings, n.e.s.o.i. 2,466 2,616 2,949 12.7
4202.92 Container bags, boxes, cases and satchels n.e.s.o.i., with outer surface of sheeting of plastics or of textile materials 3,058 3,159 2,918 -7.7
6404.19 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials, n.e.s.o.i. 2,525 2,870 2,781 -3.1
6402.99 Footwear, with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 3,494 3,365 2,777 -17.5
6403.99 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather and uppers of leather n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 3,868 3,528 2,773 -21.4
6307.90 Made-up textile articles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,348 2,606 2,697 3.5
8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 3,598 3,167 2,632 -16.9
9403.60 Wooden furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 2,517 2,672 2,578 -3.5
8544.42 Electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 1000 v, fitted with connectors, n.e.s.o.i. 2,449 2,601 2,499 -3.9
8443.31 Machines which perform two or more of the functions of printing, copying or fax transmission, capable of connecting to an ADP
machine or to a network 3,188 2,828 2,466 -12.8
Total of items shown 176,683 180,775 172,827 -4.4
All other products 291,801 302,470 289,986 -4.1
Total of all commodities 468,484 483,245 462,813 -4.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; adp = automatic data processing.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |263
Table A.35 U.S. total exports to Canada, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 27,373 26,133 25,779 -1.4
2 Forest products 10,788 10,200 9,676 -5.1
3 Chemicals and related products 41,283 38,209 36,376 -4.8
4 Energy-related products 34,040 22,119 16,213 -26.7
5 Textiles and apparel 5,531 5,208 5,033 -3.4
6 Footwear 497 501 507 1.3
7 Minerals and metals 30,597 26,455 24,791 -6.3
8 Machinery 32,107 29,160 26,079 -10.6
9 Transportation equipment 78,094 74,233 72,846 -1.9
10 Electronic products 35,172 32,438 31,214 -3.8
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 9,903 8,853 8,415 -4.9
12 Special provisions 7,431 7,100 9,031 27.2
Total 312,817 280,609 265,961 -5.2
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 26,437 25,290 25,292 (a)
2 Forest products 18,968 18,068 18,711 3.6
3 Chemicals and related products 33,518 32,211 29,694 -7.8
4 Energy-related products 117,928 70,772 55,053 -22.2
5 Textiles and apparel 2,303 2,243 2,184 -2.6
6 Footwear 59 73 50 -31.7
7 Minerals and metals 33,324 29,770 28,785 -3.3
8 Machinery 13,694 12,914 12,161 -5.8
9 Transportation equipment 74,538 73,888 73,607 -0.4
10 Electronic products 9,114 8,935 8,924 -0.1
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 4,528 5,251 5,538 5.5
12 Special provisions 14,866 16,741 18,068 7.9
Total 349,278 296,156 278,067 -6.1
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than 0.05 percent.

The Year in Trade 2016
264| www.usitc.gov
Table A.37 Leading U.S. total exports to Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 6,442 6,652 7,380 10.9
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 6,882 6,243 7,370 18.1
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 7,478 8,285 7,352 -11.3
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 6,802 6,273 5,649 -10.0
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 8,613 4,956 5,147 3.9
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 5,073 4,752 5,112 7.6
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 11,543 8,104 4,631 -42.9
8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder
capacity 3,047 3,005 3,893 29.5
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,825 2,758 2,803 1.6
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 5,575 4,039 2,758 -31.7
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 2,383 2,184 2,038 -6.7
8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit,
keyboard and a display 2,177 2,053 2,033 -1.0
8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,379 1,928 2,011 4.3
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 2,208 1,970 1,943 -1.4
8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes; parts thereof 1,380 1,469 1,489 1.4
2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 4,447 2,229 1,471 -34.0
8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 1,696 1,585 1,398 -11.8
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 1,619 1,394 1,347 -3.4
8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 2,048 1,969 1,269 -35.5
8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes for motor vehicles 1,151 1,250 1,262 0.9
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 997 1,480 1,243 -16.0
8708.80 Suspension shock absorbers for motor vehicles 1,271 1,239 1,211 -2.3
8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of electricity, for a voltage not exceeding
1,000 v 1,326 1,206 1,196 -0.9
7606.12 Aluminum alloy rectangular (including square) plates, sheets and strip, over 0.2 mm thick 1,252 1,253 1,180 -5.8
9401.90 Parts of seats (except parts of medical, dentists’, barbers’ and similar seats), n.e.s.o.i. 1,089 1,148 1,159 0.9
Total of items shown 91,701 79,425 74,343 -6.4
All other products 221,116 201,184 191,617 -4.8
Total of all commodities 312,817 280,609 265,961 -5.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 |265
Table A.38 Leading U.S. general imports from Canada, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 83,155 46,972 36,190 -23.0
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 23,964 21,072 21,848 3.7
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 18,628 21,044 21,518 2.3
2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 12,615 6,834 5,942 -13.1
4407.10 Coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, etc., over 6 mm (.236 in.) thick 4,810 4,425 5,551 25.5
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 5,729 4,749 3,755 -20.9
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,611 3,703 3,452 -6.8
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 7,842 5,863 3,439 -41.3
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 3,165 3,722 3,431 -7.8
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 3,266 2,618 3,057 16.8
8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder
capacity 2,458 2,402 2,436 1.4
7601.10 Aluminum, not alloyed, unwrought 2,083 2,141 2,321 8.4
2716.00 Electrical energy 2,670 2,462 2,211 -10.2
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,203 1,988 2,029 2.1
7601.20 Aluminum alloys, unwrought 2,661 2,484 1,904 -23.3
3104.20 Potassium chloride 2,483 2,764 1,779 -35.6
3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 2,150 1,884 1,766 -6.3
8802.30 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not exceeding 15,000 kg 1,072 1,859 1,717 -7.6
8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 3,331 3,139 1,592 -49.3
1905.90 Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and similar baked products, n.e.s.o.i., and puddings, whether or not containing chocolate, fruit, nuts
or confectionary 1,016 1,191 1,372 15.2
3901.20 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms 1,445 1,404 1,345 -4.2
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 (a) 90 1,317 1,368.6
4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, coniferous 1,518 1,396 1,239 -11.2
7118.90 Coin, n.e.s.o.i. 1,004 1,102 1,219 10.6
1514.19 Rapeseed or colza oil and their fractions, low erucic acid, not chemically modified, n.e.s.o.i. 1,040 1,050 1,208 15.1
Total of items shown 193,920 148,357 133,639 -9.9
All other products 155,358 147,799 144,428 -2.3
Total of all commodities 349,278 296,156 278,067 -6.1
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
a Less than $500,000.

The Year in Trade 2016
266| www.usitc.gov
Table A.39 U.S. total exports to Mexico, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 20,087 18,298 18,520 1.2
2 Forest products 5,839 5,858 5,757 -1.7
3 Chemicals and related products 35,755 34,114 32,996 -3.3
4 Energy-related products 24,113 18,501 20,615 11.4
5 Textiles and apparel 5,732 5,997 5,442 -9.2
6 Footwear 120 134 97 -28.0
7 Minerals and metals 23,062 22,750 20,994 -7.7
8 Machinery 23,207 23,472 23,133 -1.4
9 Transportation equipment 41,359 42,259 39,954 -5.5
10 Electronic products 50,645 54,149 53,648 -0.9
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 3,018 3,080 3,042 -1.2
12 Special provisions 7,394 7,134 6,762 -5.2
Total 240,331 235,745 230,959 -2.0
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 21,218 23,008 24,896 8.2
2 Forest products 1,817 1,951 1,911 -2.1
3 Chemicals and related products 10,657 10,759 10,616 -1.3
4 Energy-related products 30,282 13,674 8,727 -36.2
5 Textiles and apparel 5,976 5,902 5,806 -1.6
6 Footwear 499 494 413 -16.3
7 Minerals and metals 19,505 18,108 18,107 (a)
8 Machinery 29,062 30,101 29,923 -0.6
9 Transportation equipment 96,660 104,406 105,200 0.8
10 Electronic products 65,059 72,477 73,566 1.5
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 6,114 6,547 6,785 3.6
12 Special provisions 8,891 8,982 8,200 -8.7
Total 295,739 296,408 294,151 -0.8
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than 0.05 percent.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |267
Table A.41 Leading U.S. total exports to Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
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. 10,453 10,661 10,867 1.9
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 10,682 8,660 10,282 18.7
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 7,803 5,674 5,977 5.3
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,538 4,992 3,671 -26.5
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 2,360 2,771 3,311 19.5
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,246 3,237 3,120 -3.6
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 2,649 3,457 3,047 -11.9
8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 2,253 2,306 2,814 22.0
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 2,821 3,125 2,670 -14.5
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 2,282 2,325 2,603 12.0
8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,275 2,371 2,546 7.4
8408.20 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel), for the propulsion of vehicles except railway or
tramway stock 3,802 2,666 2,506 -6.0
8538.90 Parts for electrical apparatus for electrical circuits, boards, panels etc. For electric control or distribution of electricity, n.e.s.o.i. 2,322 2,431 2,468 1.5
3926.90 Articles of plastics, n.e.s.o.i. 2,389 2,405 2,378 -1.1
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 2,004 1,828 2,106 15.2
2711.21 Natural gas, gaseous 2,875 2,173 2,036 -6.3
8528.71 Reception apparatus for television, not designed to incorporate a video display or screen 916 1,588 1,788 12.6
8536.90 Electrical apparatus for switching, protecting or making connections to or in electrical circuits, for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 v,
n.e.s.o.i. 1,804 1,810 1,787 -1.3
2603.00 Copper ores and concentrates 2,178 2,502 1,726 -31.0
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 1,920 1,628 1,704 4.7
8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), n.e.s.o.i. 1,512 1,570 1,682 7.1
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 1,596 1,355 1,594 17.7
7326.90 Articles of iron or steel, n.e.s.o.i. 1,535 1,507 1,575 4.5
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 1,821 1,432 1,463 2.1
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 1,088 1,179 1,416 20.1
Total of items shown 78,123 75,652 77,136 2.0
All other products 162,208 160,093 153,823 -3.9
Total of all commodities 240,331 235,745 230,959 -2.0
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
268| www.usitc.gov
Table A.42 Leading U.S. general imports from Mexico, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 14,851 16,388 17,970 9.7
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 11,904 12,816 15,400 20.2
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 10,604 13,445 15,166 12.8
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 7,280 10,178 11,067 8.7
8528.72 Reception apparatus for television, color, n.e.s.o.i. 10,801 11,053 8,720 -21.1
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 27,740 12,487 7,583 -39.3
8544.30 Insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets for vehicles, aircraft and ships 6,756 7,244 7,064 -2.5
9401.90 Parts of seats (except parts of medical, dentists’, barbers’ and similar seats), n.e.s.o.i. 5,785 6,388 6,613 3.5
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 4,378 4,747 4,992 5.2
8701.20 Road tractors for semi-trailers 6,810 7,997 4,756 -40.5
8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of electricity, for a voltage not
exceeding 1,000 v 3,726 3,875 4,096 5.7
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 3,693 3,790 3,847 1.5
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 2,089 2,264 3,613 59.6
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 3,039 3,159 3,407 7.9
8407.34 Spark-ignition reciprocating piston engines for propulsion of vehicles except railway or tramway stock, over 1,000 cc cylinder
capacity 2,785 2,702 3,306 22.3
8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 2,436 2,974 3,224 8.4
2203.00 Beer made from malt 2,458 2,729 3,103 13.7
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 4,019 3,394 3,070 -9.5
8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with separate external doors 2,527 2,823 2,968 5.2
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 2,778 2,672 2,921 9.3
8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), n.e.s.o.i. 2,248 2,428 2,504 3.1
8708.95 Safety airbags with inflator system; parts thereof 1,972 2,312 2,406 4.1
8704.21 Motor vehicles for goods transport n.e.s.o.i., with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), gvw not over 5
metric tons 2,092 2,243 2,397 6.9
8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes for motor vehicles 1,720 1,948 2,090 7.3
8415.90 Parts, n.e.s.o.i., of air conditioning machines 2,247 1,950 1,984 1.7
Total of items shown 146,735 144,007 144,267 0.2
All other products 149,004 152,401 149,884 -1.7
Total of all commodities 295,739 296,408 294,151 -0.8
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 |269
Table A.43 U.S. total exports to Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 14,372 12,417 12,131 -2.3
2 Forest products 2,189 2,000 1,894 -5.3
3 Chemicals and related products 11,755 11,197 11,547 3.1
4 Energy-related products 2,965 2,022 2,629 30.0
5 Textiles and apparel 660 569 522 -8.3
6 Footwear 77 75 56 -24.3
7 Minerals and metals 3,861 3,587 3,399 -5.2
8 Machinery 4,341 4,795 4,315 -10.0
9 Transportation equipment 10,411 10,408 11,119 6.8
10 Electronic products 13,077 12,379 12,324 -0.4
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,946 1,839 2,172 18.1
12 Special provisions 1,223 1,155 1,156 (a)
Total 66,876 62,443 63,264 1.3
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than 0.05 percent.
Table A.44 U.S. general imports from Japan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 782 828 917 10.8
2 Forest products 453 460 447 -2.9
3 Chemicals and related products 12,644 11,710 11,525 -1.6
4 Energy-related products 572 656 506 -22.9
5 Textiles and apparel 744 767 736 -4.0
6 Footwear 2 5 9 70.7
7 Minerals and metals 7,402 6,744 6,240 -7.5
8 Machinery 18,827 17,376 17,379 (a)
9 Transportation equipment 65,209 66,103 68,656 3.9
10 Electronic products 22,906 21,676 21,255 -1.9
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 1,149 1,261 1,201 -4.8
12 Special provisions 3,815 3,776 3,331 -11.8
Total 134,505 131,364 132,202 0.6
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than 0.05 percent.

The Year in Trade 2016
270| www.usitc.gov
Table A.45 Leading U.S. total exports to Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 6,503 6,385 6,879 7.7
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 2,696 2,034 2,110 3.7
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 2,243 2,017 2,038 1.0
2711.12 Propane, liquefied 918 616 1,317 113.7
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 1,205 1,169 1,227 5.0
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 514 789 1,101 39.6
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 1,004 1,048 1,001 -4.5
0203.19 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., fresh or chilled 996 898 974 8.4
2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 747 557 950 70.6
2909.19 Acyclic ethers (excluding diethyl ether) and their halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives 855 720 912 26.6
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 779 1,204 847 -29.7
0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 753 599 794 32.7
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 615 605 705 16.6
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 746 677 692 2.2
9018.39 Medical, etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 738 681 673 -1.2
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 602 529 654 23.7
1001.99 Wheat and meslin, not durum wheat, other than seed 915 747 609 -18.4
0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 840 575 483 -16.0
8411.99 Parts of gas turbines, n.e.s.o.i. (other than parts for turbojets or turbopropellers) 245 344 451 31.1
9021.39 Artificial joints and parts and accessories thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 531 535 435 -18.5
1214.90 Forage products, n.e.s.o.i., including rutabagas (swedes), mangolds, fodder roots, hay, clover, forage kale, vetches etc., whether or not
in pellet form 502 476 435 -8.6
3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of heading 3002 or 3006 450 397 414 4.3
2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 446 334 390 16.7
8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, etc., parts and accessories 297 349 362 3.6
4403.20 Coniferous wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood or roughly squared, not treated 424 361 360 -0.4
Total of items shown 26,564 24,645 26,813 8.8
All other products 40,312 37,798 36,451 -3.6
Total of all commodities 66,876 62,443 63,264 1.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |271
Table A.46 Leading U.S. general imports from Japan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 20,474 22,457 26,340 17.3
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 12,145 11,912 10,555 -11.4
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 4,851 4,737 4,471 -5.6
8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 3,088 2,294 2,689 17.2
8443.99 Parts and accessories of printers, copying machines and facsimile machines, n.e.s.o.i. 2,988 2,877 2,598 -9.7
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 1,186 1,375 2,312 68.2
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 2,196 2,171 2,092 -3.7
8429.52 Mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders with 360 degree revolving superstructure, self-propelled 2,055 2,032 1,942 -4.4
8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 1,870 1,912 1,815 -5.1
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 408 926 1,391 50.3
8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), n.e.s.o.i. 1,330 1,222 1,288 5.4
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 1,520 898 1,195 33.1
8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders 1,066 1,033 1,031 -0.2
8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, etc., parts and accessories 902 837 887 5.9
9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus (and apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters)
n.e.s.o.i., and parts, etc. 878 940 871 -7.4
8429.51 Mechanical front-end shovel loaders, self-propelled 526 509 803 57.7
9102.11 Wrist watches, battery powered, with cases of materials (except of or clad with precious metal) n.e.s.o.i., with mechanical display
only 984 924 782 -15.3
8408.90 Compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel engines), n.e.s.o.i. 953 862 752 -12.8
8407.21 Outboard engines for marine propulsion 702 706 748 6.0
8479.89 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, n.e.s.o.i. 587 506 741 46.5
8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 804 771 728 -5.6
8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 596 663 696 4.9
8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 774 866 677 -21.7
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 700 617 653 5.9
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 545 576 642 11.5
Total of items shown 64,126 64,621 68,697 6.3
All other products 70,379 66,743 63,505 -4.9
Total of all commodities 134,505 131,364 132,202 0.6
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
272| www.usitc.gov
Table A.47 U.S. total exports to South Korea, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 7,510 6,736 6,859 1.8
2 Forest products 890 828 792 -4.3
3 Chemicals and related products 7,419 6,892 6,491 -5.8
4 Energy-related products 2,144 1,379 1,726 25.2
5 Textiles and apparel 391 380 316 -16.9
6 Footwear 88 74 53 -28.0
7 Minerals and metals 3,696 3,214 2,554 -20.5
8 Machinery 6,817 6,231 5,611 -10.0
9 Transportation equipment 6,151 7,847 8,591 9.5
10 Electronic products 8,021 8,385 7,649 -8.8
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 811 823 988 20.0
12 Special provisions 686 657 638 -3.0
Total 44,625 43,446 42,266 -2.7
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 673 739 810 9.6
2 Forest products 616 578 544 -6.0
3 Chemicals and related products 5,858 6,225 8,511 36.7
4 Energy-related products 3,067 2,922 2,266 -22.5
5 Textiles and apparel 1,331 1,326 1,272 -4.0
6 Footwear 18 22 27 24.0
7 Minerals and metals 7,717 6,910 5,309 -23.2
8 Machinery 7,111 7,579 7,082 -6.6
9 Transportation equipment 23,960 27,015 25,330 -6.2
10 Electronic products 17,379 16,167 16,568 2.5
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 821 895 968 8.1
12 Special provisions 1,128 1,380 1,244 -9.8
Total 69,680 71,759 69,932 -2.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |273
Table A.49 Leading U.S. total exports to South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 1,999 3,946 3,506 -11.1
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 2,579 2,750 2,094 -23.9
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 2,181 1,928 1,911 -0.9
8802.12 Helicopters of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg 0 0 1,084 (a)
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 1,056 655 870 32.8
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not
over 3,000 cc 401 602 741 23.2
8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, etc., parts and accessories 459 578 667 15.5
2711.12 Propane, liquefied 114 219 549 150.7
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 417 342 504 47.5
0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 335 325 418 28.8
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 175 247 374 51.5
0202.20 Meat of bovine animals, cuts with bone in (other than half or whole carcasses), frozen 365 290 368 26.8
2902.50 Styrene (vinylbenzene; phenylethylene) 275 135 365 170.2
9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war and parts thereof; other ammunition and projectiles and
parts thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 169 176 359 103.5
2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 255 290 356 22.9
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 346 313 356 13.6
8703.33 Passenger motor vehicles with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel), cylinder capacity over 2,500 cc 277 228 326 42.9
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 700 481 302 -37.1
0203.29 Meat of swine, n.e.s.o.i., frozen 345 389 299 -23.4
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 248 259 290 12.0
2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 376 238 287 20.8
2711.13 Butanes, liquefied 105 228 277 21.3
8411.91 Parts of turbojets or turbopropellers 223 299 257 -14.2
1001.99 Wheat and meslin, not durum wheat, other than seed 416 309 250 -19.0
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 156 158 248 56.8
Total of items shown 13,969 15,387 17,061 10.9
All other products 30,656 28,059 25,206 -10.2
Total of all commodities 44,625 43,446 42,266 -2.7
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
274| www.usitc.gov
Table A.50 Leading U.S. general imports from South Korea, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but not
over 3,000 cc 10,159 11,552 10,808 -6.4
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 6,524 6,394 6,287 -1.7
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 2,794 3,517 2,647 -24.7
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 1,527 2,077 2,443 17.6
3002.10 Antisera, other blood fractions and immunological products 37 197 2,353 1,093.7
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum
oils, not biodiesel or waste 2,782 2,606 2,073 -20.5
8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 304 641 1,358 111.9
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. 1,817 1,846 1,334 -27.7
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 1,273 1,296 1,302 0.5
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,518 1,305 1,278 -2.1
4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing cars) 939 1,109 1,069 -3.6
8418.10 Combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with separate external doors 993 1,031 1,045 1.3
8523.51 Solid-state non-volatile semiconductor storage devices 632 692 1,037 49.9
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 878 897 939 4.6
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 592 659 578 -12.3
2902.20 Benzene 816 612 563 -8.0
8708.40 Gear boxes for motor vehicles 402 503 496 -1.4
8708.94 Steering wheels, steering columns and steering boxes for motor vehicles 451 459 443 -3.6
8451.29 Drying machines (except centrifugal type) for textile yarns, fabrics or made up textile articles, with a dry linen capacity exceeding 10 kg 441 466 424 -8.9
8409.91 Parts for use with spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines (including rotary engines), n.e.s.o.i. 395 402 421 4.7
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 396 372 372 -0.1
8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 284 363 361 -0.4
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 702 267 351 31.3
8517.70 Parts of telephone sets and other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data 584 281 342 21.8
4011.20 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or trucks 292 283 333 17.6
Total of items shown 37,536 39,827 40,655 2.1
All other products 32,144 31,932 29,277 -8.3
Total of all commodities 69,680 71,759 69,932 -2.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |275
Table A.51 U.S. total exports to India, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 1,128 1,271 1,451 14.1
2 Forest products 902 713 706 -1.0
3 Chemicals and related products 3,142 3,304 3,352 1.4
4 Energy-related products 1,303 1,158 1,284 10.9
5 Textiles and apparel 178 183 206 12.9
6 Footwear 3 3 2 -52.3
7 Minerals and metals 6,129 7,610 7,844 3.1
8 Machinery 1,527 1,496 1,276 -14.7
9 Transportation equipment 3,735 2,152 1,997 -7.2
10 Electronic products 2,731 2,766 2,645 -4.4
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 398 414 554 33.8
12 Special provisions 326 382 373 -2.2
Total 21,501 21,452 21,689 1.1
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 4,444 3,849 3,515 -8.7
2 Forest products 206 223 251 12.8
3 Chemicals and related products 8,875 9,715 11,159 14.9
4 Energy-related products 4,622 2,672 2,370 -11.3
5 Textiles and apparel 7,383 7,951 7,952 (a)
6 Footwear 349 468 503 7.5
7 Minerals and metals 11,084 10,857 11,431 5.3
8 Machinery 2,199 2,421 2,064 -14.8
9 Transportation equipment 1,899 2,032 1,883 -7.3
10 Electronic products 1,225 1,166 1,210 3.8
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 2,568 2,828 3,041 7.5
12 Special provisions 500 610 620 1.7
Total 45,355 44,792 45,998 2.7
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than 0.05 percent.

The Year in Trade 2016
276| www.usitc.gov
Table A.53 Leading U.S. total exports to India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 3,724 3,745 4,802 28.2
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 1,104 2,294 1,726 -24.8
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 1,424 773 965 24.9
0802.11 Almonds, fresh or dried, in shell 405 446 447 0.3
2713.11 Petroleum coke, not calcined 314 273 368 35.0
2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 411 455 329 -27.6
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 376 371 287 -22.5
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 237 250 286 14.4
5201.00 Cotton, not carded or combed 89 115 250 117.7
7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 179 264 238 -9.6
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 100 193 236 22.2
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. 328 208 216 3.9
3105.30 Diammonium hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 278 287 182 -36.7
2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% vol. or higher 78 73 173 137.5
4707.10 Waste and scrap of unbleached kraft paper or paperboard or of corrugated paper or paperboard 159 134 153 14.1
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 130 134 147 9.7
2809.20 Phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids 143 99 124 24.6
9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war and parts thereof; other ammunition and projectiles and
parts thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 30 12 123 888.0
8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines, n.e.s.o.i. 99 140 113 -19.1
4703.21 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, coniferous 80 94 109 16.3
2711.11 Natural gas, liquefied 0 0 108 (a)
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 90 85 92 8.0
3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of heading 3002 or 3006 81 85 92 8.4
0713.10 Peas (pisum sativum), dried shelled, including seed 122 68 90 32.0
3824.90 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i.; residual products of the chemical or allied
industries, n.e.s.o.i 104 78 88 13.3
Total of items shown 10,085 10,675 11,745 10.0
All other products 11,416 10,777 9,944 -7.7
Total of all commodities 21,501 21,452 21,689 1.1
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 |277
Table A.54 Leading U.S. general imports from India, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
7102.39 Diamonds, nonindustrial, worked, including polished or drilled 7,590 7,370 8,620 17.0
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 3,895 4,915 6,388 30.0
7113.19 Jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal other than silver 1,196 1,310 1,508 15.1
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 2,697 1,646 1,469 -10.7
0306.17 Shrimps and prawns, frozen, other than cold-water 1,272 1,189 1,394 17.2
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum
oils, not biodiesel or waste 1,895 994 885 -11.0
6302.31 Bed linen (other than printed) of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 796 791 788 -0.4
6302.60 Toilet and kitchen linen of cotton terry toweling or similar cotton terry fabrics 628 694 699 0.8
3004.20 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing antibiotics, n.e.s.o.i. 442 484 420 -13.3
6110.20 Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, vests and similar articles of cotton, knitted or crocheted 403 414 406 -1.8
7113.11 Jewelry and parts thereof, of silver 351 345 321 -6.9
6206.30 Women’s or girls’ blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 259 284 264 -7.2
6403.99 Footwear, with outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather and uppers of leather n.e.s.o.i., not covering the ankle 188 244 244 0.1
6205.20 Men’s or boys’ shirts of cotton, not knitted or crocheted 218 239 237 -0.8
8701.90 Tractors, n.e.s.o.i. 210 325 235 -27.5
6206.40 Women’s or girls’ blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses of manmade fibers, not knitted or crocheted 166 210 235 11.9
3004.40 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing alkaloids or derivatives thereof but not containing hormones and similar steroids or
antibiotics 143 146 229 57.1
2934.99 Nucleic acids and their salts, whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds, n.e.s.o.i. 141 171 218 27.3
6109.10 T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments of cotton, knitted or crocheted 188 229 205 -10.8
8708.30 Brakes and servo-brakes; parts thereof 230 227 202 -10.8
6105.10 Men’s or boys’ shirts of cotton, knitted or crocheted 178 186 191 2.5
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 184 208 191 -8.6
1302.32 Mucilages and thickeners, whether or not modified, derived from locust beans, locust bean seeds or guar seeds 1,190 583 178 -69.4
9403.60 Wooden furniture, n.e.s.o.i. 128 153 178 16.5
9404.90 Articles of bedding and similar furnishings (except mattresses and sleeping bags), fitted or stuffed etc., including quilts, pillows and
cushions 129 153 178 16.1
Total of items shown 24,717 23,510 25,881 10.1
All other products 20,638 21,282 20,117 -5.5
Total of all commodities 45,355 44,792 45,998 2.7
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
278| www.usitc.gov
Table A.55 U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 3,617 3,278 3,330 1.6
2 Forest products 511 426 425 -0.3
3 Chemicals and related products 4,368 3,680 3,546 -3.7
4 Energy-related products 990 268 134 -49.9
5 Textiles and apparel 118 103 101 -1.9
6 Footwear 10 10 8 -19.1
7 Minerals and metals 1,970 1,287 1,281 -0.5
8 Machinery 4,540 5,101 5,527 8.3
9 Transportation equipment 3,506 3,501 3,744 6.9
10 Electronic products 5,687 5,962 6,605 10.8
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 849 1,821 866 -52.4
12 Special provisions 500 422 478 13.1
Total 26,667 25,860 26,045 0.7
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
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, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 500 516 532 3.2
2 Forest products 216 242 243 0.7
3 Chemicals and related products 3,571 3,675 3,548 -3.4
4 Energy-related products 55 237 96 -59.8
5 Textiles and apparel 1,186 1,188 1,038 -12.6
6 Footwear 51 87 85 -2.6
7 Minerals and metals 5,762 5,823 5,138 -11.8
8 Machinery 4,389 4,435 4,153 -6.4
9 Transportation equipment 3,372 3,589 3,395 -5.4
10 Electronic products 17,342 16,331 16,452 0.7
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 2,911 3,253 3,069 -5.7
12 Special provisions 1,484 1,533 1,564 2.0
Total 40,839 40,908 39,313 -3.9
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |279
Table A.57 Leading U.S. total exports to Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 1,922 2,552 2,937 15.1
8486.20 Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or of electronic integrates circuits 2,136 2,500 2,744 9.8
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 599 843 1,557 84.7
8542.32 Memories, electronic integrated circuits 1,247 1,251 1,047 -16.3
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 710 594 658 10.6
9306.90 Bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war and parts thereof; other ammunition and projectiles and
parts thereof, n.e.s.o.i. 528 1,519 635 -58.2
8486.90 Machines and apparatus of a kind used for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, etc., parts and accessories 542 611 621 1.6
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 722 577 586 1.4
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 395 345 463 34.3
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 270 250 433 73.1
7204.49 Ferrous waste and scrap, n.e.s.o.i. 799 325 294 -9.7
8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 28 270 264 -2.2
1001.99 Wheat and meslin, not durum wheat, other than seed 348 283 256 -9.4
2804.61 Silicon, containing by weight not less than 99.99% of silicon 178 154 254 65.3
8401.30 Fuel elements (cartridges), non-irradiated, for nuclear reactors, and parts thereof 63 68 244 258.6
9030.82 Instruments and apparatus w/a recording device designed to check or measure semiconductor wafers and devices(such as probe
testers, resistivity checkers, logic analyzers) 110 160 219 36.9
0201.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh or chilled 132 165 185 12.1
3824.90 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries, n.e.s.o.i.; residual products of the chemical or allied
industries, n.e.s.o.i 161 107 183 71.2
8803.30 Parts of airplanes or helicopters, n.e.s.o.i. 493 170 171 0.7
0202.30 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, frozen 149 141 169 20.1
9030.90 Parts and accessories of instruments and apparatus for measuring, checking or detecting electrical quantities, or ionizing radiations,
n.e.s.o.i. 164 156 169 8.4
9031.41 Optical instruments for inspecting semiconductor wafers or devices or for inspecting photomasks or reticles used in manufacturing
semiconductor devices 284 257 159 -38.0
2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 148 156 157 0.8
8475.90 Parts of machines for assembling electric or electronic lamps, tubes, etc. in glass envelopes and for manufacturing or hot working
glass or glassware 116 214 157 -26.5
8703.24 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 3,000 cc 161 117 149 27.8
Total of items shown 12,405 13,784 14,711 6.7
All other products 14,263 12,076 11,334 -6.1
Total of all commodities 26,667 25,860 26,045 0.7
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
280| www.usitc.gov
Table A.58 Leading U.S. general imports from Taiwan, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8542.39 Electronic integrated circuits, n.e.s.o.i. 1,383 1,389 1,480 6.5
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 1,000 1,114 1,455 30.7
8473.30 Parts and accessories for automatic data processing machines and units thereof, magnetic or optical readers, transcribing
machines, etc., n.e.s.o.i. 1,422 1,196 1,248 4.3
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 993 1,001 1,206 20.5
8523.51 Solid-state non-volatile semiconductor storage devices 691 981 1,127 14.8
8517.12 Telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks 1,626 1,143 754 -34.0
8525.60 Transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus, for radio-broadcasting or television 60 692 720 4.2
8542.32 Memories, electronic integrated circuits 1,511 1,221 689 -43.6
8471.30 Portable automatic data processing machines, weight not more than 10 kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit,
keyboard and a display 446 334 679 103.4
8525.80 Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders 480 563 609 8.1
8512.20 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment, for use on cycles or motor vehicles, except for use on bicycles 557 616 587 -4.7
8526.91 Radio navigational aid apparatus 812 655 563 -14.1
7318.14 Self-tapping screws, threaded, of iron or steel 481 545 504 -7.5
8708.29 Parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs) for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 458 461 462 0.2
7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts n.e.s.o.i., with or without their nuts or washers, of iron or steel 516 531 445 -16.3
8712.00 Bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorized 402 536 395 -26.3
9506.91 Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics; n.e.s.o.i.; parts and accessories thereof 319 366 391 6.9
8541.40 Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells; light-emitting diodes 818 422 363 -14.0
8534.00 Printed circuits 372 372 359 -3.3
7318.16 Nuts, threaded, of iron or steel 361 374 330 -11.8
8481.80 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, vats or the like, including thermostatically controlled valves, n.e.s.o.i. 369 365 308 -15.7
8504.40 Electrical static converters; power supplies for adp machines or units of 8471 298 316 299 -5.4
8708.10 Bumpers and parts thereof for motor vehicles 251 264 279 5.9
4011.10 New pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing cars) 237 303 273 -10.1
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 284 296 262 -11.4
Total of items shown 16,149 16,057 15,789 -1.7
All other products 24,691 24,851 23,524 -5.3
Total of all commodities 40,839 40,908 39,313 -3.9
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included; adp = automatic data processing.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |281
Table A.59 U.S. total exports to Brazil, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 1,640 857 1,302 51.8
2 Forest products 403 361 339 -6.2
3 Chemicals and related products 10,340 8,530 7,370 -13.6
4 Energy-related products 7,579 3,955 5,099 28.9
5 Textiles and apparel 302 248 191 -23.1
6 Footwear 5 2 5 151.5
7 Minerals and metals 1,250 873 922 5.5
8 Machinery 3,956 2,875 2,125 -26.1
9 Transportation equipment 8,534 7,512 6,470 -13.9
10 Electronic products 7,254 5,553 5,540 -0.2
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 392 269 369 37.4
12 Special provisions 779 615 566 -8
Total 42,434 31,651 30,297 -4.3
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
Table A.60 U.S. general imports from Brazil, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 4,406 3,982 3,729 -6.3
2 Forest products 2,166 2,207 2,180 -1.2
3 Chemicals and related products 2,339 2,039 2,250 10.3
4 Energy-related products 6,367 4,546 2,718 -40.2
5 Textiles and apparel 131 142 131 -7.4
6 Footwear 208 203 235 16.2
7 Minerals and metals 6,235 5,295 4,601 -13.1
8 Machinery 998 783 814 3.9
9 Transportation equipment 4,254 4,781 5,063 5.9
10 Electronic products 275 318 337 5.8
11 Miscellaneous manufactures 384 482 499 3.7
12 Special provisions 2,257 2,691 3,617 34.4
Total 30,021 27,468 26,176 -4.7
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.

The Year in Trade 2016
282| www.usitc.gov
Table A.61 U.S. total exports to Brazil, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 4,730 4,581 4,433 -3.2
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum
oils, not biodiesel or waste 4,298 1,912 2,964 55.0
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 974 653 799 22.4
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 845 636 618 -2.8
2701.12 Bituminous coal, whether or not pulverized, but not agglomerated 790 548 575 4.9
8517.62 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and
routing apparatus 832 601 572 -4.8
8542.31 Processors and controllers, electronic integrated circuits 769 553 567 2.4
2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% vol. or higher 263 236 426 80.7
2711.12 Propane, liquefied 929 403 392 -2.7
8802.60 Spacecraft (including satellites) and suborbital and spacecraft launch vehicles 0 0 331 (a)
8708.99 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles, n.e.s.o.i. 231 298 326 9.2
1001.99 Wheat and meslin, not durum wheat, other than seed 745 108 316 193.6
3105.40 Ammonium dihydrogenorthophosphate (monoammonium phosphate) and mixtures thereof with diammonium
hydrogenorthophosphate (diammonium phosphate) 281 303 310 2.3
3808.91 Insecticides, excluding those specified in subheading note 1 to chapter 38 534 357 290 -18.7
2815.12 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), in aqueous solution (soda lye or liquid soda) 277 259 280 7.9
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof 324 323 251 -22.2
7318.15 Threaded screws and bolts n.e.s.o.i., with or without their nuts or washers, of iron or steel 45 53 245 363.3
3105.59 Mineral or chemical fertilizers containing the two fertilizing elements nitrogen and phosphorus, n.e.s.o.i. 181 188 242 28.5
8471.70 Automatic data processing storage units, n.e.s.o.i. 300 202 236 16.5
3901.90 Polymers of ethylene n.e.s.o.i., in primary forms 247 270 213 -20.9
2836.20 Disodium carbonate 169 214 205 -4.0
8471.50 Digital processing units other than those of 8471.41 and 8471.49, n.e.s.o.i. 186 154 200 29.7
9018.39 Medical, etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof 217 196 183 -6.7
8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of electricity, for a voltage not exceeding
1,000 v 188 172 163 -5.0
3822.00 Composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than pharmaceutical preparations of heading 3002 or 3006 183 183 156 -14.9
Total of items shown 18,537 13,403 15,294 14.1
All other products 23,898 18,248 15,003 -17.8
Total of all commodities 42,434 31,651 30,297 -4.3
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 |283
Table A.62 Leading U.S. general imports from Brazil, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
8802.40 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg 1,756 2,348 2,578 9.8
2709.00 Petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, crude 5,152 3,698 2,191 -40.8
0901.11 Coffee, not roasted, not decaffeinated 1,265 1,267 1,007 -20.5
4703.29 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, other than dissolving grades, semibleached or bleached, nonconiferous 932 976 925 -5.2
7207.12 Semifinished products of iron or nonalloy steel, under 0.25% (wt.) Carbon, rectangular cross section, width not less than twice the
thickness 1,553 1,089 702 -35.6
7108.12 Gold, nonmonetary, unwrought n.e.s.o.i. (other than powder) 168 153 599 292.1
8802.30 Airplanes and other aircraft n.e.s.o.i., of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not exceeding 15,000 kg 308 482 556 15.3
6802.93 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of granite 639 628 500 -20.4
7224.90 Semifinished products of alloy steel (other than stainless) n.e.s.o.i. 463 368 435 18.5
2207.10 Ethyl alcohol, undenatured, of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% vol. or higher 492 487 418 -14.1
1602.50 Meat or meat offal of bovine animals, prepared or preserved, n.e.s.o.i. 218 306 287 -6.2
2401.20 Tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped 251 243 280 15.3
4409.10 Wood continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, v-jointed, beaded, molded, etc.) along any of its edges or faces, planed, etc.,
or not, coniferous 296 291 276 -5.1
2710.19 Petroleum oils, oils from bituminous minerals (other than crude) and products containing by weight 70 percent or more of
petroleum oils, not biodiesel or waste 1,022 571 266 -53.4
8409.99 Parts for use with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines, n.e.s.o.i. 333 349 238 -31.8
2710.12 Light oils and preparations containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or oils from bituminous minerals, not
containing biodiesel, not waste oils 100 198 218 9.7
7210.49 Flat-rolled iron or nonalloy steel products, not corrugated, 600 mm or more wide, plated or coated with zinc other than
electrolytically 23 129 194 50.6
2009.11 Orange juice, frozen, whether or not sweetened 255 183 177 -2.9
7202.93 Ferroniobium 288 226 177 -21.7
8703.23 Passenger motor vehicles with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine, cylinder capacity over 1,500 cc but
not over 3,000 cc 2 3 171 6,062.2
7201.10 Nonalloy pig iron containing 0.5% (wt.) or less phosphorus, in primary forms 644 449 166 -62.9
8412.90 Parts for engines and motors, n.e.s.o.i. 196 173 159 -8.0
2804.69 Silicon, containing by weight less than 99.99% of silicon 214 137 156 13.9
8429.20 Graders and levelers, self-propelled 190 182 156 -14.2
6802.99 Worked monumental or building stone n.e.s.o.i., of stone n.e.s.o.i. 110 121 152 26.1
Total of items shown 16,870 15,056 12,985 -13.8
All other products 13,151 12,412 13,191 6.3
Total of all commodities 30,021 27,468 26,176 -4.7
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. 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 2016
284| www.usitc.gov
Table A.63 U.S. total exports to Cuba, by USITC digest sector, 2014–16
Sector Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
1 Agricultural products 285 148 221 48.7
2 Forest products (a) (a) (a) -44.4
3 Chemicals and related products 7 22 14 -36.2
5 Textiles and apparel (a) 0 (a) (b)
7 Minerals and metals (a) 0 (a) (b)
8 Machinery (a) (a) 1 20,213.3
9 Transportation equipment (a) (a) 2 827.8
10 Electronic products 1 5 4 -16.6
11 Miscellaneous manufactures (a) (a) (a) 4,954.2
12 Special provisions 7 4 5 11.6
Total 299 180 247 37.2
Source: Compiled from official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed May 3, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown.
a Less than $500,000.
b Undefined.

Appendix A: Data Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |285
Table A.64 U.S. total exports to Cuba, by HTS 6-digit subheading, 2014–16
HTS 6 Description 2014 2015 2016
% change
2015–16
Million $
0207.14 Chicken cuts and edible offal (including livers) frozen 148 78 106 36.0
1005.90 Corn (maize), other than seed corn 28 5 39 692.7
2304.00 Soybean oilcake and other solid residues resulting from the extraction of soy bean oil, whether or not ground or in the form of
pellets 67 44 36 -19.1
1201.90 Soybeans, other than seed 31 10 19 82.9
1507.90 Soybean oil, and its fractions, refined but not chemically modified 0 0 12 (a)
2835.26 Phosphates of calcium, except calcium hydrogenorthophosphate (dicalcium phosphate), n.e.s.o.i. 0 9 6 -36.9
3808.93 Herbicides, antisprouting products and plant-growth regulators, excluding those specified in subheading note 1 to chapter 38 6 13 5 -56.6
1905.31 Cookies (sweet biscuits) 0 0 4 (a)
1806.31 Chocolate and other cocoa preparations in blocks, slabs or bars, weighing 2 kg or less, filled 0 0 2 (a)
8800.00 Civilian aircraft, engines, and parts 0 (b) 1 13,284.7
3004.31 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc., containing insulin but not containing antibiotics 0 0 1 (a)
0207.12 Meat and edible offal of chickens, not cut in pieces, frozen 0 0 1 (a)
1806.90 Cocoa preparations, not in bulk form, n.e.s.o.i. 0 0 1 (a)
3004.90 Medicaments, in measured doses, etc. (excluding vaccines, etc., coated bandages etc., and pharmaceutical goods), n.e.s.o.i. 0 (b) 1 663.0
9018.12 Ultrasonic scanning apparatus 0 4 1 -79.6
9018.19 Electro-diagnostic apparatus (and apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters)
n.e.s.o.i., and parts, etc. (b) (b) 1 242.3
9018.39 Medical, etc. needles n.e.s.o.i., catheters, cannulae and the like; parts and accessories thereof (b) (b) 1 228.4
8512.10 Electrical lighting or visual signaling equipment for use on bicycles 0 0 1 (a)
2203.00 Beer made from malt 0 0 1 (a)
9018.90 Instruments and appliances for medical, surgical or veterinary sciences, n.e.s.o.i., and parts and accessories thereof (b) (b) (b) 13,045.3
8537.10 Boards, panels, consoles, etc. with electrical apparatus, for electric control or distribution of electricity, for a voltage not
exceeding 1,000 v 0 0 (b) (a)
3306.10 Dentifrices 0 0 (b) (a)
8414.80 Air pumps and air or other gas compressors, n.e.s.o.i.; ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, n.e.s.o.i. 0 0 (b) (a)
9402.90 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture (except dentists’ chairs) and parts thereof 0 0 (b) (a)
2106.90 Food preparations n.e.s.o.i. 0 0 (b) (a)
Total of items shown 280 163 240 47.2
All other products 19 17 7 -58.8
Total of all commodities 299 180 247 37.2
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Excludes HTS chapters 98 and 99. Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. N.e.s.o.i. = not elsewhere specified or included.
a Undefined.
b Less than $500,000.

286| www.usitc.gov

U.S. International Trade Commission |287
Appendix B
Additional Tables Corresponding to
Figures in the Report

288| www.usitc.gov

Appendix B: Additional Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |289
Table B.1 U.S. trade balance in goods and services, 2002–16 (million dollars)
Year Services Goods
2002 67,991 -470,291
2003 62,339 -535,652
2004 69,194 -653,125
2005 80,430 -766,560
2006 83,704 -817,976
2007 123,160 -790,990
2008 133,561 -800,005
2009 136,843 -500,944
2010 166,196 -635,362
2011 201,122 -725,446
2012 209,424 -730,446
2013 242,893 -689,469
2014 265,904 -735,193
2015 263,448 -745,660
2016 250,601 -735,462
Source: USDOC, BEA, International Transactions, “Table 1.2: U.S. International Transactions, Expanded Detail,” March 21, 2017,
http://www.bea.gov/international/; official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed
May 17, 2017).
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 selected major bilateral trade partners, 2016
Goods Services
Exports Imports Total Exports Imports Total
European Union 270,325 416,666 686,991 229,573 168,182 397,755
China 115,775 462,813 578,588 53,044 16,000 69,044
Canada 265,961 278,067 544,027 53,726 29,320 83,046
Mexico 230,959 294,151 525,110 30,567 23,347 53,914
Japan 63,264 132,202 195,466 44,023 27,357 71,380
South Korea 42,266 69,932 112,199 21,261 8,768 30,029
India 21,689 45,998 67,687 19,949 26,776 46,725
Taiwan 26,045 39,313 65,358 11,136 7,601 18,737
Brazil 30,297 26,176 56,473 24,760 6,742 31,502
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce, accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017); USDOC,
BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, Tables 1.2 and 1.3, March 21, 2017.
Note: Corresponds to figure ES.2.
Table B.3 U.S. real gross domestic product, percent change, 2012–16
Year Real GDP % change
2012 2.2
2013 1.7
2014 2.4
2015 2.6
2016 1.6
Source: USDOC, BEA, National Data, “Table 1.1.1 Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product” April 28, 2017.
Note: Corresponds to figure 1.1.

http://www.bea.gov/international/

The Year in Trade 2016
290| www.usitc.gov
Table B.4 Economic growth trends in the world, the United States, and selected economies, 2014–16
(percent)
Countries 2014 2015 2016
World 3.4 3.4 3.1
United States 1.9 2.6 1.6
European Union 1.6 2.4 2.0
China 7.3 6.9 6.7
Canada 2.5 0.9 1.4
Mexico 2.2 2.6 2.3
Japan 0.0 1.2 1.0
South Korea 3.3 2.8 2.8
India 7.2 7.9 6.8
Brazil 0.1 -3.8 -3.6
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2017, 3; IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2016, 3; EIU, “Country Report: South Korea,” May
2017, 7.
Note: Corresponds to figure 1.2.

Appendix B: Additional Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |291
Table B.5 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2012–16
Country/region Trade flow 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Billion $
European Union
Total exports 265.7 262.1 276.2 272.0 270.3
General imports 382.2 387.5 420.6 427.6 416.7
Merchandise trade balance -116.5 -125.4 -144.4 -155.6 -146.3
China
Total exports 110.5 121.7 123.6 116.1 115.8
General imports 425.6 440.4 468.5 483.2 462.8
Merchandise trade balance -315.1 -318.7 -344.9 -367.2 -347.0
Canada
Total exports 292.7 300.8 312.8 280.6 266.0
General imports 324.3 332.5 349.3 296.2 278.1
Merchandise trade balance -31.6 -31.7 -36.5 -15.5 -12.1
Mexico
Total exports 215.9 226.0 240.3 235.7 231.0
General imports 277.6 280.6 295.7 296.4 294.2
Merchandise trade balance -61.7 -54.6 -55.4 -60.7 -63.2
Japan
Total exports 70.0 65.2 66.9 62.4 63.3
General imports 146.4 138.6 134.5 131.4 132.2
Merchandise trade balance -76.5 -73.3 -67.6 -68.9 -68.9
South Korea
Total exports 42.3 41.6 44.6 43.4 42.3
General imports 58.9 62.4 69.7 71.8 69.9
Merchandise trade balance -16.6 -20.7 -25.1 -28.3 -27.7
India
Total exports 22.1 21.8 21.5 21.5 21.7
General imports 40.5 41.8 45.4 44.8 46.0
Merchandise trade balance -18.4 -20.0 -23.9 -23.3 -24.3
Taiwan
Total exports 24.3 25.5 26.7 25.9 26.0
General imports 38.9 37.9 40.8 40.9 39.3
Merchandise trade balance -14.5 -12.4 -14.2 -15.0 -13.3
Brazil
Total exports 43.8 44.1 42.4 31.7 30.3
General imports 32.1 27.5 30.0 27.5 26.2
Merchandise trade balance 11.6 16.6 12.4 4.2 4.1
Cuba Total exports 464.5 359.6 299.1 180.2 247.2
General imports 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Merchandise trade balance 464.4 359.6 299.1 180.2 247.2
World
Total exports 1,545.8 1,578.5 1,621.2 1,502.6 1,453.7
General imports 2,276.3 2,268.0 2,356.4 2,248.2 2,189.2
Merchandise trade balance -730.4 -689.5 -735.2 -745.7 -735.5
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed February 23, 2017).
Note: Corresponds to figures 1.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.13, 6.15, 6.17, and 6.19.

The Year in Trade 2016
292| www.usitc.gov
Table B.6 U.S. merchandise trade with selected major trading partners and the world, 2016
Major trading partner
U.S. total
exports
U.S. general
imports
Share of total
exports
Share of total
imports
Million $ Percent
European Union 270,325 416,665 18.6 19.0
China 115,775 462,813 8.0 21.1
Canada 265,961 278,067 18.3 12.7
Mexico 230,959 294,151 15.9 13.4
Japan 63,264 132,202 4.4 6.0
South Korea 42,266 69,932 2.9 3.2
India 21,689 45,998 1.5 2.1
Taiwan 26,045 39,313 1.8 1.8
Brazil 30,297 26,176 2.1 1.2
All others 432,377 481,973 29.7 22.0
World 1,453,721 2,189,183
Source: Official trade statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), accessible via the USITC DataWeb (accessed April 12, 2017).
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add up to 100 percent. Corresponds to figures 1.5 and 1.6.

Appendix B: Additional Tables
U.S. International Trade Commission |293
Table B.7 U.S. private cross-border services trade with selected major trading partners and the world,
2012–16
Country/region Trade flow 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Billion $
European Union
Exports 197.8 202.8 220.0 225.4 229.6
Imports 146.5 151.5 160.7 164.9 168.2
Trade balance 51.3 51.3 59.2 60.5 61.4
China
Exports 32.8 37.2 44.1 47.9 53.0
Imports 13.0 13.8 13.9 15.0 16.0
Trade balance 19.8 23.3 30.2 32.9 37.0
Canada
Exports 61.6 62.5 61.7 56.1 53.7
Imports 30.8 30.5 30.0 28.7 29.3
Trade balance 30.8 31.9 31.7 27.4 24.4
Mexico
Exports 27.8 29.5 29.9 31.1 30.6
Imports 15.3 17.1 19.8 21.8 23.3
Trade balance 12.5 12.3 10.1 9.3 7.2
Japan
Exports 46.1 45.2 46.2 43.8 44.0
Imports 24.5 27.6 28.2 26.3 27.4
Trade balance 21.6 17.6 18.0 17.5 16.7
South Korea
Exports 17.9 20.7 20.0 20.2 21.3
Imports 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.8
Trade balance 9.8 12.5 11.8 11.4 12.5
India
Exports 12.1 13.1 14.7 17.7 19.9
Imports 18.7 20.3 22.3 24.7 26.8
Trade balance -6.6 -7.3 -7.6 -6.9 -6.8
Taiwan
Exports 11.3 11.4 12.2 11.9 11.1
Imports 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.6 7.6
Trade balance 4.4 4.4 4.9 4.3 3.5
Brazil
Exports 24.9 26.6 28.5 28.0 24.8
Imports 7.4 7.6 8.2 7.8 6.7
Trade balance 17.4 19.0 20.3 20.2 18.0
World
Exports 633.6 678.6 722.9 730.6 732.6
Imports 424.2 435.7 457.0 467.1 482.0
Trade balance 209.4 242.9 265.9 263.4 250.6
Source: USDOC, BEA, Interactive data, International Transactions, Services, & IIP, International Transactions, “Table 1.2 U.S. International Trade
in Services,” March 21, 2017.
Note: Data for 2016 are preliminary. Corresponds to figures 1.7, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.18.

The Year in Trade 2016
294| www.usitc.gov
Table B.8 U.S. private services trade with major trading partners and the world, 2016
Major trading partners U.S. exports U.S. imports
Share of U.S.
exports
Share of U.S
imports
Million $ Percent
European Union 229,573 168,182 31.3 34.9
Canada 53,726 29,320 7.3 6.1
Japan 44,023 27,357 6.0 5.7
China 53,044 16,000 7.2 3.3
Mexico 30,567 23,347 4.2 4.8
India 19,949 26,776 2.7 5.6
Brazil 24,760 6,742 3.4 1.4
South Korea 21,261 8,768 2.9 1.8
Australia 21,756 7,398 3.0 1.5
All others 233,893 168,061 31.9 34.9
World 732,552 481,951
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, 2017.
Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to 100 percent. 2016 data are preliminary. Corresponds to figures 1.8 and 1.9.
Table B.9 TAA petitions certified, by industry sector, FY 2016
Industry sectors Petitions Share of petitions (%)
Manufacturing 673 56.5
Professional, scientific, and technical services 147 12.3
Information 77 6.5
Finance and insurance 76 6.4
Administrative support and waste management and remediation services 65 5.5
Wholesale trade 46 3.9
Transportation and warehousing 33 2.8
Retail Trade 15 1.3
Other 60 5.0
Source: USDOL, ETA, email message to USITC staff, February 28, 2017.
Note: Other includes all industry sectors where fewer than 15 petitions were certified in FY 2016. Corresponds to figure 2.1.

Preface
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Executive Summary
Key Trade Developments in 2016
Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
Trade Preference Programs
World Trade Organization (WTO)
OECD, APEC, TiSA, and TIFAs
U.S. Free Trade Agreements
Trade Activities with Selected Trading Partners
European Union
China
Canada
Mexico
Japan
Republic of Korea
India
Taiwan
Brazil
Cuba

Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview of U.S. Trade
Scope and Approach of the Report
Organization of the Report
Sources
Overview of the U.S. and Global Economies in 2016
U.S. Economic Trends in 2016
Global Economic Trends in 2016
Exchange Rate Trends
U.S. Trade in Goods in 2016
U.S. Merchandise Trade by Product Category
Exports
Imports
U.S. Merchandise Trade with Selected Leading Partners
U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement Partners
U.S. Imports under Trade Preference Programs
U.S. Trade in Services in 201646F
U.S. Services Trade by Product Category
Exports
Imports
U.S. Services Trade with Leading Partners
Timeline of Selected Key Trade Activities
Chapter 2 Administration of U.S. Trade Laws and Regulations
Import Relief Laws
Safeguard Actions
Laws against Unfair Trade Practices
Section 301
Section 301 Investigations
Special 301
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Reviews
Antidumping Duty Investigations
Countervailing Duty Investigations
Reviews of Outstanding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders/Suspension Agreements
Section 129 Investigations
Section 337 Investigations
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Assistance for Workers
Assistance for Firms
Tariff Preference Programs
Generalized System of Preferences
African Growth and Opportunity Act
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
Haiti Initiatives

Chapter 3 The World Trade Organization
WTO
General Council
Work Programs, Decisions, Waivers, and Reviews
Accessions
Expansion of the Information Technology Agreement
Agreement on Trade Facilitation
Negotiations on an Environmental Goods Agreement
Discussions on Fisheries Subsidies
Selected Plurilateral Agreements Already in Force
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft
Agreement on Government Procurement

Dispute Settlement Body
New Requests for Consultations and New Panels Established
Requests for Consultations Filed during 2016 in Which the United States Was the Complaining Party or the Responding Party
Requests in Which the United States Was the Complaining Party
Requests in Which the United States Was the Responding Party
Panels Established during 2016 at the Request of the United States
China—Export Duties on Certain Raw Materials (DS508)
Panels Established during 2016 in Which the United States Was the Named Respondent
United States—Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from Canada (DS505)

Panel and Appellate Body Reports Issued and/or Adopted during 2016 That Involve the United States
Reports in Which the United States Was the Complainant
India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules (DS456)
Indonesia—Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals, and Animal Products (DS478)
Reports in Which the United States Was the Respondent
United States—Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea (DS464)
United States—Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China (DS471)
United States—Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft (DS487)

Chapter 4 Selected Regional and Bilateral Trade Activities
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Ministerial Council Meeting
Trade Committee
Working Party of the Trade Committee

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Background
2016 APEC Developments
The Second-Term Review of the Bogor Goals345F
Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP)
Global Value Chain Development and Cooperation

Negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement
Trade and Investment Framework Agreements
Developments in TIFA Negotiations during 2016
Developments in Existing TIFAs during 2016

Chapter 5 U.S. Free Trade Agreements
U.S. Trade with FTA Partners in 2016
U.S. Total Merchandise Trade with FTA Partners
U.S. Imports Entered under FTAs
Developments in FTA Negotiations during 2016
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement
Developments in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)420F
Commission for Labor Cooperation
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Dispute Settlement
Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Developments
Chapter 19 Dispute Panel Reviews

Developments in Other FTAs Already in Force during 2016
U.S.-Australia FTA
CAFTA-DR
Labor
Environment
U.S.-Chile FTA
Labor
U.S.-Colombia TPA
Labor
U.S.-Israel FTA
U.S.-Jordan FTA
U.S.-Korea FTA (KORUS)
U.S.-Morocco FTA
Labor
U.S.-Panama TPA
Labor
Environment
U.S.-Peru TPA
Labor
Environment

Chapter 6 U.S. Trade Relations with Selected Trading Partners
European Union
U.S.-EU Trade
Trade Developments
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC)
U.S.-EU Privacy Shield
Agreement on Insurance and Reinsurance

China
U.S.-China Trade
Trade Developments
Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement
China’s Excess Capacity in Steel
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Security Policy
Cybersecurity Law

Canada
U.S.-Canada Trade
Trade Developments
Softwood Lumber
Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council

Mexico
U.S.-Mexico Trade
Trade Developments
High-Level Economic Dialogue
Energy
Modern Borders
Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico

Japan
U.S.-Japan Trade
Trade Developments
Agricultural Products
Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals
Insurance Market

Republic of Korea
U.S.-Korea Trade
Trade Developments
U.S.-Korea FTA
Information Technology and Digital Trade

India
U.S.-India Trade
Trade Developments
India and United States Trade Policy Forum
Agriculture
Services
Manufacturing
Intellectual Property

Taiwan
U.S.-Taiwan Trade
Trade Developments
U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement
Intellectual Property Rights
Agricultural Barriers
Technical Barriers to Trade
Investment Barriers

Brazil
U.S.-Brazil Trade
Trade Developments
U.S.-Brazil Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation—Third Meeting
U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue
Bilateral Trade of Beef and Beef Products

Cuba
U.S.-Cuba Trade
Trade Developments
Amendments to the CACR and EAR

Bibliography
Appendix A Data Tables
Appendix B Additional Tables Corresponding to Figures in the Report

NOTEXACTDI’

MOST BIG BRANDS DON’T WANT TO
TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THERE’T A BUC IN
THE OUTTOURCEI, ECONOMY, FOREIGN
CONTRACTORS MAKE MORE PRODUCTS THAN
THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO, THEN SELL THE
EXCESS OUT THE BACK DOOR. NEW BALANCE
FOUND OUT JUST HOW HARD IT CAN BE TO SHUT
DOWN THE “THIRD SHIFT.” BY ROGER PARLOFF

GEE, COUNTEKFEIT PRODUCTS ARE GETTING SO REALISTIC!
Doubtless you’ve heard some version of that comment in recent

years. Well, they are getting more realistic, for two reasons. One you
know about, but one you might not.

The prong of the pioblem everyone understands is that technologi-
cal advancei in prinfing, scanning, 3-D modeling, and so on have made
copying through reversb-engineering easier and cheaper than ever. And
if you isk ary brand owner why counterfeits are so convincing these
days, that’s the answer you’ll get.

But there’s another factor. Now that Western companies are perva-
sively outsourcing the manufacture of their products to factories over-
seas, they’re entrusting their precious intellectual property-designs

molds, specificationsftrade secrets-to hundreds of contractors and
subcontractors all over the world.

1 0 8 . F O R T U N E M a v 1 . 2 0 0 6 PHOTOGRAPHS BY DAVIES
AND STARR

:r
11

It’s extremely hard to police globa! supply chains, and IP is leak-
ing out through 1,000 cracks.

The simplest and most dramatic form of the problem is some-
thing that Asia-based investigators jocularly refer to as the “third
shift,” the “midnight shift,” or the “ghost shift.” Say a U.S. com-
pany orders 2Q000 dresses from an overseas factory. The con-
tractor fills the order during its two day shifts but then runs off
10,000 extra at night, possibly using inferior materials. Those he
sells out the back door, so to speak, trademark and all. In the
case of apparel, says Vincent Volpi, the head of PICA, a brand-
protection firm, third-shift products may be “substantially indis-
tinguishable, down to the same thread count.”

Daniel C.K. Chow, an IP-law professor at Ohio State Univer-
sity, recalls his own former employer, a multinational consumer-
brands company he declines to name, having a third-shift prob-
lem at a factory in China that produced packaging and labels.
The contractor “would sell the night shift to counterfeiters,” says
Chow. “You’d wind up discovering a counterfeit product in a
genuine package.”

Sometimes even brand owners can’t tellwhether an unauthorized
product is a counterfeit (a product bearing a trademark that its maker
never had authority to use) or the result ofthird-shift activify. In late
2001, for instance, Too Inc., which runs the Limited Too chain of
clothing stores for girls, discovered that discounter TI Max

lN ADDITIoN To literal night-shift activity, the “third shift” is an
umbrella term for any form of unauthorized production by oth-
erwise authorized contractors. A common variant arises when a
brand owner tells an overseas contractor to stop producing a line
ofproduct, and the contractor doesn’t. “You’ve taught a company
to produce something,” says one China-based investigator who
requested anonymity, “and perhaps that’s all those people know
how to do. Just because you have agreements doesn’t mean those
people are going to stop doing what they’ve learned.”

Even in its wider sense, the third shift is a subset of a broader prob-
lem: the countless ways in which companies lose control of intellec-
tual properfy when relying on an outsourced supply chain. IP leak-
age is the glitch in the ascendant paradigm for doing business.

“When you’re outsourcing, you provide specifications, draw-
ings, blueprints,” says Peter Humphrey, who runs a risk-manage-
ment firm in Shanghai called ChinaWhys. “What can easily hap-
pen is, someone takes it down the road to his brother or uncle,”
who also has a factory. “Before you know it, there’s ten or20fac’
tories in that county making knockoffs ofyour product.” In the
mid-1990s, according to Ping Deng, a professor of business ad-
ministration at Maryville University in St. Louis, Yamaha set up
three motorbike joint ventures in China, only to have a local part-

1 1 0 . F O R T U N E M a v 1 . 2 0 0 6

ner sell its technology to rivals. Within four months counterfeit
Yamahas were being sold, Deng says, and by the eady part of
this decade, five of six Yamahas in China were counterfeit.

When this sort of IP theft is throrvn into the prix, the bound-
ary between third-shift goods and counterfeits begins to melt
away. “When a brand owner shuts down a factory,” explains Jef-
frey Unger, CEO of GenuOne, a brand.protection management
firm, “you’ll see the same factory start up two months later mak-
ing counterfeit product. They know where to buy the raw mate-
rials and know how to move product.”

Variations on that theme now challenge the multinational chem-
ical, pharmaceutical, and information technology companies that
have spent billions to set up R&D facilities in China, lured by
the 600,000 Chinese engineers its universities graduate each year.

?’&,’
‘ “::*’:*.

:;
:g’;,

t
_ .r’it

r€
,?,*.
,$
.-

A disloyal engineer can steal a gigabyte of proprietary informa-

tion by saving it to a tiny USB flash drive, according to Humphrey

of ChinaWhys. In one of Humphrey’s cases, he says, an employee

stole a new industrial process for manufacturing a chemical and

then started a competing business in collusion with his forrner em-
ployer’s suppliers and customers. In another, research on nano-
technology was stolen. “In the cases I’ve dealt with, the crimi-
nals are people with Ph.D.s,” says Humphrey.

Brand owners typically don’t admit to having suffered from
third-shift or other IP-leakage problems. “It makes you seem like
you’ve been an idiot,” explains professor Chow. “These are peo-

IP LEAKAGE IS THE
GLITCH IN THE
NOW.ASCENDANT
PARADIGM FORDOING
BUSINESS.

lP chief Ed Haddad urges companies to monitor their supply chains.

ple you’ve hired. You didn’t exercise due diligence.” Most
brand owners approached for this story either declined to dis-
cuss the issue or denied experiencing the problem.

There is, nonetheless, one brave Western company that has
come out of the closet about its struggles with the third shift. When
New Balance thought it had been wronged by a former contrac-
tor in China, it decided to litigate in the Chinese courts. Many

PHOTOGRAPHS BY ALEX MAIOLI

companies have avoided that path for fear of either pubiicizing

their own mistakes or alienating local officials with whom they’ll
be dealing. But New Balance chose to fight. Other brand owners

can learn much from its eye-popping experience.

FROM A SEVENTH-FLOOR picture window at New Balance head-

quarters in Boston’s Brighton section, the concrete horseshoe of

Harvard Stadium looms to the northeast, while stately Baker Li-

brary of Harvard Business School commands the view due east’

Yet the most noteworthy landmark lies just out of sight, about a

mile to the west. There stands a tarity: a functioning American

shoe factory.
Executives at New Balance, a private company celebrating its

100th anniversary this year, are proud to own that plant and four

others in New England. They still produce 25% of the com-

pany’s footwear. But tradition and patriotism carry a company

only so far: New Balance, which reported $1’54 billion in sales last

yeal competes in the same world as everyone else’ About 707o of

its shoes are now made in China, and the other 57o inYietnam’

New Balance began outsourcing in the early 1980s, using fac-

tories in Japan, then South Korea, then Taiwan. In the early 1990s

its Taiwanese suppliers began moving their factories to mainland

China. One of those contractors was Horace Chang, now 59, a

tough, keen businessman. (Chang declined to be interviewed for

this article, citing New Balance’s legal proceedings against him’)

In 1990 Chang built a factory in Yang Jiang City, in Guangdong
province near Hong Kong. At first his factory, which can employ

up to 4,000workers, made New Balance shoes onlyfor export. But

in January 1995, at Chang’s request, New Balance licensed him

to also distribute its shoes to the Chinese domestic market.
Chang’s sales were initially modest, according to Ed Haddad,

5J New Balance’s vice president for intellectual property. But soon

he had success with an inexpensive style known as a “classic.”
It’s a colorful fashion shoe with “no technology,” Haddad ex-
plains-meaning none of the fanry midsole engineering that de-

fines a high-performance shoe. In June 1-999, Chang stunned New

Balance executives at a meeting in Boston by announcing that

he was projecting sales of 25Q000 pairs that year–quadruple what

he’d sold the year before.
“We were amazed,” recalls Haddad. But not pleased. New Bal-

ance executives feared that the company’s name was becoming

associated in China with a fashion shoe, jeopardizing its reputa-
tion as a performance brand. They told Chang to pull back from

selling classics. “He was dumbfounded,” Haddad recalls. “He
came here thinking he was doing a great thing-like the cat that

brings you the dead mouse-and we slapped him on the hand.”

Chang didn’t pull back. Rather, he ordered materials to pro-

duce 450,000 pairs, as the New Balance sourcing department re-
ported to its alarmed management later thatyear. Soon Chang’s

inexpensive shoe was seeping out of China into premium mar-

kets like Japan. Licensed New Balance distributors there were

furious. In August 1999, New Balance notified Chang that it was

terminating his license to make and distribute classics, effective
Dec. 31, 1999.

“What happened then is when everythingwentcrazy,” Haddad

recounts. Upon termination, the contract called for Chang to re-

turn to New Balance all its confidential technical, production,

sales, and marketing information, including molds, specifications’
signs, labels, packages, wrappers, and ads. He didn’t.

M a y 1 , 2 0 0 6 F O R T U N E ‘ L 1 3

,,FIe eontinued to sell,” says Haddad, “and was actively trying

msell product outside the country: in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Italy,

Germiny.” (It’s unclear whether Chang continued to make clas-

s-ics after 1999 or sold stockpiled inventory. Chang told the Wall

StteetJoumal inlate2002,when it wrote about the situation, that

he still considered himself entitled to make New Balance shoes.)

At New Balance’s request, the provincial divisions of China’s

Administration of Industry and Commerce (AIC) seized about

10Q000 pairs of Chang’s shoes from his stores and factories. Dur-
ing one raid New Balance made an alarming discovery: Chang
had launched a competing line of classic-style sneakers under
his own brand. These he called Henkees (a meaningless word
in Chinese), and he marked them with a .
logo on the saddle that purported to be 5
a distortion of “Hi.” At a glance it looked 3
a lot like New Balance’s block N saddle Q
design. Chang had obtained a Chinese

trademark on the Hi logo without New
Balance’s noticing.

Like most Western companies doing
business in Asia, New Balance had in-
serted arbitration clauses in its contracts
so that it wouldn’t have to deal with for-
eign courts. Disputes were to be heard by
an international arbiter applying Massa-
chusetts law. But while an arbiter could as-
sess damages, he could not provide New
Balance what it needed in this crisis: an in-
junction stopping Chang from selling New
Balance classics. To get that, the company
had to sue in the Shenzhen Intermediate
People’s Court for Guangdong province.
In late 2000 it did.

To oversee the litigation the company
retained Harley Lewin, an IP litigator at
New York City’s Greenberg Traurig. A
b a r r e l – c h e s t e d m a n w i t h a t r i m w h i t e
beard, Lewin decorates his office with
trophies from past assignments: a gor-
geous leather Chlo6 handbag, buttery but
bogus; a bottle of Pure Vodka that mim-
ics an Absolut bottle’s design; a phony Titleist golf ball. “I’ve
tried cases in 45 countries over 30 years,” he says. “I sit there
next to counsel in the courtroom in Israel, Cypress, Mexico,
Paraguay, Brazil. So I’m pretty ready for any hook somebody’s
going to throw at me.”

China’s intellectual-property laws are actually pretty good,
Lewin explains. They were upgraded as a condition of its acces-
sion to the World Trade Organization in 2001. But the chal-
lenges of litigating in China have “nothing to do with the law as
written,” he says. “They have much to do with the law as applied.”

China’s courts are a product ofsome extraordinary recent his-
tory. In the late 1950s, Chinese lawyers were denounced as “right-
ists” and began fleeing the profession. From 1966 to 1976, during
the Cultural Revolution, the nation’s legal system was abolished,
its law schools shuttered, and its remaining lawyers sent to the
countryside for reeducation through labor. The nation’s current
lggal system has been entirely rebuilt since 1979, and it bears some
sc4rs. Mos-t of the older judges are not lawyers, for instance, but

Litlgator Harley Lewin has overseen intellectual-property suits in 45 countries wer 30 yean.

workers their jobs-he was up against it. Still, when the Shenzhen
court handed Chang a sweeping victory in February 2002,Lew-
in was surprised.

The court found that while New Balance had terminated its
licenses with Chang’s Hong Kong operating company, it had
failed to do so with respect to Chang’s Yang Jiang factory. And
though that factory was never licensed to distribute New Balance
shoes, the court found that its license to make shoes carried an
implied license to distribute-and even a right to do so without
paylng any royalties.

Lewin considered the court’s reasoning so implausible that he
suspected corruption, he admits. He appealed to the Guangdong
province Fligh Court. The High Court heard the case during the
summer of 2O02. Then Lewin heard nothing for many months.
Eventually he hired an investigator to make inquiries. Finallyword
came back through two intermediaries: “For $300,000 we could
have our decision,” Lewin says.

former military or police officials. Judges outnumber lawyers in
China 200,000 to i40,000.

More important, even legally trained judges have scant judicial
independence, according to Jerome Cohen, a law professor at New
York University and a renowned authorify on the Chinese legal sys-
tem. “They are under political control,” he says. “Judges are se-
lected locally, paid locally, promoted locally, and fired locally. A for-
eign company-or even a Chinese company from another part of
China-going up against a locally owned enterprise has an uphill
fight.” Plus, Cohen adds, “comrption is a very serious problem.”

Lewin understood that since New Balance was trying to enforce
Chang’s contract termination-potentially costing local factory

M a y 1 , 2 0 0 6 F O R T U N E ‘ 1 1 5

“We were on the head of a pin,” he recails. “Clearly we weren’t
going to do it. But you’re being asked directly by the tribunal
hearing your case.” As politely as he could, he responded that,
no, New Balance really couldn’t do anything like that.

More weeks passed. Lewin made more inquiries. Word came
back again. “The price was down to a hundred grand,” he says.
“As God is my witness.” New Balance again refused.

Still more time passed. In September 2003 the lead judge on
the three-judge panel contacted New Balance through a differ-
ent intermediary. He asked for $100,000 again, and then came
down to $50,000, according to Lewin. This time New Balance

..TO INTERPRET AN
AMERICAN COMPANY-
H O W W E T H I H K , H O W
WE OPHRATE-THAT’S
REALLY DISTURBING.”

Next-generatlon knockoff New Barlun, intrcduced in 2005′ even
mimics New Balance marketing: genuine article (left) and takeoff.

reported the request to the province’s supervisory bureau for
courts. In April 2004, after no action had been taken, New Bal-
ance formally petitioned the court to replace the judge, though
without stating the reason. A few days later the judge was re-
moved from the case (but not from the bench). No explanation
was given. (Asked about Lewin’s allegations by phone, the re-
placed judge told FoRTUNE, “That’s impossible. Are you in-
terviewing me? You cannot interview me like this,” and hung
up. In response to a letter outlining the accusations, a court pub-

lic affairs staffer said lbreign media had to direct inquiries to the
Foreign Ministry.)

We don’t need to speculate about the way a Western judge

might have viewed the same facts, because in 2004 one did. Af-
ter New Balance invoked its arbitration clause, international ar-
biter Natasha Lisman, an American litigator in Boston, found the
evidence “clear and persuasive” that Chang had sold at least
200,000 pairs of New Balance shoes after termination of his con-
tracts. (Chang’s marketing of Flenkees also violated a noncom-
petition clause intllgt8l’ftract, Lisman ruled.) In December 2004
she awarded New Balance $9.9 million. So far, New Balance hasn’t

1 1 6 . F O R T U N E M a v 1 ‘ 2 0 0 6

collected a penny; it’s still hunting for assets in Chang’s name.
In January 2005 the Guangdong High Court finally ruled. It

affirmed Chang’s victory. The court did throw New Balance one

bone, finding that the company had terminated the Yang Jiang
factory’s license as of July 27, 2001-19 months after it thought
it had. (The termination had been effected, the court said, by a

letter to the factory to which New Balance had attached no legal

significance at the time.) But the belated termination afforded

New Balance no real benefit. The Chinese IP authorities inter-
preted the ruling as permitting shoes made before that date to

still be sold. Accordingly, they released tens of thousands of pairs

of previously seized shoes to Chang, who dumped them on the

market-to the chagrin of New Balance’s new licensed Chi-

nese distributor.
In late spring 2005, New Balance petitioned for a rehearing. It

heard nothing for almost a year. Then, on March 28, 2006, out of
the blue, th€ court granted the petition. The reargument was
schedule{for Apil?4.

The case is almost moot at this point, since only a small num-
ber of Chang’s New Balance shoes are still on sale’ Haddad be-
lieves that Chang no longer makes them and that he’s focused on

his Henkee brand instead. New Balance has petitioned China’s
trademark office to cancel Chang’s distorted-Hi logo, but other-
wise it left that brand alone.

Today the company has a more pressing concern: a competi-
tor that launched in 2005 under the brand name New Barlun’

New Barlun uses packaging, logos, store displays, and slick ad-
vertising brochures that by Western standards are audacious
ripoffs of New Balance’s. “We have counterfeits all the time,”
comments Haddad. “That’s not anything new. But to interpret
an American company-how we think, how we operate-that’s
what’s really disturbing us.” Howeveg as often happens once a

company has experienced an IP leak, New Balance executives
don’t know whether the New Barlun knockoff has any relation-
ship to its earlier problems or is a completely reverse-engineered
operation-albeit a diabolically sophisticated one. Some New
Balance officials have their suspicions. “They know our com-
panyso well,” Haddad marvels.

Despite all the challenges, New Balance has never considered
withdrawing its factories from China. The economic allure is too
compelling, and as Haddad points out, its products would have
been counterfeited in China to some degree no matter where
the company made them. Like others with experience in Asia,
New Balance monitors its supply chain to the extent it can,
checks out contractors in advance, writes tough audit clauses
into contracts, and enforces them. It now embeds encrypted in-
formation in security tags and monitors the number of tags it
issues to combat third shifts. Other companies use invisible inks
and dyes both to authenticate their products and to trace diver-

sions from authorized distribution channels. The GenuOne com-
pany in Boston even sells software that lets brand owners dis-

creetly monitor how many tagged components a contractor

orders: If too few, the contractor may be substituting inferior
parts; if too many, there might be a third shift.

“If you don’t do your upfront due diligence in managing the

supply chain,” advises Haddad, “you’re just going to be subject to
problems.” But after a pause, he adds a weary coda: “Not that you

won’t be even then.” [l

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ International Business- US trade information data ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now