Order Code RL32168
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Safeguards on Textile and
Apparel Imports from China
Updated April 14, 2005
Vivian C. Jones
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Safeguards on Textile and Apparel Imports from China
Summary
Textile and apparel import data for January 2005 indicated that the volume of
overall U.S. imports from China grew by 19.8% in comparison to January 2004.
Preliminary data for February and March 2005 demonstrated that import increases
in selected apparel categories were even more substantial. On April 5, 2005, the
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) self-initiated
safeguard investigations on three apparel categories: cotton knit shirts and blouses,
cotton trousers, and cotton/man-made (MMF) underwear. The textile and apparel
industry also filed seven safeguard petitions based on the preliminary data:
cotton/MMF non-knit shirts, cotton/MMF sweaters, synthetic filament fabric, MMF
knit shirts, MMF trousers, cotton/MMF brassieres, and cotton/MMF dressing gowns.
A textile-specific safeguard measure in China’s World Trade Organization
(WTO) accession agreement allows the United States and other Member countries
to impose import quotas on textile and apparel imports from China if they determine
that Chinese-origin imports of the targeted products are causing “market disruption.”
On December 23, 2003, the United States used the measure to implement temporary
safeguard quotas for one year on imports of dressing gowns, brassieres, and knit
fabrics, and October 28, 2004, implemented similar quotas on imports of cotton,
wool, and man-made fiber socks.
In December 2004, CITA, a Department of Commerce-related group responsible
for regulating U.S. textile and apparel imports, decided to consider petitions for
certain apparel categories still under quota on the basis of “threat” of market
disruption. However, the U.S. Court of International Trade, on behalf of apparel
retailers and importers, enjoined the U.S. government, including CITA, from doing
so. The U.S. Justice Department appealed the ruling, but a U.S. Court of Appeals
decision to delay the hearing of the appeal until early May 2005 could make any
threat-based actions far less effective, according to textile industry representatives.
U.S. textile and apparel production has been steadily declining, and imports
from all countries have been increasing. However, U.S. imports from China of the
merchandise subject to safeguards have been growing at a much faster rate. The U.S.
textile and apparel industry is concerned that Chinese imports will capture the
domestic market share in many textile and apparel product categories since all textile
and apparel quotas expired on January 1, 2005. Many developing nations are also
concerned that the quota phase-out will result in a global consolidation of textile and
apparel production in which only a few nations, including China, India, and Pakistan,
will benefit.
Retailers and other importers of textiles and apparel oppose the safeguards in
part because they believe that imposing import limits on products from China will
cause market inefficiencies that result in higher prices to U.S. consumers than would
otherwise be the case. Chinese officials also voiced strong displeasure with the
safeguards and reserved the right to challenge U.S. implementation through the WTO
dispute settlement process. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Regulation of Textile Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Uruguay Round Textile Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
China-Specific Textile and Apparel Safeguard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Continuing Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Safeguards Implemented and Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Threat-Based Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Domestic Judicial Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
China’s Responses
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Concerns of Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recent Trends in U.S. Textile and Apparel Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Targeted Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Knit Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Brassieres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Dressing Gowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Pending Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Imports of Textiles and Apparel from China: Selected
Categories by Volume, Year-To-Date March 2004 and 2005 and
Cumulative (12-Month) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 2. U.S. Imports of Selected Textiles from China and the World,
1998-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Safeguards on Textile
and Apparel Imports from China
Introduction
A textile-specific safeguard measure in China’s World Trade Organization
(WTO) accession agreement allows the United States and other Member countries
to impose “safeguard” import quotas on textile and apparel imports from China if
they determine that Chinese-origin imports of the targeted products are causing
“market disruption.” Many in the U.S. textile and apparel industry are concerned that
exports from China will increase rapidly now that the extensive system of quotas on
textile and apparel products expired on January 1, 2005. In order to moderate further
gains in market share by imports, and thus soften the impact on factories, workers,
and communities, they advocate implementation of safeguards on product categories
in which imports from China have increased in recent years and months.
Evidence of large recent increases can be seen in import data. Overall textile
and apparel exports to the United States from China were 20% greater in volume
(square meter equivalents) in January 2005 than they were in January 2004. Chinese-
origin imports in certain textile and apparel categories were even more substantial
(see Table 1). These recent increases have come on top of longer term growth in
textile and apparel imports from China (see Table 2). Preliminary data for the first
quarter of 2005 illustrated continued rapid growth in imports from China and in
China’s share of the U.S. textile and apparel market.
On April 4, 2005, the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA) decided to self-initiate China safeguard investigations on three apparel
categories: cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton and man-made fiber (MMF)
underwear, and cotton trousers. Textile and apparel industry officials responded to
CITA’s signal by filing seven additional safeguard petitions: on cotton/MMF non-
knit shirts, cotton/MMF sweaters, synthetic filament fabric, MMF knit shirts, MMF
trousers, cotton/MMF brassieres, and cotton/MMF dressing gowns.
Filing safeguard petitions is one method that the U.S. textile and apparel
industry is using to protect its plants and workers from further rapid declines in
market share and job losses that many expect to occur since textile and apparel
quotas expired on January 1, 2005. Retailers and other importers of textiles and
apparel oppose any attempt to continue shielding an industry that they say has

---

CRS-2
enjoyed “an extraordinary level of protection against foreign imports compared to
any other industry.”1
While implementing China-specific safeguards on these products does not
require direct legislative action, the decision is important to many in Congress
because these actions may affect textile plants, workers, retailers, and consumers in
their districts. Moreover, safeguard actions have implications for overall U.S.-China
commercial relations, as well as for U.S. trade relations with other WTO Members.
Regulation of Textile Imports
U.S. authority for regulating textile imports is provided for in section 204 of the
Agriculture Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. § 1854). The statute gives authority
to the President to negotiate with representatives of foreign governments in order to
obtain agreements limiting imports and to regulate the imports of textiles and
agricultural products into the United States. In Executive Order 11651, as amended
(37 F.R. 4699), the President delegated the supervision of the implementation of all
textile and apparel trade agreements to the Committee for the Implementation of
Textile Agreements (CITA), consisting of representatives from the Departments of
State, the Treasury, Commerce, and Labor, and the United States Trade
Representative or his designee. The representative from Commerce is the chairman
of the committee, which is located for administrative purposes in the Department of
Commerce. CITA is authorized by the President to “take appropriate actions
concerning textiles and textile products ... and with respect to any other matter
affecting textile trade policy.” Thus, CITA has broad authority to impose quotas,
implement safeguards, and request consultations with other nations when it
determines that imports are causing serious damage to domestic industry.
Uruguay Round Textile Commitments
As part of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the United States and other
WTO Member countries adopted the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the ATC, the United States and others agreed to integrate the textile and clothing
sectors into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by gradually
phasing out import quotas in four stages over a ten-year period until eventual
elimination of all quotas on January 1, 2005. The ATC also contained a safeguard
mechanism permitting countries to establish transition-period quotas on articles not
yet integrated, if necessary, to protect domestic markets; required Members to reduce
other trade barriers to textiles and apparel in their home markets; and allowed
countries to take action against circumvention of quotas.
When China became a WTO Member in December 2001, it also agreed to the
provisions of the ATC and became subject to its benefits and obligations. The U.S.
and China had reached an agreement in November 1999 covering a wide range of
1 Autor, Erik O. “Clothing Optional — What’s All the Buzz About Textiles in 2005?”
Remarks at panel discussion at the Washington International Trade Association, July 22,
2004.

---

CRS-3
bilateral trade issues. This agreement incorporated a previously negotiated textile
and apparel agreement (adopted in 1997) which provided that upon accession to the
WTO, China would “catch up” to the schedule of quota phase-outs by the end of
2004. Thus, inasmuch as China joined the WTO in December 2001, quotas on
textile and apparel goods from China have been phased out in three years, whereas
other WTO Members’ quotas began to be phased out in 1995.2
China-Specific Textile and Apparel Safeguard
The safeguard measure used to limit Chinese textile and apparel imports is
different from the so-called Section 201 (or Section 421 for other Chinese imports
generally) safeguard measure most recently used to provide relief to the steel industry
from surges of steel imports. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19
U.S.C. §§ 2251-2254), grants relief for U.S. industries that are seriously injured or
threatened with serious injury by import surges from any country. Section 421
provides similar relief for import surges caused by goods originating in China. In
each of these statutes, safeguard action requires (1) an injury finding and
recommendation of remedy by the U.S. International Trade Commission, and (2)
Presidential action.
In the case of textiles and apparel, a specific safeguard provision in China’s
WTO accession agreement allows the United States and other Member countries to
impose temporary quotas on products from the People’s Republic of China if they
determine that Chinese-origin imports of the targeted merchandise are causing
“market disruption.” Under safeguard quotas, China is required to hold its shipments
of the goods in question to a level no greater than 7.5% (6% for wool categories)
more than the quantity entered during the previous year. The quotas may continue
for a maximum of a year unless reapplied for, or unless an agreement is reached
between the parties. While the quotas are in force, the country concerned and China
are expected to continue in consultations in order to negotiate a mutually satisfactory
solution.3 This safeguard provision expires December 31, 2008.
CITA set forth its procedures for considering safeguard requests in the Federal
Register on May 19, 2003.4 According to CITA, petitions may be filed by a trade
association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers that are
representative of (A) a domestic producer or producers of a like or directly
competitive product with the targeted Chinese textile or apparel product; or (B) a
domestic producer of a component used in the targeted product. Petitions must
contain (1) a product description; (2) import data showing the present share of the
U.S. market for the product accounted for by imports from China is “increasing
rapidly in absolute terms”; (3) U.S. production data illustrative of “the nature and
extent of market disruption”; (4) market share data on product imports from China
2 CRS Report RS20889, Textile and Apparel Quota Phaseout: Some Economic Implications,
by Bernard A. Gelb.
3 Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China. World Trade Organization,
WT/ACC/CHN/49, Paragraph 242.
4 68 F.R. 27787.

---

CRS-4
and the similar domestic product as a percentage of the U.S. market; and (5) a
description of how the Chinese imports have adversely affected the domestic
industry.5
After receiving a petition, CITA has 15 working days to determine whether the
request provides all the necessary information. If CITA finds that the petition
contains sufficient information in order to reach a determination, CITA must publish
a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments, including the text of the
petition itself and a date by which comments must be received (generally 30 calendar
days from the date of publication). CITA will generally make a determination within
60 calendar days of the close of the comment period. If it is unable to make a
determination in that time frame, it will publish a date by which it will make a
determination in the Federal Register.6
CITA’s final determination will be published in the Federal Register. If the
determination is affirmative, CITA will request consultations with China, and will
hold consultations within 30 days. Immediately after the Chinese government
receives the request for consultations, CITA will implement quantitative limits on
the subject merchandise. If a mutually satisfactory solution is not reached, quotas
will continue in force for a maximum of one year unless industry representatives
reapply for safeguards. According to CITA regulations, reapplication requires a new
affirmative determination of market disruption.7
Continuing Controversy
The textile and apparel industry, arguably one of the most historically protected
domestic industries, has lobbied heavily for relief from fast-growing imports from
China, alleging that the imports have contributed to substantial job losses and plant
closings, and threaten to cause further industry losses. Industry representatives have
pledged to continue filing safeguard petitions until a broader U.S.-China bilateral
agreement is reached that will cover all categories of textile and apparel imports. A
more comprehensive agreement is favored because industry representatives believe
that it may provide relief before the industry suffers the job losses and declines
required to trigger the implementation of safeguard measures.8
U.S. retailers and other textile and apparel importers are opposed to any
implementation of safeguards because they believe the industry has already been
given substantial protection over the last fifty years. They point out that many of the
jobs lost in U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing can be attributed to improvements
in technology and productivity rather than from increased imports from China or
5 68 F.R. 27787.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Comments of Augustine Tantillo, Washington Coordinator, American Manufacturing
Trade Action Coalition, at a meeting of the Washington International Trade Association
(WITA), July 22, 2004.

---

CRS-5
other countries, and that any implementation of safeguards would allow the U.S.
industry to continue to remain uncompetitive in the international marketplace.9 In
addition, they argue that even in the absence of quotas, a high tariff wall will remain
in place on many textile and apparel products relative to tariffs on many other U.S.
imports. Retailers especially oppose any implementation of safeguards based on the
threat of market disruption, or any extensions of safeguards beyond the time period
originally authorized.10
Safeguards Implemented and Requested

On July 24, 2003, CITA received petitions from the American Manufacturing
Trade Action Coalition, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, and the
National Textile Association, stating that Chinese imports of certain textile and
apparel products “have threatened to impede the orderly development of trade and
caused market disruption in the U.S. market” after quotas on the goods had been
liberalized. Petitioners said that “the U.S. textile industry, which depends heavily on
production-sharing agreements with Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico,
in addition to domestic purchasers, has seen its production of the product in question
or the component drop substantially because of the Chinese surge.” On August 13,
2003, CITA requested public comments concerning the request for safeguard action
on imports from China of knit fabric, brassieres and other body-supporting garments,
and robes and dressing gowns.11 Formal notification of the safeguards was forwarded
to the Chinese government on December 24, 2003, requesting consultations and
establishing 12-month import limits (effective from December 24, 2003 to December
23, 2004) on the three products.12
On June 28, 2004, CITA received another safeguard petition from the Domestic
Manufacturers Committee of the Hosiery Association and the American
Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition requesting action on cotton, wool, and man-
made fiber socks. The industry alleged that Chinese imports, which increased from
less than one million dozen pair in 2001 to 22 million dozen pair in 2003, caused
severe market disruption. In addition the petition stated that the increased lower-cost
imports placed steep downward price pressure on U.S. sock producers, and led to
declines in domestic sock production (166 million dozen pairs in 2003, down from
207 million dozen pairs in 2001) and employment (16,000 employees in 2003, down
9 Comments of Erik Autor, International Trade Counsel, National Retail Federation, at a
meeting of the WITA, July 22, 2004.
10 “Bush Administration to Restrain Textile and Apparel Import from China.” BNA
International Trade Reporter, November 20, 2003; “Industry Hopes CITA Ruling on China
Textiles Leads to Broader Deal on Imports,” China Trade Extra, November 19, 2003.
11 CITA requested public comment on implementation of safeguards on knit fabric (68 F.R.
49440), brassieres (68 F.R. 49448), and robes and dressing gowns (69 F.R. 49448).
12 68 F.R. 74944 (knit fabric), 68 F.R. 74945 (brassieres), 68 F.R. 74947 (robes and
dressing gowns). See [http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/Safetguard_intro.htm].

---

CRS-6
from 19,300 in 2001).13 On October 28, 2004, CITA determined to request
consultations with China and implemented safeguard quotas on socks from October
29, 2004, to October 28, 2005.14
Threat-Based Petitions
From mid-October to mid-November 2004, textile and apparel trade
organizations and employee unions filed several additional safeguard petitions,
including cotton knit shirts and blouses; man-made fiber knit shirts; man-made fiber
and cotton shirts; cotton trousers; man-made fiber trousers; cotton and man-made
fiber underwear; combed cotton yarn, and synthetic filament fabric. Although all of
the targeted goods in these petitions were still covered by quotas until January 2005,
petitioners alleged that once the quotas were lifted, import surges from China were
imminent and threatened the U.S. industry. CITA published notices requesting
public comment on the petitions on November 3, 2004, and November 17
respectively — a signal that CITA would actively consider petitions based on the
threat of market disruption.15
CITA’s decision to consider threat-based petitions surprised some observers,
due to previous statements to the contrary by James Leonard, chairman of CITA.
Nonetheless, U.S. Undersecretary for of Commerce for International Trade Grant
Aldonas said on September 22, 2004 that the United States would not hesitate to
impose textile and apparel safeguards based on threat of disruption by increased
imports.16 It was partly due to Aldonas’s comments that textile and apparel industry
officials and trade unions filed several such petitions.
Domestic Judicial Challenge. On December 1, 2004, the U.S. Association
of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) filed a lawsuit against United
States, including CITA, in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the
legality of CITA’s action and seeking an injunction prohibiting CITA from, among
other things, taking action on petitions based on threat of market disruption or
increased imports of products still under quota. The USA-ITA lawsuit “contests the
legality of the secret consideration and acceptance of petitions for safeguard relief
based on the threat of market disruption and of petitions for safeguard relief
concerning products currently under quota.”17 The group argued that failure to issue
such an injunction would expose U.S. importers to irreparable harm due to previous
13 69 F.R. 43807.
14 69 F.R. 63771.
15 Cotton knit shirts and blouses (69 F.R. 64912); men’s and boys’ cotton and man-made
fiber shirts, not knit (69 F.R. 64913); cotton and man-made fiber underwear (69 F.R.
64914); man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses (69 F.R. 64911); man-made fiber trousers
(69 F.R. 64915); cotton trousers (69 F.R. 64034); combed cotton yarn (69 F.R. 68133).
16 “U.S. Will Proceed with Textile Safeguard Despite Chinese Complaints.” Inside U.S.
Trade, October 1, 2004.
17 Complaint, U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel v. United States, No.
04-00598 (Ct. Int’l Trade December 30, 2004), p. 1.

---

CRS-7
decisions to source goods from China that they would be unable to import if threat-
based safeguards were imposed on the products.18
On December 30, 2004, the Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining
CITA or any U.S. government officials from “accepting, considering, or taking any
further action” on petitions “that are based on the threat of market disruption by
Chinese textile or textile products,” and from self-initiating consideration of whether
to impose such safeguards.19 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) decided to
appeal the motion, but a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals to delay hearing the
appeal until early May 2005 rendered most of the threat-based safeguard petitions
ineffective, according to the textile and apparel industry.20
Recent Developments
Responding to industry concerns, the U.S. Commerce Department released
preliminary data on textile and apparel imports for the months of January - March in
early April 2005, about a month before the official data is scheduled to be released.
Commerce officials acknowledged that the preliminary data would be accepted by
CITA when considering safeguard petitions, although the final CITA determination
would be based on the official data, which will be released well within the CITA time
frame for safeguard consideration.
On April 4, 2005, CITA self-initiated China safeguard investigations on three
apparel categories: cotton knit shirts and blouses (textile and apparel category
338/339), cotton and man-made fiber (MMF) underwear (category 352/652), and
cotton trousers (category 347/348). According to CITA, preliminary data in these
categories illustrated that imports from China had grown by approximately 1,250%,
1,500%, and 300%, respectively, in the first three months following the expiration
of quotas.21 Although a CITA determination on safeguard implementation may last
as long as 105 days according to CITA guidelines, textile and apparel industry
officials expressed optimism that CITA could make affirmative determinations on
safeguards for these products shortly after the closing of the 30-day comment period,
or May 9, 2005.22
Following CITA’s lead, textile and apparel industry trade associations filed
seven additional petitions on April 6, 2005: on cotton/MMF non-knit shirts (category
340/640); cotton/MMF sweaters (categories 345/645/646); synthetic filament fabric
(category 620); MMF knit shirts (categories 638/639); MMF trousers (categories
18 Ibid, p. 1.
19 U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles & Apparel v. United States, No. 04-00598 (Ct.
Int’l Trade Dec. 30, 2004).
20 “Appeals Court Delay Kills Some China Textile Safeguards, Minimizes Others,” Inside
U.S.-China Trade, March 30, 2005.
21 Cotton knit shirts and blouses (70 F.R. 17978), cotton and man-made fiber underwear (70
F.R. 17979), cotton trousers (70 F.R. 17980).
22 “NCTO Applauds Bush Administration Decision to Self-Initiate Safeguards Against
China,” National Council of Textile Organizations News Release, April 4, 2005.

---

CRS-8
647/648); cotton/MMF brassieres (categories 349/649); and cotton/MMF dressing
gowns (categories 350/650).23 Preliminary trade statistics for all textile and apparel
categories for which China textile safeguards have been proposed are available in
Table 1.
Since CITA procedures indicate that any determination to implement safeguards
may take as long as 105 days, safeguards for petitions filed in mid-April could be
implemented by the end of July or early August 2005. According to the terms of the
safeguard provision, safeguards are “effective beginning on the date of the request
for consultations and expire on 31 December of the year in which consultations were
requested, or where three or fewer months remained in the year at the time of the
request for consultations, for the period ending twelve months after the request for
consultations.” For example, if CITA decides to implement safeguards on some or
all targeted goods in late July 2005, the measures will be in place for five months.
China’s Responses
Chinese trade officials strongly object to any use of safeguards. Following the
CITA implementation of safeguards on brassieres, dressing gowns, and knit fabric
in late 2003, Chinese officials said “the U.S. administration’s decision to request
negotiations regardless of China’s strong opposition runs against WTO principles on
free trade, transparency, and nondiscrimination.” According to Liu Hai Yan, the first
secretary for commercial affairs at the Chinese Embassy, China has not ruled out
future WTO dispute settlement proceedings on the matter.24
In its comments on the proposed threat-based safeguards, China stated that
CITA rules currently in effect for implementing the China-specific safeguards only
provide specific guidance for petitions filed on the basis of actual import increases
and corresponding evidence of market disruption. Moreover, Chinese government
officials have commented that putting all the blame on China for recent textile trade
disputes is “groundless.”25 Regarding CITA’s recent decision to initiate safeguard
quota investigations, Chinese officials expressed hope that “the U.S. side will cancel
its decision.”26 Some Chinese industry executives disputed the allegations of market
disruption by saying that firms that once disguised goods of Chinese origin as exports
of Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan are simply reporting the real country of origin, thus
causing the apparent import surges.27
23 “U.S. Industry Files Seven Petitions to Limit Textile Imports from China,” National
Council of Textile Organizations and affiliated associations, Press Release, April 6, 2005.
24 “China Opposes U.S. Textile Quotas,” China Facts and Figures 2004,
[http://www.china.org.cn].
25 Comments on Request for Safeguard Action on Imports from China of Cotton Trousers,
People’s Republic of China. Submission to CITA, December 1, 2004.
26 “China ‘Firmly Opposes’ EU, U.S. Moves Over Textile Imports.” Asian Economic News,
April 11, 2005.
27 Toh Han Shih, “Surge in China Textile Exports Alarms Key Trading Partners,” South
China Morning Post, March 9, 2005.

---

CRS-9
However, in a possible acknowledgment of concerns expressed by the United
States and other countries, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced on
December 15, 2004 that it would impose export taxes of 2 to 4 percent on certain
textile and apparel products, in part, to encourage the “export of high value-added
products and optimize the mix of Chinese textile exports.”28 In later press reports,
Chinese officials clarified that an average export tariff rate of 1.3 percent would be
imposed on 148 Chinese clothing products, including shirts, pants, underwear, and
sleepwear for men and women.29 Chinese government officials said that the
government’s motivation for assessing the tax was “to avoid trade disputes between
China and major textile producers.”30 Some observers indicate that another reason
for the export tax may be to recoup revenues that will be lost when the Chinese
government can no longer sell quota access to the United States and other developed
country markets.
Many observers also believe that it is unlikely that an export tax set at this level
will do much to reduce pressure on U.S. companies or on countries that had hoped
to retain market share after quotas were lifted. Some in the U.S. industry are also
concerned that since the stated goal of the tax is to spur Chinese export growth in
higher-end product areas, it may result in greater, rather than lesser, competitive
pressure.31 However, the 2.4 cents per-item export tax on underwear is reportedly
causing losses to Chinese manufacturers in Fujian Province, a major underwear
manufacturing area. According to Chinese textile industry officials, the average
profit rate per item is about 9.5 percent, while the tariff accounts for 9.52 percent of
their costs. As a result, officials have asked the government to collect the tax per
dozen rather than per piece for smaller items.32 However, U.S. imports of cotton and
man-made fiber underwear still increased by 154.9% in January 2005, in comparison
to January 2004 (see Table 1).
Reportedly, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has also developed an “early
warning system” to monitor export and import trade statistics and existing
international trade conflicts so that Chinese enterprises, including textile and apparel
manufacturers, will be able to monitor statistics in sensitive product areas worldwide.
Chinese businesses have been encouraged to remain aware of policy changes in their
target markets in order to overcome potential technical barriers to exports, and to be
more active in trade dispute investigations if they arise.33
28 “Taking the Positive Measure to Promote Textile Export of Our Country to Realize
Sustainable Development.” Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) Press Release,
December 15, 2004.
29 “China Clarifies Tariff Rates on Textile Imports.” Intellibridge, December 30, 2004.
30 “China’s Textile Export Duties Intended to Avoid Trade Disputes.” AFX News, December
28, 2004.
31 “U.S. Textile Makers Say Chinese Export Tax Could Hurt U.S. Companies.” Inside U.S.
Trade, China Update, December 17, 2004.
32 “Export Tax Rate Hitting China’s Underwear Sector.” Asia Pulse, March 2, 2005
33 “China Develops Warning System to Monitor Trade Changes.” Asia Pulse, March 10,
2005.

---

CRS-10
Concerns of Other Countries
Textile and apparel industries in other developed and developing countries are
also concerned about increased textile and apparel imports. On January 9, 2005,
Turkey implemented quotas under the safeguard on 43 categories of textile and
apparel imports from China, and textile and apparel manufacturers in the European
Union have been putting pressure on EU officials to do the same, citing increases of
more than 300 percent in some textile imports from China.34 In response to these
concerns, the European Commission (EC) published guidelines governing the use of
the China safeguard provision on April 6, 2005.35 EC officials have announced that
it will decide whether or not to open a safeguard investigation on April 25, 2005.36
Most industry experts believe that the expiration of quotas will lead to several
countries — particularly China, India, Pakistan, and Turkey — being major
beneficiaries at the expense of other developing countries. Many developing nations,
such as Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, have invested heavily in the textile and
apparel industry sectors due to access that the quota regime provided to developed
country markets, and are now concerned that they will lose considerable international
market share to China.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that the expiration of quotas has already adversely
affected employment in many developing countries. Cambodia reportedly lost
22,000 textile and apparel jobs in the first three months of 2005 when twelve garment
factories closed and 24 others suspended operations.37 According to officials in
Central America, 18 plants in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and the Dominican
Republic have closed since January 2005 at a cost of about 10,000 jobs.38
A U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) study forecasted, for example,
that apparel exports from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand are likely to
decline, as has already occurred in apparel categories for which quotas were already
eliminated. Many African nations may also lose U.S. market share, even though
preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) may spur some
34 von Reppert-Bismark, Juliane. “Turkey’s China-Textiles Quota Roils EU.” Wall Street
Journal, January 14, 2005. “Europe’s Textile Makers Urge EC to Use WTO Safeguard
Against Flood of Chinese Imports.” BNA International Trade Reporter, March 17, 2005.
35 European Commission. Guidelines For the Use of Safeguards on Chinese Textiles
Exports to the EU. MEMO/05/110, April 6, 2005.
36 “EU to Decide Whether or Not to Open Chines Textile Probe on April 25.” AFX
International Focus, April 14, 2005.
37 Toh Han Shih,”ASEAN Losing Business to China’s Textile Exporters.” South China
Morning Post, March 26, 2005.
38 Thompson, Ginger. “Fraying of a Latin Textile Industry.” New York Times, March 25,
2005.

---

CRS-11
U.S. retailers to source products from the region in order to avoid high U.S. duty
rates for products originating in other countries.39
Concerns over China’s forecasted increase in global market share led to several
calls for ameliorative action. On March 3, 2004, a group of textile industry
associations from Turkey and the United States formulated the so-called Istanbul
Declaration calling for an emergency meeting of the WTO to review the possibility
of a three-year extension of the quota phase-out due to the threat of increased
Chinese textile and apparel imports.40 The declaration was joined by a coalition of
textile manufacturing associations representing 47 countries on June 17, 2004, at a
meeting in Brussels, Belgium. However, many at the meeting acknowledged that it
was unlikely that WTO Members would agree to suspend quotas before the end of
the year.41 On July 20, the government of Mauritius became the first country to
formally request an emergency WTO meeting, but did not propose an extension of
the quota system beyond December 31, 2004.42 At an October 1, 2004 meeting of the
WTO Council for Trade in Goods, several developing countries — Bangladesh, the
Dominican Republic, Fiji, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Jamaica, Nepal, and
Mongolia — joined Mauritius in a proposal calling the WTO secretariat to prepare
a study on adjustment-related issues and costs arising from quota elimination and to
establish a WTO work program to discuss solutions for the problems identified in the
study.

Further efforts to establish a work program addressing their concerns were
deadlocked at an informal meeting of the Council on October 26, 2004, primarily due
to efforts by China, India, and Brazil — all countries that stand to benefit from the
elimination of textile quotas — but talks are continuing.43
Legislation
Some of the countries that are expected to be adversely affected by the removal
of textile and apparel quotas, including Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka, were also
39 Textiles and Apparel: Assessment of the Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to
the U.S. Market, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Investigation No. 332-448,
Publication 3671, January 2004, pp. xiv-xx (hereafter cited as ITC Textiles and Apparel
Study).
40 Istanbul Declaration Regarding Fair Trade in Textiles and Clothing, Global Alliance for
Fair Textile Trade, [http://www.fairtextiletrade.org/istanbul/declaration.html].
41 “International Textiles Coalition Calls for Emergency WTO Meet.” Bridges Weekly Trade
News Digest, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development,, June 23, 2004,
[http://www.ictsd.org/]; “Textile Makers Shift Focus from Textile Extension to Quota
Safeguard,”Inside U.S. Trade, China Update, July 23, 2004, [http://www.insidetrade.com/].
42 “Mauritius Makes First Attempt to Discuss Textile Quota Phase Out in WTO,”, Inside
U.S. Trade, China Update July 23, 2004, [http://www.insidetrade.com/].
43 “WTO Members Deadlock on How to Address End of Textile Quotas, Pan Turkey’s
Proposal,” BNA International Trade Reporter, October 28, 2004, p. 1747; “China Fails
in Bid to End WTO Talks on Textile Agreement, Adjustment Issues” BNA Daily Report for
Executives, November 29, 2004.

---

CRS-12
the countries most impacted by the tsunami in South Asia on December 26, 2004.
Thailand and Sri Lanka, in particular, have actively lobbied for trade relief following
the disaster.
S. 191 (Smith), the “TRADE Act of 2005” introduced January 25, 2005, seeks
to provide limited duty-free access to textile and apparel exports from least-
developed countries, including Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and twelve
other countries not affected by the tsunami. The bill would provide relief similar to
that granted to sub-Saharan African countries by the African Growth and Opportunity
Act. Initially seen as more of an effort to help countries that depend on apparel and
textile trade cope with increased imports from China, the bill is now being proposed,
in part, as a tsunami relief bill.44 Similar legislation has also been introduced in the
House (H.R. 886, Kolbe, introduced February 17, 2005).
Thailand, one of the countries not named in the bill, has mainly requested relief
from antidumping measures currently in place, including shrimp, pineapple, and steel
pipe, as opposed to increased access for textile and apparel goods.45 India and
Indonesia, also not named in the bill, have made no specific requests for improved
market access to date.

Recent Trends in U.S. Textile and Apparel Trade
In terms of value, total U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from the world in
increased 28% between 1998 and 2003, from $60.4 billion in 1998 to $77.4 billion
in 2003 (see Table 2). In terms of volume, U.S. imports from the world increased
62% (25.9 billion square meter equivalents or SME in 1998 compared with 42.2
billion in 2003). In 2004, U.S. imports from the world increased an additional 11%
by volume and about 8% in terms of value compared to 2003.

The value of U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from China increased 97%
between 1998 and 2003, from $5.9 billion in 1998 to $11.6 billion in 2003, while the
volume of Chinese imports grew more than 330% during the same time period, from
1.9 billion SME in 1998 to 8.3 billion in 2003. In 2004, imports from China
increased by an additional 41% by value and 25% by volume compared to 2003.
Lower growth rate in terms of value, compared with higher growth rates in
terms of volume, may be accounted for by (1) reduced prices for textile and apparel
imports over the time period, (2) declines in Asian currencies vs. the U.S. dollar, and
(3) possible changes in the product mix of imports.
44 “Countries Impacted by Tsunami Push for Trade Benefits From U.S.,” Inside Trade,
January 21, 2005.
45 Ibid.

---

CRS-13
Targeted Imports
U.S. production and domestic market share in each of the textile and apparel
groups on which safeguards had previously been implemented had steadily declined
over time, while world imports increased. However, imports from China of the
targeted goods had increased even more dramatically.
Knit Fabrics. When quotas on knit fabrics were removed on January 1,
2002,46 U.S. imports of such products from all countries increased by 33% by
January 1, 2003. The Chinese share of these imports, which had been insignificant
in previous years, increased to 5%. In terms of domestic market share (domestic
production plus imports), the Chinese goods accounted for 1.1% of the U.S. market
in 2002, up from less than 0.01% in 2001. According to the petition filed by the
textile industry, Chinese prices also fell 52% in 2002 “putting severe downward
pricing pressure on U.S. and foreign suppliers.”47 According to CITA, imports of knit
fabrics from China increased from 42,505 kilograms in 2000, up to 9.1 million
kilograms in the twelve-month period ending October 2003. The import limit
established by CITA for knit fabric (category 222) in the textile safeguard provision
sets the level of imports from China at no greater than 9,664,477 kilograms between
December 23, 2003 and December 23, 2004.48 China safeguard quotas on knit
fabrics expired at the end of 2004, but statistics for the month of January 2005
indicate that imports of knit fabric from China still decreased by 50% in term of
volume compared to January 2004.
Brassieres. With regard to cotton and man-made fiber (MMF) brassieres and
other body support garments,49 U.S. imports from the world increased 21% in 2002,
and accounted for 60% of the domestic market in 2001 and 68% in 2002. The
Chinese share of U.S. imports rose from 9% in 2001 to 24% in 2002. In terms of
domestic market share, Chinese imports increased from 5% of the U.S. market in
2001 to 16% in 2002. Furthermore, prices of Chinese imports of MMF brassieres fell
54% in 2002 (account for 85% of the market), and prices of cotton brassieres fell
15% through March 2003, according to the industry petition. According to CITA,
imports of these items increased 159% from 2000 to 2002, and 291% from October
2002 to October 2003. The safeguard import limit on cotton and MMF brassieres
(categories 349/649) was set by CITA at no greater than 16,828,971 dozen for the
year beginning December 23, 2003.50 Safeguard quotas on brassieres from China
ended at the end of December 2004, and statistics for the month of January 2005
indicate that Chinese imports are up by 8% by volume compared to January 2004.
46 A list of textile and apparel products and their scheduled dates for quota phase-out is
found in a CITA notice in the Federal Register of April 26, 1995 (60 F.R. 21075).
47 68 F.R. 44940. Textile and apparel trade data are available at [http://otexa.ita.doc.gov].
48 68 F.R. 74944.
49 Quotas for cotton brassieres were phased out on January 1, 1998, and for MMF brassieres
on January 1, 1998.
50 68 F.R. 74945.

---

CRS-14
Dressing Gowns. U.S. imports of cotton and man-made fiber (MMF)
dressing gowns from the world increased 35% after the January 1, 2002 quota phase-
out. The Chinese share of these imports increased from 5% in 2001 to 25% 2002.
In terms of domestic market share, Chinese imports of dressing gowns increased
from 4% in 2001 to 23% in 2002. According to the textile industry petition, prices
of cotton dressing gowns fell 44% in 2002, and prices for imports of MMF gowns
fell by 43%. According to CITA notice, imports of dressing gowns from China
increased 736% from 2000 to 2002, and 1,484% between October 2002 and October
2003. CITA-implemented safeguard limit for cotton and MMF dressing gowns
(categories 350/650) was set at a level no greater than 4,094,382 dozen.51 China
safeguard quotas for dressing gowns expired at the end of 2004, but statistics for
January 2005 indicate that imports of dressing gowns from China are down 3% by
volume compared to January 2004.
Socks. Regarding the petition on cotton, wool, and MMF socks, the industry
alleged that sock imports from China increased from less than one million dozen pair
in 2001 to 22 million dozen pairs in 2003, and that China’s share of the U.S. market
surged from about 1% in 2001 to about 15% in 2003. The imports then increased
to 21% of market share in the first quarter of 2004. The petition also cited a marked
reduction in the price of socks (landed duty-paid value) from China, from $9.00 per
dozen pair in 2001 to $4.15 per dozen pair in 2003.52 A safeguard on socks imported
from China was implemented on October 29, 2004 limiting imports to no greater
than 422,433,990 dozen pairs, and is still in force through October 28, 2005.53
Pending Requests. In early April 2005 CITA decided, on its own initiative,
to conduct China safeguard investigations on imports of cotton knit shirts, cotton
trousers, and cotton and MMF underwear from China. These apparel categories,
along with socks (for which safeguard quotas are currently in force), are the top four
apparel categories in terms of U.S. production.
For example, the U.S. textile and apparel industry produces more cotton trousers
than any other major apparel product.54 However, domestic production and U.S.
market share have been steadily declining as world imports have increased.
According to U.S. Commerce Department preliminary data for January through
March 2005, U.S. imports of cotton trousers from the world increased by 17%
compared to the same time period in 2004. Imports from China increased by over
1500% (see Table 1) during the same time period. Similarly, imports of cotton knit
shirts and of underwear also increased substantially (1258% and 308%, respectively)
51 68 F.R. 74947.
52 Solicitation of Public Comments on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on
Imports from China, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, July 19,
2004, [http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/fr2004/csgpc4.htm].
53 69 F.R. 63371.
54 Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports from China: Cotton
Trousers, Filed October 8, 2004 by the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
(AMTAC), et al.

---

CRS-15
during the period. Trade data are provided in Tables 1 and 2 for textile and apparel
categories in which an investigation is pending.
Observations
While worldwide multilateral trade negotiations have been based on the
principles of free trade, they also have emphasized the importance of “rules-based”
trade in order to prevent any trading partner taking unfair advantage. In this case,
China’s WTO accession agreement authorizes the United States and other WTO
members to take action when Chinese textile and apparel imports are found to cause
market disruption.
Those who support the use of safeguards applauded the Bush Administration’s
decision to respond to textile industry complaints. Mickey Kantor, former U.S.
Trade Representative under President Clinton, after remarking that China has fallen
well short of its obligations within the WTO, said “A shot across China’s bow right
now could prove helpful in addressing many of the problems we have now with
China.”55 Since the U.S. law granting China permanent normal trade relations status
also provides for congressional oversight to ensure that China is honoring its WTO
agreements, the textile and apparel safeguard decision and its subsequent
implementation may also lead to committee hearings and subsequent congressional
attention.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, however, called for the Bush
Administration to restrain from implementing measures of this kind, warning that
“clouds of protectionism” could “significantly erode” the flexibility of the global
economy.56
Both U.S. and Chinese trade officials have expressed hope and optimism that an
agreement favorable to both sides can be negotiated, thus avoiding further trade
shocks.
55 King, N. et al., “Bush Sets Quotas on Some Imports of Chinese Goods,” Wall Street
Journal, November 19, 2003.
56 Iritani, E., and W. Vieth, “China Adds Threat to U.S. Trade Tensions,” Los Angeles
Times, November 21, 2003.

---

CRS-16
Table 1. U.S. Imports of Textiles and Apparel from China: Selected Categories by Volume, Year-To-Date March 2004
and 2005 and Cumulative (12-Month) Data
Year-To-Date (YTD) Data
Cumulative (12-Month) Data
Chinese % of
Cumulative 12-
Cumulative
YTD Mar
%Change
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD Mar
month Data
12-month Data
Category
Description
2005
YTD Mar 04 -
Cumulative Share Feb 04 -
2004
Feb 03 - Mar 04
Feb 04 - Mar 05
(Prelim.)
YTD Mar 05
Data
Mar 05
(Prelim.)
(Prelim.)
338/339
Cotton Knit Shirts, Blousesa
518.5
7,040.3
1,257.9%
2,447.9
9,337.9
281.5%
2.8%
347/348
Cotton Trousers ,Slacks
406.1
6,582.6
1,520.9%
2,026.3
8,360.6
312.6%
5.4%
352/652
Cotton, MMFb Underwear
1,255.9
5,124.9
308.1%
5,569.6
9,080.3
63.0%
3.3%
340/640
Cotton/MMF Non-Knit
500.7
1,923.3
284.1%
2,116.7
3,984.0
84.0%
8.5%
Shirts
345/645/646
Cotton and MMF sweaters
134.8
409.5
203.8%
1,181.3
1,347.8
41.2%
11.3%
349/649
Brassieres
4,079.9
5,488.6
34.5%
16,436.8
19,144.8
16.5%
37.1%
350/650
Dressing Gowns
884.1
1,210.0
36.9%
4,428.7
4,880.6
10.2%
39.3%
620
Other Synthetic Filament
1,534.7
13,349.0
770.0%
5,416.7
17,709.5
227.0%
5.4%
Fabric
638/639
MMF Knit Shirts
642.7
2,771.3
331.2%
2,590.0
5,053.5
95.1%
5.73%
647/648
MMF Trousers
615.4
2,271.7
269.2%
2,787.9
4,507.8
61.7%
7.3%
Source: Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel Preliminary Textile and Apparel Import Data. Data in thousand dozen.
a. Textile and apparel category descriptions in italics represent statistics for investigations self-initiated by CITA.
b. Man-Made Fiber.
c. Men’s and Boys’.
d. Women’s and Girls’.

---

CRS-17
Table 2. U.S. Imports of Selected Textiles from China and the World, 1998-2004
Units
Country
Description
(000)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
World
Knit Fabrics
US $
663,847
692,527
748,825
818,826
784,606
742,866
China
Knit Fabrics
US $
791
547
340
31,548
42,871
46,337
World
Knit Fabrics
kg
94,266
99,018
105,703
140,620
138,879
134,717
China
Knit Fabrics
kg
113
44
32
7,011
9,491
10,620
World
Dressing Gowns
US $
404,556
477,336
504,091
512,717
542,211
598,347
China
Dressing Gowns
US $
30,941
28,483
33,676
122,082
199,312
208,999
World
Dressing Gowns
doz
4,823
5,937
6,646
8,538
10,538
12,098
China
Dressing Gowns
doz
290
260
339
2,172
4,269
4,555
World
Brassieres
US $
1,333,951
1,397,023
1,384,794
1,601,400
1,529,692
1,763,719
China
Brassieres
US $
113,083
133,632
120,170
289,812
419,702
446,866
World
Brassieres
doz
38,861
39,216
36,903
44,641
44,254
50,352
China
Brassieres
doz
3,943
4,084
3,185
10,580
16,056
17,736
World Socks
U.S.
$
474,043
564,419
616,270
766,738
846,851
NA
China
Socks
U.S. $
3,925
4,319
8,790
29,580
91,207
NA
World
Socks
doz
58,107
77,886
90,167
121,434
147,283
NA
China
Socks
doz
461
504
976
5,874
21,999
NA
World
Cotton Knit Shirts
U.S. $
8,031,019
9,078,903
9,281,404
9,912,476
10,848,006
11,278,387
China
Cotton Knit Shirts
U.S. $
220,321
208,038
211,981
205,527
197,835
216,499
World
Cotton Knit Shirts
doz
193,920
226,929
234,260
265,157
309,038
322,212
World
Cotton Knit Shirts
doz
2,708
2,523
2,639
2,848
2,602
2,816

---

CRS-18
Units
Country
Description
(000)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
World
MMF Knit Shirts
U.S. $
3,330,284
3,533,769
3,382,606
3,560,179
3,642,711
3,889,267
China
MMF Knit Shirts
U.S. $
233,447
140,567
252,088
204,171
188,274
235,096
World
MMF Knit Shirts
doz
73,965
80,220
78,991
81,116
82,026
86,060
China
MMF Knit Shirts
doz
2,456
1,789
3,306
2,607
2,439
2,924
World
Cotton Trousers
U.S. $
8,665,585
9,825,274
9,726,253
10,404,744
11,376,204
11,354,760
China
Cotton Trousers
U.S. $
277,650
239,294
296,430
315,051
216,290
271,881
World Cotton
Trousers
doz
111,061
125,377
126,983
140,305
154,903
149,307
China
Cotton Trousers
doz
2,466
1,870
2,607
2,787
2,476
2,184
World
MMF/Cotton Shirts
U.S. $
2,882,012
3,165,165
2,837,071
2,561,257
2,729,569
3,049,744
China
MMF/Cotton Shirts
U.S. $
146,137
152,827
151,588
154,553
136,004
160,634
Cotton Trouser
World
MMF/Cotton Shirts
doz
38,187
42,479
39,380
38,155
40,288
43,395
China
MMF/Cotton Shirts
doz
2,195
2,081
2,404
2,540
2,243
2,471
Cotton Trousers
World
MMF Trousers
U.S. $
2,733,797
3,525,925
3,547,540
3,307,651
3,452,882
3,529,166
China
MMF Trousers
U.S. $
279,110
315,179
265,647
284,954
297,328
287,742
World
MMF Trousers
doz
44,144
54,285
56,801
57,775
60,031
61,507
China
MMF Trousers
doz
2,921
2,808
2,334
3,366
3,220
2,852
World
MMF/Cotton
U.S. $
2,997,728
3,053,371
2,869,821
3,078,158
3,146,099
3,310,441
Underwear
China
MMF/Cotton
U.S. $
104,578
98,529
110,009
103,844
120,126
137,039
Underwear
World MMF/Cotton
doz
227,180
229,884
220,921
242,402
255,977
268,287
Underwear

---

CRS-19
Units
Country
Description
(000)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
China
MMF/Cotton
doz
4,988
4,423
5,394
4,446
5,394
5,211
Underwear
World
Cotton/MMF Sweaters
U.S. $
919,091
1,196,158
1,609,135
1,468,845
1,293,112
1,141,618
China
Cotton/MMF Sweaters
U.S. $
86,732
118,285
122,069
100,664
90,276
101,276
World
Cotton/MMF Sweaters
SME
290,505
395,911
572,354
564,268
523,243
469,971
China
Cotton/MMF Sweaters
SME
20,182
30,473
33,055
29,983
30,287
33,052
World
Synthetic Filament Fabric U.S.$
315,863
324,906
258,015
248,374
239,799
267,127
China
Synthetic Filament Fabric U.S.$
1,964
8,633
5,846
8,981
6,571
11,641
World Synthetic
Filament Fabric SME
368,648
308,541
283,901
293,967
253,406
284,029
China
Synthetic Filament Fabric SME
1,747
6,764
4,666
6,860
4,473
166,609
World
Textiles Total
US $
63,742,885
71,691,546
70,239,765
72,183,131
77,436,309
83,312,013
China
Textiles Total
US $
6,128,820
6,527,482
6,536,315
8,744,041
11,608,737
14,559,928
World
Textiles Total
SME
28,614,986
32,864,151
32,811,747
38,288,154
42,225,764
46,941,765
China
Textiles Total
SME
2,035,487
2,217,897
2,210,674
4,963,116
8,286,761
11,667,848
Source: CRS calculations based on trade data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Department of Commerce. Calculations may vary slightly from figures in industry petition
due to agency revision of data.
MMF: man-made
fibers
SME:
square meter equivalent

---