Safeguards on Textile and Apparel Imports from China

Safeguards on Textile and Apparel Imports from China

Order Code RL32168
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Safeguards on Textile and
Apparel Imports from China
Updated June 30, 2006
Vivian C. Jones
Specialist 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 issued in June 2006 indicated that from
January-April 2006, the volume of U.S. imports from China grew by 4.84%
compared to the same time period in 2005. The volume of U.S. imports from the
world grew by 1.06% during the period.
U.S. textile and apparel production has been steadily declining, and imports
from all countries have been increasing. However, U.S. imports from China have
been growing at a much faster rate. The expiration of textile and apparel quotas on
January 1, 2005, led to U.S. industry concerns that Chinese imports will capture the
domestic market share in many product categories. Many developing nations that
received access to U.S. and other developed country markets through the quota
regime are also concerned that the end of quotas will lead to a global consolidation
of textile and apparel production in which only a few nations, including China, India,
and Pakistan, will benefit. In contrast, retailers and other importers of textiles and
apparel have long opposed quotas because they believe that they cause market
inefficiencies that result in higher prices to U.S. consumers than would otherwise be
the case.
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.”
Between December 2003 and late October 2005, the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) formally requested consultations with
China — and simultaneously implemented quotas — on cotton knit shirts and
blouses (Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA) categories 338/338); cotton trousers
(categories 347/348); cotton and man-made fiber underwear (categories 352/652);
cotton yarn (category 301); men’s and boys cotton and man-made fiber shirts, not
knit (categories 340/640); man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses (categories
638/639); and man-made fiber trousers (category 647/648). U.S. producers vowed
to continue filing safeguard petitions with the hope of pushing forward a more
comprehensive agreement establishing quantitative limits on Chinese imports.
On November 8, 2005, then-U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Rob Portman
and Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai announced that the United States and
China have signed a three-year pact limiting China’s exports of 34 textile and apparel
products until 2008. The agreement was very similar to a June 10, 2005 agreement
the European Union reached with China. U.S. producers expressed satisfaction over
the measure, while U.S. importers and retailers, were displeased over the limits that
the agreement imposed.
Some domestic producers are currently expressing concern that Chinese
producers are currently shipping textile and apparel goods to a second country, such
as Indonesia, en-route to the United States (transshipment) for the purpose of
circumventing the limits set forth in the U.S.-China agreement. This report will be
updated as events warrant.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Regulation of Textile and Apparel Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Uruguay Round Textile Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
China-Specific Textile and Apparel Safeguard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Continuing Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
U.S. Import Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Concerns of Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Safeguards Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Threat-Based Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Domestic Judicial Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
China’s Responses to U.S. Safeguard Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Allegations of Illegal Transshipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Agreed Levels of Textile and Apparel Products in
U.S./Chinese Memorandum of Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2. U.S. Imports of Textiles and Apparel from China: Selected
Categories by Volume, Year-To-Date April 2006 and April 2005
and Cumulative (12-Month) Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Safeguards on Textile
and Apparel Imports from China
Introduction
Many U.S. producers of textiles and apparel have long anticipated a surge of
Chinese imports following the expiration of all quotas on textile and apparel products
on January 1, 2005. As a result, the U.S. domestic industry filed petitions, and
received temporary relief, under a textile-specific safeguard measure included in
China’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession agreement. The provision
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.” In contrast,
retailers and other U.S. importers of textiles and apparel opposed any attempt to
continue shielding an industry that they say has enjoyed “an extraordinary level of
protection against foreign imports compared to any other industry.”1
On November 8, 2005, a comprehensive agreement was reached between the
United States and China to establish import quotas in 34 textile and apparel product
categories for a three-year period. A similar agreement was reached between the
European Union and China on June 10, 2005.
While implementing the agreement with China or applying 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, these 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 and Apparel Imports
U.S. authority for regulating textile and apparel 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
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-2
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 thus becoming subject to its benefits and obligations. The
U.S. and China had also reached a bilateral agreement in November 1999 covering
a wide range of 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 more commonly known “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.
2 CRS Report RS20889, Textile and Apparel Quota Phaseout: Some Economic Implications,
by Bernard A. Gelb.

CRS-3
In the case of textiles and apparel, a China-specific safeguard provision in
China’s WTO accession agreement allows the United States and other WTO 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 is expected to continue in consultations in order to negotiate a mutually
satisfactory solution.3 According to the agreement, the 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 included 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
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 will 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 (usually 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 in the Federal Register a date by
which it will make a determination.6
CITA’s will also publish its final determination 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
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.
5 68 F.R. 27787.
6 Ibid.

CRS-4
will continue in force for a maximum of one year unless industry representatives
reapply for safeguards. According to CITA procedures, reapplication after the
maximum time period has expired 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 bilateral agreement is
reached with China 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
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 Additionally, some retail industry supporters believe that if
quotas are imposed on Chinese goods, retailers are more likely to divert orders to
other lower-wage countries such as India and Pakistan rather than buying U.S.
goods.11
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.
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 Magnusson, Paul. “There’s No Holding Back China’s Textile Tide,” Business Week, May
9, 2005.

CRS-5
U.S. Import Statistics
In terms of value, total U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from the world
increased 38% between 1998 and 2004, from $60.4 billion in 1998 to $83.3 billion
in 2004. In terms of volume, U.S. imports from the world increased 81% (25.9
billion square meter equivalents or SME in 1998 compared with 46.9 billion in
2003). The value of U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from China increased 147%
between 1998 and 2004, from $5.9 billion in 1998 to $14.6 billion in 2004, while the
volume of Chinese imports grew more than 500% during the same time period, from
1.9 billion SME in 1998 to 11.7 billion in 2004.
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.
Concerns of Other Countries
Domestic textile and apparel industries in other developed and developing
countries are also concerned about increased textile and apparel imports from China.
For example, on January 9, 2005, Turkey implemented quotas under the safeguard
on 43 categories of textile and apparel imports from China.
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 are losing considerable
international market share to China.12
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 provide an
incentive for some U.S. retailers to source products from the region in order to avoid
high U.S. duty rates for products originating in other countries.13
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
12 For a more complete discussion of economic issues in the post-quota environment, see
CRS Report RS20889, Textile and Apparel Quota Phaseout: Some Economic Implications,
by Bernard A. Gelb.
13 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.)

CRS-6
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.14 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.15 On July 20, 2004, 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, 2004.16 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.17
To the extent that the U.S.-China bilateral agreement limits the growth of
Chinese textile and apparel imports for a three-year time period, developing
countries’ share of the U.S. market will probably not erode as rapidly as had been
predicted. Thus, the agreement will also provide these countries with additional time
to successfully adjust to market pressures.
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
the countries most impacted by the tsunami in South Asia on December 26, 2004.
Thailand and Sri Lanka, in particular, 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
14 Istanbul Declaration Regarding Fair Trade in Textiles and Clothing, Global Alliance for
Fair Textile Trade, [http://www.fairtextiletrade.org/istanbul/declaration.html].
15 “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/].
16 “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/].
17 “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-7
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.18 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.19 India and
Indonesia, also not named in the bill, have made no specific requests for improved
market access to date.
H.R. 3416 (Wel1er, introduced July 25, 2005), the “CITA Transparency Act of
2005,” seeks to prohibit CITA from invoking the foreign affairs exemption from
notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act with respect
to any of its actions related to textile trade.
Safeguards Implemented
On July 24, 2003, CITA received petitions from the American Manufacturing
Trade Action Coalition, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, and the
National Textile Association, alleging 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.20 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.21
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-
18 “Countries Impacted by Tsunami Push for Trade Benefits From U.S.,” Inside Trade,
January 21, 2005.
19 Ibid.
20 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).
21 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/Safeguard_intro.htm].

CRS-8
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
from 19,300 in 2001).22 On October 28, 2004, CITA determined to request
consultations with China and implemented safeguard quotas on socks from October
29, 2004, to October 28, 2005.23
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 (categories 338/339); man-made fiber and
cotton shirts, not knit (categories 340/640); cotton trousers (categories 347/348);
man-made fiber trousers (categories 647/648); man-made fiber (MMF) knit shirts and
blouses (categories 638/639); cotton and man-made fiber underwear (categories
352/652); and combed cotton yarn (category 301). 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 — a signal that CITA intended
to actively consider petitions based on the threat of market disruption.24 Additional
“threat-based” requests were accepted by CITA in December 2004: cotton and MMF
brassieres (categories 349/649); cotton and MMF dressing gowns and robes
(categories 350/650); knit fabric (category 222); wool trousers (category 447); and
“other” synthetic filament fabric (category 620).25
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, then-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.26 It was partly due to Aldonas’ comments that textile and apparel industry
officials and trade unions filed several such petitions.
22 69 F.R. 43807.
23 69 F.R. 63771.
24 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).
25 Brassieres (69 F.R. 77998); dressing gowns and robes (69 F.R. 77232); knit fabric (69
F.R. 75516); wool trousers (69 F.R. 71781); synthetic filament fabric (69 F.R. 70667).
26 “U.S. Will Proceed with Textile Safeguard Despite Chinese Complaints.” Inside U.S.
Trade, October 1, 2004.

CRS-9
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 based on
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.”27 The group argued that failure to issue
such an injunction would expose U.S. importers to irreparable harm due to previous
decisions to source goods from China that they would be unable to import if threat-
based safeguards were imposed on the products.28
On December 30, 2004, the Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing
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.29 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) decided to
appeal the motion, and on April 27, 2005, the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit granted the government’s motion for a stay of the injunction, pending
appeal.30 CITA subsequently re-opened investigations on several of these cases
which resulted in implementing safeguards and entering into consultations with
China on several of these petitions.
As of November 2005, China-specific safeguard quotas are in place until
December 31, 2005, on cotton knit shirts and blouses (category 338/339); cotton
trousers (category 347/348); cotton and man-made fiber underwear (categories
352/652); cotton/MMF non-knit shirts (category 340/640); cotton and MMF
brassieres (categories 349/649); synthetic filament fabric (category 620); MMF knit
shirts (categories 638/639); MMF trousers (categories 647/648); and combed cotton
yarn (category 301).31 An additional safeguard on cotton, wool, and man-made fiber
socks (categories 332/432, and part of 632) which expired on October 28, 2005, was
extended informally the parties were engaged in talks on a more comprehensive
arrangement.
China’s Responses to U.S. Safeguard Actions
Following the initial CITA implementation of safeguards on brassieres, dressing
gowns, and knit fabric in late 2003, Chinese officials said “the U.S. administration’s
27 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.
28 Ibid, p. 1.
29 U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles & Apparel v. United States, No. 04-00598 (Ct.
Int’l Trade Dec. 30, 2004).
30 U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles &Apparel v. United States, Ct. No. 05-1209
(Fed. Cir. April 27, 2005).
31 70 F.R. 29722, 70 F.R. 30930.

CRS-10
decision to request negotiations regardless of China’s strong opposition runs against
WTO principles on free trade, transparency, and nondiscrimination.”32 China’s Trade
Minister Bo Xilai charged the United States and the European Union with using
double standards in their trade dealings, saying, “Double standards should not be
adopted in international trade where you demand free trade for your own products,
while restrictions are placed on the competitive products of developing countries.
This kind of trade protectionism will only harm the healthy development of trade.”33
Some Chinese industry executives also 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.34
Following the implementation of additional safeguards in June 2005, while
Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi praised the European Union for settling its trade
dispute with China, he criticized the United States for implementing quotas before
talks could resolve the disagreement, saying that the move “severely harmed Chinese
textile enterprises that were enjoying the benefits of globalization.”35
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.”36 In response to U.S. and
EU pressure, China announced that it will increase export taxes by 400% on 74
categories of textiles and clothing beginning June 1, 2005. Products processed on the
mainland but listed as originating in Hong Kong or Macao are exempted from these
tariffs.37
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
32 Comments on Request for Safeguard Action on Imports from China of Cotton Trousers,
People’s Republic of China. Submission to CITA, December 1, 2004.
33 “China Trade Minister Accuses U.S., Europe of ‘Double Standards’ on Textiles, Xinhua
Financial Network, May 9, 2005.
34 Toh Han Shih, “Surge in China Textile Exports Alarms Key Trading Partners,” South
China Morning Post, March 9, 2005.
35 “Chinese Vice Premier Criticizes U.S. Restrictions on Chinese Textile Imports,” Textile
World, June 16, 2005.
36 “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.
37 “Export Tariffs for Some Textile Products Exempted,” Xinhua News Agency, May 25,
2005.

CRS-11
target markets in order to overcome potential technical barriers to exports, and to be
more active in trade dispute investigations if they arise.38
U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding
After months of negotiations, a comprehensive agreement limiting Chinese
imports of 34 textile and apparel products was reached by the United States and
China in early November 2005.39
In principle, the agreement covered by the memorandum of understanding
(MOU) is similar to a June 10, 2005 agreement the European Union and China
reached when China agreed to limit import growth in 10 categories of concern to EU
producers: pullovers, blouses, men’s trousers, T-shirts, dresses, brassieres, flax yarn,
cotton fabrics, bed linen, table linen, and kitchen linen. The EU-China agreement
limits growth in these categories will be limited to between 8% and 12.5% per year
until 2008.40
In the November 8 agreement (which entered into force January 1, 2006), the
United States and China agreed to a three-year arrangement limiting Chinese imports
of 34 categories of textile and apparel products, covering most — but not all —
textile and apparel categories (see Table 1). Although the growth rates in the quota
limits vary from category to category, in general, the growth rates for apparel
categories are set at 10% for 2006, 12.5% for 2007, and 15% in 2008. For textile
categories, the agreement limits import growth to 12.5% in 2006 and 2007, and 15%t
in 2008. These growth levels, although they may appear substantial, are far less than
import growth rates in 2005, when Chinese imports surged by more than 1,000% in
some categories covered in the agreement (see Table 2).
Also as part of the agreement, the United States agreed to allow entry of Chinese
products, with the exception of socks, that were previously denied entry (e.g. already
held in bonded warehouses) due to the implementation of safeguards in 2005, and
further agreed that these products would not be charged against the annual levels
specified in the agreement.41
The parties also agreed to cooperate in enforcing the levels and preventing
circumvention by transshipment, falsification of official documents, and any other
38 “China Develops Warning System to Monitor Trade Changes.” Asia Pulse, March 10,
2005.
39 “US, China Sign Textile Pact,” Washington Trade Daily, November 9, 2005.
40 European Commission. “EU - China Textile Agreement 10 June 2008,” Press Release,
MEMO/01/201, June 10, 2005.
41 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governments of the United States of
America and the People’s Republic of China Concerning Trade in Textile and Apparel
Products, signed November 8, 2005. (Hereafter cited as U.S.-China MOU).

CRS-12
means. To this end, they agreed to implement an Electronic Visa Information System
(ELVIS).42

The United States and China also pledged to work together to create a “stable
environment for bilateral trade in all textile and apparel products.” Therefore, the
United States agreed not to implement any China-specific safeguards on any textile
or apparel product integrated into the GATT before January 1, 2002, on any textile
or apparel product covered in the agreement, and to exercise restraint in
implementing safeguards on any products not covered by agreed-upon levels.43
As a result of the agreement, the CITA announced on November 23, 2005 that
it was terminating the further consideration of all pending requests for safeguards on
imports from China.44
Allegations of Illegal Transshipment
Some U.S. producers have accused Chinese manufacturers of illegal
transshipment of textile and apparel products — particularly through Indonesia or
through certain African countries that receive preferential treatment under the African
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
Transshipment is the movement of goods through a second country en route to
the United States or another receiving country. Although the practice is generally
legal and commonly used in the ordinary course of business, it is illegal if it is done
for the purpose of circumventing trade laws and other applicable trade restrictions.45
Illegal transshipment can (1) adversely affect domestic producers; (2) create an unfair
competitive advantage for the violator; (3) restrict the trade of legitimate
manufacturers if quotas are imposed on the merchandise; (4) undermine bilateral
textile agreements and other trade initiatives that confer preferential treatment; and
(5) confer false information regarding country of origin to the consumer.46
Many different schemes are used to evade duties or quotas on textiles being
brought into the United States. For example, some importers or manufacturers may
forge the country of origin documents of their goods through the process of
transshipment. Others may use false documents or labels or provide incorrect
descriptions of the merchandise.47
42 Ibid., Appendix III.
43 Ibid, p. 4.
44 70 F.R. 71472.
45 Transshipment: Technical Information for Pre-Assessment Surveys, Customs and Border
Protection, October 2003.
46 Ibid.
47 “U.S. Customs and Border Protection has Seized $10 Million in Misdescribed Textile
Product Since October,” Customs and Border Protection News Release, June 27, 2006.

CRS-13
Most textile and apparel commodities being transshipped through Indonesia
would receive no preferential tariff treatment. Even though many products imported
from Indonesia do enjoy duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), most textiles and apparel commodities are considered “import
sensitive” and thus are specifically excluded from receiving preferential treatment
under GSP.48 Therefore, if Chinese producers are transshipping merchandise through
Indonesia or other GSP countries, it is most likely in order to avoid the quantitative
restrictions imposed by the U.S.-China MOU. However, if goods from China are
being transshipped to the United States through an African country that receives
benefits under AGOA, they could enter at reduced duty rates under the AGOA
preference as well as circumvent the quotas.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has identified stopping illegal
transshipments as a Priority Trade Issue (PTI), and is attempting to combat the
practice, in part, by sending Textile Production Verification Teams to inspect foreign
factories. In November 2005, teams were sent to review 195 “high risk” facilities
that were selected through extensive analysis of trade patterns and verification
documents. Of these factories, 70 turned out to be closed, 24 denied the team
admission, 50 were considered high potential for transshipments, and three had
evidence that they were engaging in illegal transshipments. Verifications are ongoing
and visits to additional locations are being planned.49 CBP also announced that over
a four-month period ending in late June 2006, it had seized more than $10 million in
“misdescribed” textile products.50 This probably amounts to only a small percentage
of the illegally transshipped products.
In addition, the Indonesian government has delivered a formal complaint on the
issue of illegal transshipment with the Chinese government, and has pledged to
further discuss the issue during bilateral meetings in August 2006.51 The Indonesian
interest in the problem is most likely due to bilateral talks between the United States
and Indonesia in April 2006 which were characterized as laying the groundwork for
a potential future free trade agreement.52
Conclusion
The U.S. textile industry expressed satisfaction with the memorandum of
understanding with China, saying that “today’s agreement vindicates the U.S. textile
industry’s decision in 2003 to aggressively use the safeguard process to persuade all
48 19 U.S.C. § 2463(b)(1)(A).
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 “Indonesia, China to Discuss Transshipment Issue,” Asia Pulse News, June 26, 2006.
52 “U.S. and Indonesia Talks Prepare Groundwork for Free Trade Agreement,” BNA
International Trade Daily, April 5, 2006.

CRS-14
parties of the need for a comprehensive arrangement.”53 U.S. importers reiterated
their opposition to any form of quotas but acknowledged that the agreement provided
much more predictability than the disruptive safeguard regime.54
After the agreement was signed, Trade Minister Bo Xilai said, “The results of
the negotiations actually have provided a stable environment for the industries both
in China and the United States and in this sense there is a win-win result.”55 He also
maintained, however, that the “textile industry actually directly employs 1.9 million
[low-income] people in China and therefore is a highly sensitive industry in China,”
and therefore, that “the Chinese government always believes that it is entitled to the
rights and interests provided by the textile integration which started on January 1st,
2005.”56 Then-USTR Portman said, “We sought an agreement that achieves the
stability and predictability sought by our retailers and textile producers who
understandably found it hard to plan in the face of unpredictable safeguards. This
agreement is a good example of where, through hard work and faith, constructive
solutions can be found to difficult trade issues.”57
Now that the United States and Chinese trade officials have successfully reached
a comprehensive agreement, officials expressed hope and optimism that future trade
shocks in the textile and apparel sector can be avoided.
53 “Comprehensive Deal Reached to Limit U.S. Imports of Chinese Textiles and Clothing,”
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) press release, November 8,
2005. See [http://www.amtacdc.org].
54 “AAFA Says New China Trade Agreement is an Improvement; Urges Safeguards
Termination,” America Apparel and Footwear Association, press release, November 8,
2005. See [http://www.apparelandfootwear.org].
55 “U.S., China Sign Comprehensive Bilateral Textile Agreement,” U.S. Department of
State, States News Service, November 8, 2005.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.

CRS-15
Table 1. Agreed Levels of Textile and Apparel Products in
U.S./Chinese Memorandum of Understanding
Category
Unit
2006 Level
2007 Level
2008 Level
200/301: sewing thread/
kg
7,529,582
8,659,019
10,131,052
combed cotton yarn
222 : knit fabric
kg
15,966,487
18,361,460
21,482,908
229: special purpose fabric
kg
33,162,019
38,467,942
45,007,492
332/432/632 pt: socks
dp
64,386,841
73,963,859
85,058,437
(including baby socks)
sublimit 332/432/632 pt: socks
dp
61,146,461
70,318,431
80,866,195
(including baby socks)
338/339 pt: cotton knit shirts
dz
20,822,111
23,424,875
29,938,606
340/640: men’s and boy’s
dz
6,743,644
7,586,600
8,724,590
woven shirts
345/645/646: sweaters
dz
8,179,211
9,201,612
10,673,870
347/348: cotton trousers
dz
19,666,049
22,124,305
25,442,951
349/649: bras
dz
22,785,906
25,634,144
29,479,266
352/652: underwear
dz
18,948,937
21,317,554
24,515,187
359S/659S: swimwear
kg
4,590,626
5,164,454
5,990,767
363: pile towels
no
103,316,873
116,231,482
134,828,519
666pt: window shades
kg
964,014
1,084,516
1,268,884
443: men’s and boy’s wool
no
1,346,082
1,514,342
1,756,637
suits
447: men’s and boy’s wool
dz
215,004
241,880
280,581
trousers
619: polyester filament
m2
55,308,506
62,222,069
72,177,600
620: other synthetic filaments
m2
80,197,248
90,221,904
103,755,190
622: glass fabric
m2
32,265,013
37,104,765
43,412,575
638/639 pt: MMF knit shirts
dz
8,060,063
9,067,571
10,427,707
647/648 pt: MMF trousers
dz
7,960,355
8,955,399
10,298,709
847: svbf trousers
dz
17,647,255
19,853,162
23,029,668
Source: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governments of the United States of America
and the People’s Republic of China Concerning Trade in Textile and Apparel Products, signed
November 8, 2005.

CRS-16
Table 2. U.S. Imports of Textiles and Apparel from China: Selected Categories by Volume, Year-To-Date April 2006
and April 2005 and Cumulative (12-Month) Data
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
222
Knit Fabric (data Safeguard quota in effect from
in million square
12/24/2003 to 12/23/2004.
meters)
Safeguard re-applied for in
2005 — CITA consideration
terminated Nov. 23, 2005.
44.7
60.9 36%
126.7
239.1
89%
14%

Included in U.S.-China three-
year agreement limiting
Chinese imports through
2008.
226
Cheesecloth,
CITA agreed to consider
Batistes,
safeguard request Oct. 11,
Lawns/Voile
2005. Consideration
11.9
5.6
-53%
19.9
24.6
23%
45%
(million square
terminated Nov. 23, 2005.
meters)
301
Combed Cotton
Quota in effect 05/27/05 -
Yarn (million
12/31/05. CITA agreed to
square meters)
consider re-application
10/11/2005 — CITA
consideration terminated Nov.
7.3
3.9
-46%
20.3
18.2
-10%
3%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.

CRS-17
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
338/339
Cotton Knit
Quotas in effect 05/23/05 -
Shirts, Blouses
12/31/05.CITA agreed to
(million dozen)
consider re-application
10/11/2005 — CITA
consideration terminated Nov.
9.7
2.3
-76%
11.8
13.2
12%
4%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
340/640
Cotton/MMF
Quotas in effect 05/27/05 -
Non-Knit Shirts
12/31/05. CITA agreed to
(million dozen)
consider re-application
10/11/2005 — CITA
consideration terminated Nov.
2.6
0.9
-64%
4.3
4.5
4%
10%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
341/641
Non-Knit
CITA review period extended
Blouses (million
until Nov. 8, 2005. CITA
2.7
39.9
43%
4.4
10.8
147%
26%
dozen)
consideration terminated Nov.
23, 2005.
342/642
Skirts (million
CITA review period extended
dozen)
until Nov. 8, 2005. CITA
2.4
3.8
60%
2.9%
9.0
213%
33%
consideration terminated Nov.
23, 2005.

CRS-18
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
347/348
Cotton Trousers,
Safeguard quotas in effect
Slacks (million
05/27/05 - 12/31/05.CITA
dozen)
agreed to consider re-
application 10/11/2005. CITA
consideration terminated Nov.
9.2
2.6
-72%
10.8
11.8
9.4%
7%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
345
Cotton sweaters
CITA determination extended
(million dozen)
to Nov. 30, 2005, but
subsequently terminated Nov.
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
6.5
4.1
-36%
10.0
67.2
567%
27%
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
349/649
Brassieres
Quotas in effect 8/31/05 -
(million dozen)
12/31/05.CITA agreed to
consider re-application
10/11/2005, but subsequently
terminated consideration Nov.
7.2
4.6
-37%
19.7
18.0
-19%
38%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.

CRS-19
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
350/650
Dressing Gowns
Quota in effect from
and Robes
12/24/2003 to 12/23/2004.
(million dozen)
CITA determination on new
application extended to Nov.
14.8
11.6
-22%
4.8
4.9
1%
42%
30, 2005, but consideration
subsequently terminated Nov.
23, 2005.
351/651
Cotton, MMF
CITA review period extended
Nightwear
through Dec. 31, 2005, but
2.3
2.6
14%
3.6
11.5
217%
35%
(million dozen)
consideration subsequently
terminated Nov. 23, 2005.
359S/
Swimwear
CITA review period extended
659S
(million
through Nov. 8, 2005.
kilograms)
Included in U.S.-China three-
2.8
2.5
-10%
3.2
5.7
77%
22%
year agreement limiting
Chinese imports through
2008.
352/652
Cotton, MMF
Quotas in effect 05/23/05 -
Underwear
12/31/05. Included in U.S.-
(million dozen)
China three-year agreement
7.3
1.7
-77%
10.9 12.4
14%
5%
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.

CRS-20
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
443
Men’s and boy’s
CITA agreed to consider
wool suits
safeguard action, Oct. 11,
(million dozen)
2005, but consideration
subsequently terminated Nov.
1.7
2.2
33%
2.0
6.6
224%
23%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
447
Wool Trousers
CITA review period extended
(million square
through Nov. 30, 2005, but
meters)
consideration subsequently
terminated Nov. 23, 2005.
1.1
0.7
-37%
1.7
2.6
52%
12%
Included in U.S.-China three-
year agreement limiting
Chinese imports through
2008.
619
Polyester
CITA agreed to consider
Filament Fabric,
safeguard action, Oct. 11,
lightweight
2005, but consideration
(million square
subsequently terminated Nov.
15.0
9.8
-35%
17.0
55.2
224%
18%
meters)
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.

CRS-21
Year-to-Date (YTD) data
Cumulative (12-month) data
Cumulative
Chinese % of
%Change
Cumulative 12-
12-month
% Change
U.S. Market
YTD April
month data from
data from
cumulative
Share
YTD
YTD
05 - YTD
March 2004 -
March 2005 -
12-month
(cumulative)
Category
Description
CITA Status
April 2005
April 2006
April 06
April 2005
April 2006
data
Mar. 05 - Apr. 06
620
Other Synthetic
Quotas in effect 8/31/05-
Filament Fabric
12/31/05. CITA agreed to
(million square
consider re-application
meters)
10/11/2005,but consideration
subsequently terminated Nov.
20.2
4.4
-78%
24.0
65.9
175%
12%
23, 2005. Included in U.S.-
China three-year agreement
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
638/639
MMF Knit
Quotas in effect 05/27/05 -
Shirts, Blouses
12/31/05. Included in U.S.-
(million dozen)
China three-year agreement
3.8
1.7
-56%
5.9
7.2
22%
8%
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
647/648
MMF Trousers,
Quotas in effect 05/27/05 -
Slacks (million
12/31/05. Included in U.S.-
dozen)
China three-year agreement
3.1
1.2
-63%
5.2
5.6
8%
9%
limiting Chinese imports
through 2008.
Source: Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel Preliminary Textile and Apparel Import Data.