International Trade: An Overview of Use of U.S. Trade Preference 
Programs by Beneficiaries and U.S. Administrative Reviews	 
(27-SEP-07, GAO-07-1209).					 
                                                                 
Goods imported into the United States under trade preference	 
programs, which extend unilateral tariff reductions to over 130  
developing countries to assist their economies, totaled 	 
approximately $92 billion in 2006. The United States offers four 
primary trade preference programs--the Generalized System of	 
Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), the	 
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the African Growth and	 
Opportunity Act (AGOA). Some economists and others have raised	 
concerns about the programs; for example, because the		 
beneficiaries may lose interest in reciprocal multilateral or	 
bilateral trade liberalization. In addition, the global trade	 
context in which the programs operate is changing. Most U.S.	 
trade preference programs will need to be renewed over the next  
several years. As a result, Congress needs to reexamine the	 
programs and explore options for improvement. To provide	 
information for such a reexamination, at your request we (1)	 
identified and compared key features of U.S. preference programs,
(2) analyzed use of U.S. preference programs by beneficiaries,	 
and (3) examined U.S. agency administrative reviews of preference
programs.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1209					        
    ACCNO:   A77748						        
  TITLE:     International Trade: An Overview of Use of U.S. Trade    
Preference Programs by Beneficiaries and U.S. Administrative	 
Reviews 							 
     DATE:   09/27/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Developing countries				 
	     Economic development				 
	     Economic growth					 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Export regulation					 
	     Exporting						 
	     Foreign trade agreements				 
	     Importing						 
	     International trade				 
	     International trade restriction			 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Tariffs						 
	     Trade agreements					 
	     Trade policies					 
	     Trade regulation					 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Caribbean Basin Initiative 			 
	     Generalized System of Preferences			 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1209

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [3]GAO Contact
     * [4]Staff Acknowledgments
     * [5]GAO's Mission
     * [6]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [7]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [8]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [9]Congressional Relations
     * [10]Public Affairs

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, and to the
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2007

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

An Overview of Use of U.S. Trade Preference Programs by Beneficiaries and

U.S. Administrative Reviews

GAO-07-1209

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 5
Appendix I Briefing Slides from the August 3, 2007, Briefing to Staff of
the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means
6
Appendix II Scope and Methodology 49
Appendix III Eligibility and Use of Preference Programs by Country 51
Appendix IV Country Eligibility Criteria 67
Appendix V Generalized System of Preferences Administrative Reviews 68
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74

Tables

Table 1: Country Eligibility for U.S. Preference Programs, 2006 51
Table 2: Use of Preference Programs by Trade Partners, 2006 56
Table 3: U.S. Preference Imports by Key Product Sectors 65
Table 4: Changes in Countries' GSP Beneficiary Status since Program
Implementation 68
Table 5: GSP Country Practice Petitions Filed, by Country and Type of
Petition, 2001-2006 72

Abbreviations

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act
ATPA Andean Trade Preference Act
ATPDEA Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act
BDC Beneficiary developing country (GSP)
CAFTA-DR Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement
CBERA Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act
CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative
CBTPA Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act
CNL Competitive need limitation
FTA Free trade agreement
FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas
GSP Generalized System of Preferences
HOPE Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act
HTS Harmonized Tariff Schedule
ITC U.S. International Trade Commission
LDBDC Least-developed beneficiary developing country (GSP)
USTR Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
WTO World Trade Organization

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

September 27, 2007

The Honorable Max Baucus
Chairman
Committee on Finance
United States Senate

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Goods imported into the United States under trade preference programs,
which extend unilateral tariff reductions to over 130 developing countries
to assist in expanding their economies, totaled approximately $92 billion
in 2006--about 5 percent of total U.S. goods imports. The United States
offers one general trade preference program, the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), and three regional programs, the Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI),1 the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the African
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). These programs are primarily
administered by seven U.S. agencies. Trade preference programs offer
duty-free access to the U.S. market, with the goal of increasing
developing countries' export earnings, development, and growth rates
without harming U.S. producers.

U.S. trade preference programs are widely used, but some economists and
others have raised questions about them. For example, preferences are
complex to administer, have coverage gaps, may result in the diversion of
lower-cost trade from nonpreferred countries in favor of beneficiary
country trade, and may raise opposition to multilateral or bilateral trade
liberalization. In addition, the global trade context in which U.S. trade
preference programs operate is changing: an increasing number of countries
have entered into two-way free trade agreements with the United States;
global trade talks at the World Trade Organization may involve further
U.S. movement toward duty-free access; and U.S. restrictions on apparel
from China--one main competitor to preference beneficiaries--are slated to
be removed.

^1The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement
(HOPE) Act is an amendment to CBI, enacted as Title V of the Tax Relief
and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432), December 2006. In this report,
we at times describe HOPE separately from CBI to illustrate the key
characteristics of HOPE.

Most U.S. trade preference programs will need to be renewed over the next
several years, with three preference programs expiring next year either
partially or in full. As a result, Congress will be reexamining these
programs and exploring options for improvement. To provide information for
such a reexamination, at your request we (1) identified and compared key
features of U.S. preference programs, (2) analyzed use of U.S. preference
programs by beneficiaries, and (3) examined U.S. agency administrative
reviews of preference programs. On August 3, 2007, we briefed your staff
on the results of our analysis. This report formally conveys the
information provided during the briefing (see appendix I). In the coming
months, we will issue a second report on U.S. trade preference programs
that will discuss in more depth their effect on foreign beneficiaries and
the United States as well as key challenges the programs face.

To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed U.S. laws and
regulations, authoritative international trade documents such as U.S.
submissions to the World Trade Organization and the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, and periodicals. We analyzed U.S. trade
data to illustrate usage by country, product composition, and changes over
time. We spoke with relevant U.S. agencies--including the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and State--and reviewed and analyzed documentation
we received from the agencies. We conducted our work from April 2007 to
September 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (For additional details regarding our scope and methodology,
see appendix II.)

Results in Brief

U.S. trade preference programs have evolved over more than 30 years and
have several notable similarities and differences. In general, the goal of
all four programs is to promote economic development in poorer nations by
supporting increased and diversified exports. GSP establishes a basic
level of product coverage common to all the preference programs, with
added products for least-developed GSP beneficiaries.2 The regional
programs expand on GSP to cover additional products, including most
apparel, footwear, and certain leather-related products. The result of
various expansions of the programs over time is that, with the exception
of "basic GSP," their product coverage is fairly similar. Also, the
regional programs generally have more liberal conditions for product entry
than does GSP. On the other hand, regional program beneficiary countries
are subject to more extensive eligibility criteria than GSP beneficiary
countries, in part reflecting shifts in U.S. trade policy priorities and
development philosophy. Further, the regional programs also serve
important foreign policy interests. For example, ATPA complements
counternarcotics efforts by providing opportunities for legal crops.

Although they represent a small share of total U.S. imports, imports under
U.S. preference programs have grown sharply since 2002 and constitute a
significant share of many beneficiary countries' exports to the United
States. This growth is due partly to expansion of program and product
coverage. For example, fuel imports under preference programs have grown
rapidly since 2002 and, by 2006, accounted for over half of preference
imports in terms of value across all programs. Other sectors, such as
machinery, electronics, jewelry, glassware, and agriculture have also
grown. U.S. imports of textiles and apparel also increased until the
termination of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing in January 2005.
About 10 countries dominate U.S. preference imports overall, accounting
for over 75 percent of preference imports in 2006. The largest suppliers
in terms of value of imports are Nigeria and Angola, almost exclusively
because of fuel imports. India, Thailand, and Brazil are the three largest
non-fuel suppliers. Based on the average income (mean gross domestic
product per capita) of all beneficiary countries, the countries that have
the highest share of their exports to the United States benefiting from
preferences tend to be lower income countries. For higher income
developing countries, the share of their exports to the United States
benefiting from preferences varies, but tends to be less. For example,
Chad is a low-income country, and about 89 percent of its exports to the
United States (mostly fuel) enter under preferences; Uruguay is an
upper-middle-income country and about 10 percent of its exports to the
United States enter under preferences.

^2Least-developed beneficiaries are designated by the President on the
basis of considerations applicable to all GSP beneficiaries. They are
typically on the United Nations list of least-developed countries, which
is based on countries' economic vulnerability; weakness in nutrition,
health, education, and adult literacy; and gross national income of less
than $750 per capita.

U.S. administrative reviews of beneficiary countries vary in frequency and
scope and have resulted in few changes to country and product eligibility.
These reviews serve to encourage beneficiary countries to comply with
country eligibility criteria, such as taking steps to protect intellectual
property rights and eliminate child labor violations.3 GSP has annual
reviews of country and product eligibility, based on petitions (requests)
filed with USTR concerning GSP beneficiary countries and products by U.S.
industries, governments, or nongovernmental organizations such as labor
unions. According to USTR, the United States works with beneficiary
countries during a country practice review before the step of removing a
country from eligibility is taken in an effort to resolve eligibility and
compliance issues. Between 2001 and 2006, one country was removed from
eligibility for GSP because of intellectual property rights concerns but
was reinstated a few years later after taking steps to resolve the
problem. In the GSP program, duty-free imports of products from particular
countries above certain import share or value thresholds, also known as
competitive need limitations (CNL), are automatically excluded from
preferences unless a waiver is requested and received. Previously, such
waivers remained in effect indefinitely unless the President determined
that circumstances had changed. However, legislation passed in 2006
required an annual review of existing GSP waivers that meet certain
competitiveness thresholds. As a result, in 2007 particular countries lost
their waivers for eight products, including India (for certain precious
metal jewelry) and Brazil (for certain motor vehicle parts). Both
beneficiary and nonbeneficiary countries supply these eight products and
could benefit from their competitors' loss of GSP preferences. Similar to
GSP, ATPA also has an annual review of country eligibility practices,4
based on petitions filed against beneficiary countries by the public,
which has not resulted in the withdrawal or suspension of benefits from
any ATPA country. Unlike GSP and ATPA, AGOA and CBI reviews are not based
on petitions; all AGOA countries are reviewed on an annual basis to
determine eligibility based on the country criteria they must meet, while
CBI countries are reviewed biennially by USTR. From 2001 to 2007, four
countries lost AGOA eligibility, largely due to concerns about lack of
economic reform, rule of law, and human rights.

^3U.S. trade preference program beneficiary countries must meet or
demonstrate progress towards meeting country eligibility criteria to
remain eligible to receive preferences.

^4In 2002, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA)
amended ATPA by adding an annual review of country eligibility practices,
based on petitions.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of this draft report to USTR, the U.S. International
Trade Commission, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Agency for
International Development, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Labor, State, and the Treasury. USTR, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
and the Departments of Commerce and State provided technical comments from
their staff to make the report more accurate and clear, which we
incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees; the U.S. Trade Representative; the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, Labor, State, and
the Treasury; the Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission; and
the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[11]http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-4347 or [12][email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.

Loren Yager
Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I: Briefing Slides from the August 3, 2007, Briefing to Staff 
of the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and 
Means: 

Slide 1: 

U.S. Trade Preference Programs: 

An Overview of Use by Beneficiaries and U.S. Administrative Reviews: 

Slide 2: 

Briefing Agenda: 

* Background (slides 3-6); 
* Key Features of U.S. Preference Programs (objective 1, slides 7-15); 
* Use of U.S. Programs by Beneficiaries (objective 2, slides 16-30); 
* Program Administrative Reviews (objective 3, slides 31-43). 

Slide 3:  

Background: U.S. Offers One General and Three Regional Programs: 

General Program: 
* Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), January 1976, as amended. 

Regional Programs: 
* Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI); 
- Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), August 1983, as 
amended; 
- Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), May 2000; 
- Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 
Encouragement(HOPE) Act, December 2006; 

* Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), December 1991, as amended; 
- Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), August 
2002; 

* African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), May 2000, as amended. 

Slide 4: 

Background: Key Agencies Administer through Two Interagency Mechanisms: 

Key Agencies Involved in Interagency Process: 
USTR; 
Commerce; 
Agriculture; 
Treasury; 
State; 
Labor; 
U.S. International Trade Commission. 

Trade Policy Staff Committee: 

* Chaired by USTR and composed of 19 federal agencies and offices, with 
7 of these (see left) playing statutory roles; 

* USTR consults with other government agencies on trade policy matters 
through the Committee; 

* Subcommittees on particular programs such as GSP conduct annual 
reviews of country and product eligibility. 

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements: 

* Interagency group chaired by the Department of Commerce; 

* Responsible for supervising the implementation of all U.S. textile 
trade agreements and programs; 

* Implements the short supply and wool provisions and other aspects of 
preference programs; 

* Makes determination whether transshipment has occurred under AGOA, 
CBTPA, and ATPDEA and establishes penalties in those instances. 

Note: USAID also provides AGOA-related technical assistance. 

Transshipment: As defined in the Trade Act of 2002, illegal textile 
transshipment occurs when preferential treatment under any provision of 
law has been claimed for a textile or apparel article on the basis of 
material false information concerning the country of origin, 
manufacture, processing, or assembly of the article or any of its 
components. 

Slide 5: 

Background: Preferences Provide Benefits, but Their Effects and Design 
Debated: 

Original Goals of Preferential Treatment for Developing Countries:

* Provide for greater access to developed country markets; 

* Develop ï¿½infant industriesï¿½; 

* Diversify economies. 

Economic Research and Ongoing Debate: 

* Preferences widely used; 

* Provide economic benefits for recipient countries and U.S. consumers. 

But Concerns Remain: 

* Trade diversion; 

* Complexity, scope of coverage, certainty, and conditionality; 

* Potential opposition to multilateral and bilateral import 
liberalization; 

* Development requires broader trade openness, investment, education, 
and supportive market-based institutions. 

Slide 6: 

Background: Congress Faces Key Decisions Next Year in a Changing Trade 
Policy Context: 

Choices: 

* Preference programs for Andean countries expire Feb. 29, 2008; 

* Enhanced CBTPA benefits for apparel/other products expire Sept. 30, 
2008; 

* GSP expires Dec. 31, 2008.

Changing Context: 

* Entry into force of FTAs with certain CBI and ATPA beneficiaries; 

* WTO Doha round of global trade talks status, including Hong Kong 
declaration on duty-free, quota-free market access; 

* Limits on Chinaï¿½s textile and apparel to be removed. 

Slide 7: 

Key Features: Regional Programs Based on GSP, but Include More Products 
and Country Criteria: 

Product Coverage: 

* Regional programs expand on GSP; 

* Enhancements added products not eligible under GSP, like most 
apparel, footwear, and certain leather-related products.

Country Criteria: 

* GSP and regional programs have similar country eligibility criteria, 
but regional programs contain additional criteria. 

Key Conditions and Limitations: 

* GSP (including sub-Saharan African countries), CBI, and ATPA have 
similar non-textile rules of origin. But regional program rules of 
origin are more liberal overall; 

* AGOA and HOPE are the most liberal, allowing imports of apparel made 
from third-country fabric. However, rules of origin for textile and 
apparel in regional programs vary and are complex; 

* GSP has competitive need limitations and country-income restrictions. 
AGOA also has some income restrictions for textile and apparel benefits 
and requires beneficiaries to have an effective anti-transshipment 
regime. 

See appendix IV for country eligibility criteria similarities across 
programs. 

Slide 8: 

Key Features: Preference Programs Provide Special Access on Over Half 
of Tariff Lines: 

This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data: 

Tariff Schedule equals 10,500+ products: 
* Preference granted: 54%; 
* Duty Free: 37%; 
* Dutiable: 9%. 

Note: The figure shows the share of the tariff schedule eligible for 
preferential access under one or more of the U.S. preference programs. 
The tariff schedule identifies the tariff duty (tax), if any, that is 
due upon entry of every good into U.S. commerce. Therefore, it provides 
a comprehensive list of goods that the United States imports. However, 
the tariff schedule does not show the actual value of trade entering 
under preferences. We examined the value of imports under preference 
programs (the use of the programs) in slides 16 and through 30.

Source: GAO analysis of the official 2006 U.S. tariff schedule. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 9: 

Key Features: Product Coverage of Other Preference Programs Expands on 
GSP: 

This figure is a stacked bar graph. The vertical axis of the graph 
represents approximate Tariff Lines from 1,000 to 10,500+. The 
horizontal axis represents eligible countries and preference programs.

The following data is depicted:

Eligible Countries: 59; 
Just GSP, approximately 3400 tariff lines.

Eligible countries: 16; 
GSP, approximately 3400 tariff lines; 
GSP for LDCs, approximately 1600 tariff lines. 

Eligible countries: 20;
GSP/CBI, approximately 3400 tariff lines; 
CBI, approximately 1800 tariff lines; 
Hope, 1; 
CBTPA, 10. 

Eligible countries: 4;
GSP/ATPA, approximately 3400 tariff lines; 
ATPA, approximately 1600 tariff lines; 
ATPDEA (4), approximately 200 tariff lines. 

Eligible countries: 39;
GSP, approximately 3400 tariff lines; 
AGOA, approximately 1800 tariff lines.  

137 countries and territories are eligible for U.S. preference 
programs. 

Notes: Product coverage for CBI and ATPA overlaps GSP coverage for 
nearly all GSP products (cross hatching in figure). Five CBI countries 
have graduated from GSP. Haiti is eligible for GSP-LDC, HOPE, CBI, and 
CBTPA; 25 AGOA countries are also eligible for GSP-LDC. 

Source: GAO analysis of the official 2006 U.S. tariff schedule and 
preference program eligibility, Jan.1, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 10: 

Key Features: Product Coverage of Other Preference Programs Expands on 
GSP (cont.)

This slide provides a comparison of the number of countries eligible 
for various preference programs (the X-axis, not to scale) and the 
number of products (tariff lines eligible for the programs (the Y-
axis). 

* Countries: Along the X-axis the number of countries eligible for each 
program is shown. Most countries that are eligible for one of the 3 
regional programs are also eligible for GSP. There are 59 countries 
eligible only for GSP and 16 countries eligible for only GSP and GSP 
for the least developed countries. 

* Products: Along the Y-axis the number of products eligible for each 
program or program extension is shown. For example, GSP provides 
benefits on about 3,400 products and AGOA extends GSP by adding another 
approximately 1,800 products, for a total of about 5,200 products. This 
is out of a total of over 10,500 products. The hatch marks on ï¿½GSP/CBIï¿½ 
and ï¿½GSP/ATPAï¿½ indicate that products coming from CBI or ATPA countries 
are eligible to enter under either the GSP program or the regional 
program. GSP under AGOA is not hatched because the legislation 
authorizing AGOA simply made all AGOA countries eligible for GSP (with 
certain enhancements) but did not duplicate the product coverage of the 
GSP program. 

Slide 11: 

Key Features: GSP: 

Objective: Create economic opportunities in developing countries while 
expanding U.S. industry and consumer choices: 

Beneficiaries: 
* 132 countries and territories designated, including 42 least-
developed countries. 

Product Coverage: 
* About 3,400 products eligible; 
* Plus 1,400 more for least-developed beneficiary countries. 

Review Cycle: 
* Annual review of eligible products, competitive need limitation 
waivers, and certain country practices based on petitions or USG 
initiation. 

Country Criteria: 

Mandatory exclusion if: 
* Communist country; 
* Cartel member; 
* Extends preferential treatment to developed country, with adverse 
effects on the U.S.; 
* Nationalizes or expropriates property of U.S. citizen/business 
entity; 
* Fails to recognize or enforce arbitral award favoring U.S. 
citizen/business entity; 
* Grants sanctuary to international terrorists; 
* Does not afford internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights; 
* Has not met commitment to eliminate worst forms of child labor. 

Discretionary review:
* Desire to be designated; 
* Level of economic development; 
* Whether other developed countries extend similar preference 
treatment; 
* Commitment to extend access to countriesï¿½ markets and resources; 
* Extent of adequate intellectual property rights protection; 
* Extent of action to reduce trade distorting policies; 
* Whether has taken steps to grant internationally recognized workersï¿½ 
rights. 

The President can waive certain mandatory criteria based on U.S. 
interests. 

Key Conditions and Limitations: 

* 35% added value within country and approved region; 
* Third-country inputs ï¿½substantially transformedï¿½; 
* Shipments directly from beneficiary country; 
* Annual ceilings (competitive need limitations) on imports of each 
product by country, except from least-developed countries; 
* Mandatory graduation after country reaches World Bank ï¿½high incomeï¿½ 
level. 

Slide 12: 

Key Features: CBI: 

Objective: Assist Caribbean Basin countries in developing their 
economies and diversify exports to expand trade between the United 
States and CBI beneficiary countries: 

Beneficiaries: 
* Originally, 24 countries and dependent territories eligible for 
CBERA, 14 of 24 countries fully eligible for CBTPA; 
* After CAFTA-DR entry into force, 6 countries have lost or will lose 
their beneficiary status. 

Product Coverage: 
* GSP plus over 1,900 tariff lines; 
* CBTPA adds certain textiles and apparel, canned tuna, petroleum 
products, footwear, handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, leather 
wearing apparel, and watches and watch parts. 

Review Cycle: 
Biennial reports to Congress: 
* USTR on operation and compliance with eligibility criteria; 
* ITC impact assessment. 

Country Criteria: 

Mandatory exclusion if: 
* Communist country; 
* Nationalizes or expropriates property of U.S. citizen/business 
entity; 
* Fails to recognize or enforce binding arbitral awards favoring U.S. 
citizens/business entity; 
* Extends preferential treatment to developed countries, with adverse 
effects on the U.S.; 
* Government-owned entity broadcasts copyrighted materials without 
consent; 
* Is not party with U.S. to agreement concerning extradition of U.S. 
citizens; 
* Does not afford internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights. 

The President can waive certain mandatory criteria based on U.S. 
interests. 

Discretionary review: 
* Economic conditions; 
* Desire to be designated; 
* Market access/WTO rules; 
* Use of export subsidies; 
* Contribution to regional revitalization; 
* Self-help to promote economic development; 
* Affords internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights; 
* Provides intellectual property rights protection; 
* WTO commitments (CBTPA only); 
* Participation in FTAA negotiations(CBTPA only); 
* Transparency in government procurement (CBTPA only); 
* Anti-transshipment provisions (CBTPA only); 
* Eliminate child labor violations (CBTPA only); 
* Cooperate with counternarcotic initiative (CBTPA only). 

Key Conditions and Limitations: 
* 35% added value, with regional accumulation and 15% of U.S. origin 
for non-textile & apparel; 
* Similar to GSP, third-country inputs ï¿½substantially transformedï¿½; 
* Not subject to GSP competitive need limitation and country-income 
restrictions; 
* Qualifying rules for apparel vary by product. 

Slide 13: 

Key Features: HOPE: 

Objective: Promote the development of the garment industry in Haiti: 

Beneficiaries: 
Haiti. 

Product Coverage: 
* Apparel, wire harness automotive components. 

Review Cycle: 
* ITC one-time 18-month review. 

Country Criteria: 
Has established or making progress towards: 
* Market-based economy that protects private property rights; 
* Rule of law and political pluralism; 
* Elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment; 
* Economic policies to reduce poverty; 
* System to combat corruption and bribery; 
* Protection of internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights. 

And may not: 
* Undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy nor commit gross 
violations of human rights or support international terrorism. 

Key Conditions and Limitations: 
* Wholly assembled or knit-to-shape in Haiti, and at least 50% value 
added; 
* Third-country fabric provision for apparel products, subject to an 
annual cap. 

Slide 14: 

Key Features: ATPA: 

Objective: Promote broad-based economic development, diversification of 
exports, and consolidation of democracy and combat drug production and 
trafficking by providing sustainable economic alternatives to 
beneficiary countries. 

Beneficiaries: 
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. 

Product Coverage: 
* GSP plus over 1,600 tariff lines; 
* ATPDEA adds certain textiles and apparel, footwear, tuna (not 
canned), petroleum, watches, certain handbags, luggage, flat goods, 
work gloves, leather wearing apparel. 

Review Cycle: 
* Similar to GSP, annual review of country eligibility practices based 
on petitions (ATPDEA); 
* Biennial review process: 
-USTR on operation and compliance with eligibility criteria; ITC impact 
assessment. 

Country Criteria: 

Mandatory exclusion if: 
* Communist country; 
* Nationalizes or expropriates property of U.S. citizen/business 
entity; 
* Fails to recognize or enforce binding arbitral award favoring U.S. 
citizen/business entity; 
* Fails to work on adequate intellectual property rights protection; 
* Extends preferential treatment to a developed country, with adverse 
effects on the U.S.; 
* Not signatory regarding extradition of U.S. citizens; 
* Does not afford internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights; 
* Government-owned entity broadcasts copyrighted materials without U.S. 
ownerï¿½s consent. 

President can waive certain mandatory criteria based on U.S. interests. 

Discretionary: 
* Economic conditions/development efforts; 
* Desire to be designated; 
* Market access; 
* WTO commitments; 
* Use of export subsidies; 
* Contribution to regional revitalization; 
* Participation in FTA negotiations (ATPDEA only); 
* Cooperate with counternarcotic initiative (ATPDEA only); 
* Eliminate child labor violations (ATPDEA only); 

* Anti-corruption efforts (ATPDEA only); 
* Transparency in government procurement (ATPDEA only); 
* Cooperation with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts (ATPDEA only). 

Key Conditions and Limitations: 
* 35% added value, with regional accumulation for non-textile and 
apparel; 
* Similar to GSP, third-country inputs ï¿½substantially transformedï¿½; 
* Not subject to GSP competitive need limitation and country-income 
restrictions; 
* Qualifying rules for apparel vary by product. 

Slide 15: 

Key Features: AGOA: 

Objective: Promote free markets, expand U.S.-African trade and 
investment, stimulate economic growth, and facilitate sub-Saharan 
Africaï¿½s integration into global economy. 

Beneficiaries: 
48 countries potentially eligible, 39 beneficiaries. 

Product Coverage: 
* GSP plus more than 1,800 tariff lines; 
* These include certain textiles and apparel, watches, electronic 
articles, steel articles, footwear, handbags, luggage, flat goods, work 
gloves, leather wearing apparel, and manufactured glass products. 

Review Cycle: 
* Annual review of each countryï¿½s eligibility. 

Country Criteria: 
GSP requirements, plus established/made progress towards establishing: 
* Market economy; 
* Economic reform; 
* Elimination of trade barriers; 
* Political pluralism; 
* Rule of law; 
* Anti-corruption; 
* Poverty reduction; 
* Internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights; 
* Elimination of worst forms of child labor. 

And may not:
* Undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy nor commit gross 
violations of human rights or support international terrorism. 

Key Conditions: 
* Third-country fabric provision for apparel products produced in 
ï¿½lesser developedï¿½ beneficiaries up to an annual cap; 
* ï¿½Abundant supplyï¿½ provision to encourage use of regional fabric. 

Slide 16: 

Use of U.S. Preference Programs by Beneficiaries: 

Compared to Overall U.S. Imports: 
* Relatively small share of U.S. imports. 

Trends in Imports under Preference Programs: 
* Imports rising rapidly for AGOA and GSP; 
* Fuel imports rising rapidly since 2002; 
* Non-fuel imports growing in certain sectors; 
* Program imports increased after programs expanded; 
* GSP affected by length and continuity of authorization. 

Composition of Preference Program Use: 
* Fuel imports dominate preference imports overall; 
* Small number of countries dominate preference imports overall. 

Importance to the Beneficiaries: 
* Among largest suppliers, share of imports receiving preferences is 
mixed; 
* Low-income countries have highest shares of preference imports. 

Slide 17: 

Compared to Overall U.S. Trade: Programs Account for Small Share: 

This figure depicts two pie charts, Total U,S. Imports, and Total 
Preferences, which is a subset of Total U.S. Imports. The following 
data is depicted:

Total U.S. Imports (Dollars in billions): $1,845;
Total Preferences: $92 (5% of Total U.S. Imports);
* AGOA: $36 (2%); 
* GSP: $33 (1.8%);
* ATPA: $13 (0.7%);
* CBI: $10 (0.5%).

Source: Gao analysis of official U.S. Import Statistics for 2006. 

U.S. preference imports across all programs accounted for about 5 
percent of U.S. imports in 2006. 

Note: CBI includes CBTPA imports and ATPA includes ATPDEA imports.  
Shares based on dollar value of imports. Program values based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry.  

Slide 18: 

Trends: U.S. Preference Imports Level Prior to 2000; Increased Rapidly 
Since 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a line graph with four lines represented: CBI/CBTPA; 
ATPA/ATPDEA; GSP; and AGOA. The vertical axis of the graph represents 
billions of dollars from 0 to 40. The horizontal axis of the graph 
represents years 1992 through 2006. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. See methodology appendix for 
definitions of product sectors. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 19: 

Trends: Fuel Imports Growing Rapidly Since 2002: 

U.S. Preference Imports: Fuels versus Non-Fuels: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a line graph with two lines represented: Fuels and Non-
Fuels. The vertical axis of the graph represents billions of dollars 
from 0 to 60. The horizontal axis of the graph represents years 1992 
through 2006. 

Note: Non-fuel imports include all goods imports except those in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule, chapter 27. See methodology appendix for 
definitions of product sectors. Values represent preference imports for 
all programs combined. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry.  

[End of figure] 

Slide 20: 

Trends: Imports Have Grown In Non-fuel Sectors Since 2000: 

[See PDF for image] 

U.S. Preference Imports for Selected Sectors: 

This figure is a line graph with four lines represented: Agriculture; 
Jewelry and glassware; Textiles and apparel; and Machinery and 
electronics. The vertical axis of the graph represents billions of 
dollars from 0 to 14. The horizontal axis of the graph represents years 
1992 through 2006. 

Note: Some beneficiaries were removed from GSP eligibility over the 
time period. Major textile and apparel suppliers from the Caribbean 
Basin became U.S. FTA partners (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua) in 2006 and were removed from preferences. See methodology 
appendix for definitions of product sectors. Agency officials told us 
that the end of the agreement on textiles and clothing also impacted 
growth in textile and apparel imports from preference countries. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 21: 

Composition: Fuel Grew to Account for More than 50 Percent of U.S. 
Preference Imports: 

[See PDF for image] 

Share of Total U.S. Preference Imports by Sector: 

This figure is a stacked line graph with seven lines representing 
sectors whose percentages total 100% for each year depicted.  The seven 
sectors are: fuels; agriculture; Base metals and articles; Chemicals, 
plastics, paper; Jewelery and glassware; Machinery and electronics; and 
Textiles and apparel.   The vertical axis of the graph represents 
percentage from 0 to 100. The horizontal axis of the graph represents 
years 1992 through 2006. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. See methodology appendix for 
definitions of product sectors. 

Slide 22: 

Composition: Top 10 Suppliers Account for over 75 Percent of U.S. 
Preference Imports: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a pie-chart, depicting the following data: 

U.S. preference imports equal $92 billion. 

Share of Total Preference Imports (All Programs) 2006: 

Nigeria: 28%; 
Angola: 12%; 
India: 6%; 
Ecuador: 6%; 
Colombia 5%; 
Thailand: 4%; 
Brazil: 4%; 
Trinidad and Tobago: 4%; 
Peru: 4%; 
Dominican Republic: 3%; 
All Others: 23%. 

Note: ï¿½All Othersï¿½ includes 127 countries. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 23: 

Composition: Top Non-fuel Suppliers are India, Thailand, and Brazil: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a pie-chart, depicting the following data: 

U.S. non-fuel preference imports equal $37 billion. 

Share of Non-Fuel Preference Imports (All Programs) 2006: 

India: 15%; 
Thailand: 11%; 
Brazil: 10%; 
Dominican Republic: 7%; 
Peru: 7%; 
Indonesia: 5%; 
Republic of South Africa: 5%; 
Colombia: 4%; 
Costa Rica; 4%; 
Philippines: 3%; 
All Others: 29%. 

Note: ï¿½All Othersï¿½ includes 127 countries. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 24: 

Composition: GSP Dominated by Few Countries, but Products Diverse: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is two pie-charts. One depicts GSP by countries. The other 
depicts GSP by products. The data depicted is as follows: 

U.S. GSP imports equals $33 billion. 

GSP by countries:

Angola: 22%; 
India: 17%; 
Thailand: 13%; 
Brazil: 11%; 
Indonesia: 6%; 
Equatorial Guinea: 5%; 
Philippines: 4%; 
Turkey: 3%; 
Republic of South Africa: 3%; 
Venezuela: 2%; 
All Others: 14%. 

GSP by products: 

Fuels: 27%; 
Machinery and electronics: 20%; 
Jewelry and glassware: 17%; 
Chemicals, Plastics, paper: 15%; 
Base metals and articles: 12%; 
Agriculture: 6%; 
Textiles and apparel: 3%. 

Note: See methodology appendix for definitions of product sectors. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 25: 

Composition: AGOA Dominated by Nigeria and by Fuels: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is two pie-charts. One depicts AGOA by countries. The other 
depicts AGOA by products. The data depicted is as follows: 

AGOA by country:

Nigeria: 70%; 
Angola: 17%; 
Chad: 4%; 
Gabon: 4%; 
Congo: 2%; 
Republic of South Africa: 2%; 
Lesotho: 1%; 
Kenya: 1%; 
Madagascar: 1%; 
All Others: 2%. 

AGOA by products: 

Fuels: 95%; 
Textiles and apparel: 3%; 
Jewelry and glassware: less than 1%; 
Base metals and articles: less than 1%; 
Machinery and electronics: 1%; 
Agriculture: 1%; 
Chemicals, plastics, paper: less than 1%. 

Note: See methodology appendix for definitions of product sectors. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 26: 

Composition: CBI/CBTPA Dominated by Three Countries and Few Products: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is two pie-charts. One depicts CBI/CBTPA by countries. The 
other depicts CBI/CBTPA by products. The data depicted is as follows: 

U.S. CBI/CBTPA Imports = $10 billion. 

CBI/CBTPA by country:

Trinidad and Tobago: 36%; 
Dominican Republic: 25%; 
Costa Rica: 14%; 
Guatemala: 7%; 
Honduras: 6%; 
Haiti: 4%; 
Jamaica: 2%; 
El Salvador: 2%; 
Bahamas: 1%; 
Nicaragua: 1%; 
All Others: 2%. 

CBI/CBTPA by product:

Textiles and apparel: 34%; 
Fuels: 27%; 
Agriculture: 18%; 
Chemicals, plastics, paper: 14%; 
Machinery and electronics: 4%; 
Jewelry and glassware: 3%; 
Base metals and articles: less than 1%. 

Note: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua became U.S. FTA 
partners during 2006 (and the Dominican Republic in 2007) and were 
removed from the CBI preference program at different times during the 
year. Costa Rica remains a CBI beneficiary as it not yet ratified the 
CAFTA-DR. See methodology appendix for definitions of product sectors. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 27: 

Composition: ATPA/ATPDEA Dominated by Fuels, but Three Countries Split 
Benefits: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is two pie-charts. One depicts ATPA/ATPDEA by countries. 
The other depicts ATPA/ATPDEA by products. The data depicted is as 
follows: 

U.S. ATPA/ATPDEA Imports = $13 billion. 

ATPA/ATPDEA by country:

Ecuador: 39%; 
Colombia: 36%; 
Peru: 24%; 
Bolivia: 1%. 

ATPA/ATPDEA by product: 

Fuels: 69%; 
Textiles and apparel: 10%; 
Agriculture: 9%; 
Base metals and articles: 8%; 
Jewelry and glassware: 2%; 
Chemicals, plastics, paper: 2%; 
Machinery and electronics: less than 1%. 

Note: see methodology appendix for definitions of product sectors. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 28: 

Importance to Beneficiaries: Preferences Are a Significant Share of 
Imports for Many: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph with the vertical axis representing 
percentage from 0 to 100, and the horizontal axis representing twenty-
five countries. Each vertical bar is a composite of share of GSP in 
total imports and share of regional programs in Total imports. The 
countries represented are: Angola, Gabon, Swaziland, Nigeria, 
Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Yemen (Sana), Madagascar, Kenya, Malawi, 
Ecuador, Haiti, Mozambique, Niue, Cameroon, Senegal, Zimbabwe 
(Rhodesia), Togo, Armenia, Dominican Republic, Peru, Mauritania, and 
Jamaica. 

Note: Figure shows the top preference program users by ratio of 
preference imports to total imports to the United States in 2006 in 
descending order. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 29: 

Importance to Beneficiaries: Among Largest Suppliers, Share of Imports 
Receiving Preferences Is Mixed: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph with the vertical axis representing 
percentage from 0 to 100, and the horizontal axis representing twenty-
five countries. Each vertical bar is a composite of share of GSP in 
total imports and share of regional programs in Total imports. The 
countries represented are: Nigeria ($25.8), Angola ($11.3), India 
($5.7), Ecuador ($5.4), Colombia ($5), Thailand ($4.3), Brazil (($3.7), 
Trinidad and Tobago ($3.7), Peru ($3.4), Dominican Republic ($2.6), 
Indonesia ($1.9), South Africa ($1.8), Chad ($1.7), Equatorial Guinea 
($1.6), Costa Rica ($1.5), Gabon ($1.3), Philippines ($1.1), Turkey 
($1.1), Congo ($0.8); Guatemala ($0.7), Venezuela ($0.7), Argentina 
($0.7), Honduras ($0.6), Russia ($0.5), and Kazakhstan ($0.5). 

Note: Total value of preference imports (2006, billions of dollars) is 
listed in parentheses following each countryï¿½s name. Countries are 
listed in descending order based on their preference imports. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics, based on 
preferences actually claimed upon entry. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 30: 

Importance to Beneficiaries: Lower Income Countries Have High Shares of 
Preferences in Their Total Imports: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is is graph depicting the fact that lower income countries 
have high shares of preferences in their total imports. The vertical 
axis of the graph represents GDP Per Capita (PPP), 2006 from 0 to 
$25,000. The horizontal axis of the graph represents share of U.S. 
preference imports for each country in total U.S. imports from that 
country (2006) from 0 to 100 percent. 

Note: Income figures are per capita GDP based on purchasing power 
parity. The GSP program uses per capita GDP based on the Atlas method. 
Both are available from the World Bank. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2006 U.S. official trade statistics and data on 
per capita income from the World Bank. 

[End of figure] 

Slide 31: 

U.S. Review: Preference Program Reviews Differ in Scope and Frequency: 

GSP: 
* Periodic special and regular annual reviews of country and product 
eligibility, see slides 32ï¿½40; 

ATPA: 
* Annual review of country eligibility practices based on petitions 
(under ATPDEA), see slides 41-42; 

AGOA: 
* Annual review of each countryï¿½s eligibility, see slide 43; 

CBI: 
Biennial report; 

HOPE: 
* One-time review. 

Slide 32: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: Country, Product, and Country Practice Reviews: 

Process: 
Special Review (begun 2005);
* 13 beneficiaries reviewed for graduation; 
* 83 CNL waivers reviewed for revocation. 

Annual Review: 
* Competitive need limitations; 
* CNL waiver revocation; 
* Product redesignation; 
* Petitions considered; 
- CNL waivers; 
- Product addition/removal; 
- Restoration of duty-free status; 
- Country practices. 

Outcomes: 

Special Review (ongoing): 
* No final determination made on country graduations and CNL waivers; 
* However, Congress set statutory thresholds for CNL waiver revocation 
(now included in annual review).

Annual Review (2006): 
* Of the 178 products reviewed for exceeding CNLs:
- 62 previously excluded from GSP; 
- 97 granted de minimis waivers; 
- 3 CNL waiver petitions granted; 5 of 8 petitions denied, but 2 did 
not need a waiver and 1 received a de minimis waiver; 
- 16 newly excluded, of which 2 were eligible for de minimis, 2 CNL 
petitions denied; 
* 8 of 9 CNL waivers revoked; 
* 16 of 172 products eligible for redesignation restored to GSP (all 
from Andean region); 
* No product additions or removals; 
* 4 country practice reviews continue; rest resolved or not accepted. 

Slide 33: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: Country, Product, and Country Practice Reviews 
(cont.): 

By law, the competitive need limitation (CNL) is reached when U.S. 
imports of a specific product from a country (1) account for 50 percent 
or more of the value of total U.S. imports of the product from all 
countries, or (2) exceed a certain dollar value. In 2007, the dollar 
value limit is $130 million; the limit increases by $5 million each 
year. A beneficiary country will automatically lose duty-free access on 
July 1 of the following year for a product if the CNL is exceeded in a 
given year and the country is not granted a CNL waiver for that 
product. 

The President may grant a CNL waiver for a product, thereby allowing 
the country to receive duty-free treatment of U.S. imports of that 
product. A petition for a waiver may be filed during the annual GSP 
review based on deadlines indicated in the reviewï¿½s Federal Register 
Notice announcement. Least-developed beneficiary countries are 
statutorily excluded from (not subject to) CNLs. 

CNL waivers remain in effect until the President determines that 
circumstances have changed and the waiver is no longer warranted. 
Legislation in 2006 provided that the President ï¿½shouldï¿½ revoke any 
waiver in effect for at least 5 years if the countryï¿½s U.S. import 
level for the product in the previous year exceeded (1) 150 percent of 
the annual dollar limit mentioned above or (2) 75 percent of all U.S. 
imports of the product. 

A product removed from GSP eligibility because a country exceeded a CNL 
in one year may be redesignated as GSP-eligible for that country if 
import levels of the product are below the CNL in a subsequent year. 

By law, a de minimis CNL waiver may be granted when total U.S. imports 
of a product from all countries are below a certain level. In 2007, the 
de minimis level is $18.5 million; the limit increases by $0.5 million 
each year. 

See slides 34-36 for more information on the CNL waiver revocation 
review for 2006. 

Slide 34: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: One-Fifth of GSP Imports Faced Competitive Need 
Limitations, 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure depicts two pie-charts, as follows:

Total Imports of GSP Products from GSP Countries (non-LDC, non-AGOA 
equals $35 billion): 

Eligible for GSP: 59%; 
Excluded from GSP (full or part year): 22%; 
Above CNL and not excluded: 19% ($7 billion). 

Above CNL and not excluded: 
Products reviewed for waiver revocation (9 products): 57%; 
Products to be excluded unless waiver granted (17 products): 25%; 
Products with waivers in place (9 products): 16%; 
Eligible for de minimus waiver (99 products): 3%; 
Exempt from CNL review (12 products): less than 1%.

Note: CNL thresholds in 2006 were imports of the product by a 
beneficiary country greater than $125 million or imports of a value 
equal to or greater than 50 percent of total U.S. imports of the 
product. 

Source: GAO analysis of official U.S. tariff and trade data and data on 
GSP from USTR.

[End of figure] 

Slide 35: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: One-Fifth of GSP Imports Faced Competitive Need 
Limitations, 2006 (cont.) 

This slide provides information on the value of trade affected by the 
CNL review for 2006. The left pie chart shows the total value of 
imports subject to the review ($35 billion). It includes all imports of 
GSP-eligible products from GSP-eligible countries, except the least-
developed beneficiaries and AGOA beneficiaries since these are excluded 
from the CNL review. The right pie chart shows the $7 billion in trade 
that was subject to the CNL review, not already excluded from GSP, and 
above the CNL threshold for 2006. Of this amount, about 57 percent (9 
products) already had CNL waivers in place, but were above the new 
statutory thresholds set in 2006 that required a Presidential review of 
whether to revoke the waiver.

Slide 36: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: Revocation of CNL Waivers May Aid Both GSP and Non-
GSP Countries: 

President revoked 8 CNL waivers in June 2007 based on new statutory 
thresholds, including: 

Certain precious metal jewelry: India (33 percent of imports, $2.2 
billion); Thailand (11 percent of imports, $700 million); 
* China and Hong Kong are the largest non-GSP suppliers; 
* Over 100 suppliers, including Turkey, Indonesia and other GSP 
countries. 

Certain motor vehicle parts: Brazil (6 percent of imports, $210 
million); 
* Over 60 suppliers, including many GSP countries (small shares); 
however, the market was led by Canada and Mexico, followed by Japan and 
China. 

Ferrozirconium: Brazil (97 percent of imports, $0.5 million); 
* United Kingdom and China only other suppliers (3 percent of imports, 
total). 

Kola nuts (fresh or dried, shelled) from Ivory Coast (86 percent of 
imports, $4.5 million); 
* Cameroon, France, Jamaica, South Africa, Nigeria, Senegal also supply 
U.S. 

Slide 37: 

U.S. Review -GSP: Recent Annual Product Reviews Resulted in No Product 
Removals, Some Additions: 

[See PDF for image]

This figure is four separate vertical bars graphs depicting the 
following data: 

Numbers of Petitions Filed in GSP Annual Reviews, 2004-2006, Product 
Additions: 
Petitions filed: 43; 
Accepted for review: 21; 
Petitions granted: 9. 

Numbers of Petitions Filed in GSP Annual Reviews, 2004-2006, Product 
Removals:  
Petitions filed: 1; 
Accepted for review: 1; 
Petitions granted: 0. 

Numbers of Petitions Filed in GSP Annual Reviews, 2004-2006, 
Restoration of Duty-free status: 
Petitions filed: 2; 
Accepted for review: 1; 
Petitions granted: 0. 

Numbers of Petitions Filed in GSP Annual Reviews, 2004-2006, 
Competitive Need Limitation Waivers: 
Petitions filed: 32; 
Accepted for review: 20; 
Petitions granted: 10. 

Note: Some CNL waiver petitions were initiated by the U.S. 
governmentï¿½specifically, in response to the December 2004 tsunami in 
Asia. 

Source: GAO analysis of petitions filed with USTR: 

Slide 38: 

U.S. Review -GSP: Recent Annual Product Reviews Resulted in No Product 
Removals, Some Additions (cont.)  

In the annual GSP review process, petitions may be filed by interested 
parties (for example, governments, businesses, or nongovernmental 
organizations) to request actions allowed by the statute and 
regulations governing the GSP program, including adding or removing a 
product from overall GSP eligibility and waiving the CNL for a product 
from a specific beneficiary. 

Slide 39: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: Country Practice Reviews Consistently Used; 
Suspension Rare: 

Process: 
* Petitions are solicited annually; GSP subcommittee may reject or 
accept them for review, based on GSP statute and regulations; 
* Reviews typically extend 2 or more years as administration 
investigates and engages with country to resolve issues; 
* Concerns are resolved in most cases; suspensions are rare. 

2001-2006 Petitions: 
* 52 petitions filed against 32 countries; 
* 10 countries cited by multiple petitions; 
* Types of petitions filed:
- Workersï¿½ rights, 24; 
- Intellectual property rights, 15; 
- Market access, 6; 
- Reverse preferential treatment, 4; 
- Contract nullification, 2; 
- Expropriation, 1. 

Outcomes: 
* Ukraine suspended and later reinstated; Liberia reinstated from 1990 
suspension; 
* Cases remain open in 4 countries (1 workersï¿½ rights, 3 intellectual 
property rights). 

Slide 40: 

U.S. Review ï¿½GSP: Country Practice Reviews Consistently Used; 
Suspension Rare (cont.) 

Any person may file a petition in the annual GSP review requesting that 
the status of any eligible beneficiary be reviewed with respect to any 
of the designation criteria listed in the statute governing the GSP 
program, including workersï¿½ rights and intellectual property rights. 

See appendix V for GSP country practice petitions filed, by country and 
type of petition, 2001-2006. 

Slide 41: 

U.S. Review ï¿½ATPDEA: Petitions on Country Practices Filed, But No 
Suspension to Date: 

Process: 
* No withdrawal or suspension of benefits during first 10 years of 
ATPA; 
* Petition process began August 2003, as part of ATPDEA; 
* Petitions reviewed annually. 

Outcomes/Results/Action: 
* 17 total petitions filed under ATPDEA; 
- 12 petitions filed in 2003; 
- 8 filed against Peru, 8 against Ecuador, and 1 against Colombia; 
- 10 petition reviews have been terminated, 7 are still under review; 
- Petition issues include workersï¿½ rights and investor disputes; 
* No recommendations have been made by USTR for withdrawal or 
suspension of designation or benefits. 

Slide 42: 

U.S. Review ï¿½ATPDEA: Petitions on Country Practices Filed, But No 
Suspension to Date (cont.) 

Since 2003, USTR conducts annual reviews and provides the opportunity 
for the submission of petitions for the withdrawal or suspension of 
certain benefits of the program to ATPDEA recipient countries. 
Petitions must indicate the eligibility criterion that the petitioner 
believes warrants review. 

Slide 43: 

U.S. Review ï¿½AGOA: Actively Managed While Number of Beneficiaries 
Relatively Constant: 

Process: 
* AGOA implementation Subcommittee conducts annual review; 
* USTR makes recommendation to the President; 
* President designates and terminates eligibility. 

Outcomes/Results/Action: 
* Number of beneficiaries has varied between 35 and 39 between 2001 and 
2007; 
* The President has terminated eligibility four times and conferred 
eligibility eight times; 
* In recent reviews, Administration frequently cites lack of economic 
reforms, rule of law, and human rights as reasons for country 
ineligibility; 
* AGOA eligibility denied or terminated occasionally on the basis of 
specific statutory concerns (e.g., activities that undermine U.S. 
foreign policy interests). 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

To identify and compare key features of U.S. preference programs, we
reviewed and analyzed U.S. laws and regulations, authoritative
international trade documents such as U.S. submissions to the World Trade
Organization and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and
periodicals. From these documents we extracted information regarding the
U.S. preference programs' objectives, list of beneficiary countries,
product coverage information, review requirements, country eligibility
criteria, and other key conditions and limitations. We also interviewed
officials from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR); the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, State, and the Treasury; U.S.
Customs and Border Protection; and the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) regarding these issues.

To analyze the use of U.S. preference programs by beneficiaries, we
analyzed official U.S. trade data from the Census Bureau to illustrate
usage by country, product, and changes over time. Values of imports over
time are expressed in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
Inflation adjusted values would show similar patterns, but with more
gradual growth in fuel exports in recent years. We also analyzed the
official U.S. tariff schedule from the U.S. International Trade
Commission, which identifies which products are eligible for preferences.
We determined that both the U.S. trade statistics and the U.S. tariff
schedule were sufficiently reliable to analyze the value of trade entering
under preference programs and those products officially eligible for
preference program benefits. In order to examine broad groups of products,
we organized the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) product chapters into
sectors:

1. Agriculture (agriculture, food, beverages, spirits, and tobacco): HTS
chapters 1-24

2. Chemicals, plastics, paper (chemicals, plastics, minerals (excluding
fuels), wood, and paper): HTS chapters 25-40 (excluding HTS 27) and HTS
chapters 44-49

3. Fuels: HTS chapter 27

4. Textiles and apparel (textiles, apparel, leather, and footwear): HTS
chapters 41-43 and 50-67

5. Jewelry and glassware (jewelry, glassware, precious metals and stones):
HTS chapters 68-71

6. Base metals and articles: HTS chapters 72-81 and 83

7. Machinery and electronics (machinery, electronics, high tech apparatus,
aircraft, autos, other transportation, and miscellaneous manufacturing):
HTS chapters 82, 84-99

To determine U.S. agency administration of preference programs, we
examined the basic elements of the review process for each of the U.S.
trade preference programs and compared them. For the Generalized System of
Preferences, we reviewed both the special review that began in 2005 and
the 2006 annual review. We examined the outcome of the competitive need
limitations (CNL) review in detail, and we reviewed product-related
petitions (including CNL waivers and product additions and exclusions) for
the period 2004 through 2006 and petitions concerning country practices
for 2001 through 2006. For the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), we
reviewed the country practice petitions filed since 2003 with USTR. For
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), we reviewed annual reports
submitted to the Congress by the President on the trade and investment
policy of the United States toward sub-Saharan Africa and on the
implementation of AGOA. From these reports, we tallied the number of times
the President had conferred or terminated eligibility since he initially
declared 34 countries eligible on October 2, 2000, and January 17, 2001.

We performed our work from April 2007 through September 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Eligibility and Use of Preference Programs by Country: 

Table 1: Country Eligibility for U.S. Preference Programs, 2006: 

Partners: Afghanistan; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: Check; 
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Albania; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Algeria; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Angola; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Anguilla; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Antigua and Barbuda[a]; 
GSP: Check-minus; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Argentina; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Armenia; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Aruba; 
GSP: [Empty]; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Bahamas; 
GSP: [Empty]; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Bahrain[a]; 
GSP: Check-minus; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Bangladesh; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: Check; 
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Barbados[a]; 
GSP: Check-minus; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Belize; 
GSP: Check; 
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Benin; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Bhutan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Bolivia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: Check;
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Botswana; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Brazil; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: British Indian Ocean Territory; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: British Virgin Island; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Bulgaria[b]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Burkina Faso; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Burundi; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Cambodia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Cameroon; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Cape Verde; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Central African Republic; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Chad; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Christmas Island; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Cocos (Keeling) Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Colombia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: Check;
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Comoros; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 
 
Partners: Congo (Brazzaville); 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Congo (Kinshasa); 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Cook Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Costa Rica; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Cote d'Ivoire; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Croatia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Djibouti; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Dominica; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Dominican Republic[c]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Ecuador; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: Check;
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Egypt; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: El Salvador[c]; 
GSP: Check-minus;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check-minus;
CBTPA: Check-minus;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Equatorial Guinea; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Eritrea; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Ethiopia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: Falkland Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle.

Partners: Fiji; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Gabon; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: Gambia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: Gaza Strip/West Bank[d]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Georgia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Ghana; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: Gibralter; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High.

Partners: Grenada; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Guatemala[c]; 
GSP: Check-minus;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check-minus;
CBTPA: Check-minus;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Guinea; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Guinea-Bissau; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Guyana; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC:[Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Haiti[e]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Heard Islands and McDonald Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Honduras[c]; 
GSP: Check-minus;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check-minus;
CBTPA: Check-minus;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: India; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Indonesia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Indonesia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Jamaica; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Jordan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Kazakhstan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Kenya; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Kiribati; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Kyrgyzstan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Lebanon; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Lesotho; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Liberia; 
GSP: Check-plus;
GSP-LDC: Check-plus;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Macedonia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Madagascar; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Malawi; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Mali; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Mauritania[f]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check-minus;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Mauritus; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Moldova; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Mongolia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Montserrat; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Mozambique; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Namibia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Nepal; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Netherland Antilles; 
GSP: [Empty];
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Nicaragua[c]; 
GSP: [Empty];
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check-minus;
CBTPA: Check-minus;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Niger; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Nigeria; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Niue; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Norfolk Island; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High. 

Partners: Oman; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper Middle. 

Partners: Pakistan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Panama; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Papua New Guinea; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Paraguay; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Peru; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: Check;
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Philippines; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Pitcairn Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Romania[b]; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Russia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Rwanda; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Samoa; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Sao Tome and Principe; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Senegal; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Serbia/Montenegro; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Seychelles; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Sierra Leone; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Solomon Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Somolia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: South Africa; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: Sri Lanka; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: St. Helena; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle.

Partners: St. Kitts and Nevis; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: St. Lucia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: St. Vincent and the Grenadines; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: Suriname; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Swaziland; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Tanzania; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: Thailand; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Togo; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low.

Partners: Tokelau; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle.

Partners: Tonga; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Trinidad and Tobago; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: Check;
CBTPA: Check;
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: High.

Partners: Tunisia; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle.

Partners: Turkey; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle.

Partners: Turks and Caicos Islands; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle.

Partners: Tuvalu; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Uganda; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Ukraine; 
GSP: Check-plus;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Uruguay; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Uzbekistan; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Vanuatu; 
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Lower middle. 

Partners: Venezuela;  
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Upper middle. 

Partners: Wallis and Futuna;  
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Middle. 

Partners: Yemen;  
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Zambia;  
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: Check;
AGOA: Check;
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Partners: Zimbabwe;  
GSP: Check;
GSP-LDC: [Empty];
AGOA: [Empty];
CBI: [Empty];
CBTPA: [Empty];
ATPA: [Empty];
Income Level: Low. 

Legend: 

Check: Eligible for full year 2006. 
Check-minus: Eligibility lost at some point during 2006. 
Check-plus: Eligibility gained at some point during 2006. 
GSP = Generalized System of Preferences. 
GSP-LDC = Generalized System of Preferences for least-developed 
beneficiaries. 
AGOA = African Growth and Opportunity Act. 
CBI = Caribbean Basin Initiative. 
CBTPA = Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. 
ATPA = Andean Trade Preference Act. 

Sources: 2006 eligibility comes from the U.S. International Trade 
Commissionï¿½s official U.S. tariff schedule. The original tariff 
schedule had two revisions plus three supplements (total of six 
documents for 2006). We reviewed each of these documents for changes 
throughout the year. Income levels are from the World Bank or the 
United Nations. 

Note: Blank spaces [empty] indicate the country was not eligible for 
GSP during 2006. 

[a] Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, and Barbados were removed from GSP 
eligibility in January 2006 due to high per capita income. The United 
Statesï¿½Bahrain Free Trade Agreement was implemented in July 2006. 

[b] Bulgaria and Romania were removed from GSP eligibility in December 
2006 when they became members of the European Union. 

[c] The following countries were removed from eligibility for GSP, CBI, 
and CBTPA as Free Trade Agreements went into force: the Dominican 
Republic (March 2007), El Salvador (March 2006), Guatemala (July 2006), 
Honduras (April 2006), and Nicaragua (April 2006). 

[d] Under GSP, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are listed as a single 
entity, although they are separately identified in U.S. trade data. 

[e] Haiti is also eligible for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity 
through Partnership Encouragement Act. 

[f] Mauritania lost AGOA eligibility on Jan. 1, 2006, and regained AGOA 
eligibility on June 28, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Use of Preference Programs by Trade Partners, 2006: 

Partner: Total; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions:  
$32,598.5; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 100; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: $59,532.6;  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 100; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: $1,845,053.2;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 100; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 5. 

Partner: Afghanistan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 45.2;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Albania; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 12.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Algeria; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.3; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 14,752.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Andorra; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Angola; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 6,774.3; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 21;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 59;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 4,532.9;  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 8; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 39; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 11,513.8;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 98. 

Partner: Anguilla; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.2;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Antigua and Barbados; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 5.8;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Argentina; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 666.4; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 17;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,924.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 17. 

Partner: Armenia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 28.1; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 60;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 46.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 60. 

Partner: Aruba; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;  
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,605.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Australia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 8,243.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Austria; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7,701.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Azerbaijan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 503.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Bahamas; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 125.1; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 29; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 435.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 29. 

Partner: Bahrain; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.7; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 632.3;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Bangladesh; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 20.5; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty]; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty]; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,267.8;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1.

Partner: Barbados; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.7; 
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 14; 
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 33.0;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 14. 

Partner: Belarus; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 541.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty].

Partner: Belgium; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 14,431.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty].

Partner: Belize; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 6.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 72.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 49;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 146.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 53.

Partner: Benin; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.6;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 4. 

Partner: Bermuda; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 16.2;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Bhutan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Bolivia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 21.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 166.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 46;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 362.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 52. 

Partner: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 14;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 25.6;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 14. 

Partner: Botswana; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 28.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 11;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 252.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 11. 

Partner: Brazil; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,737.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 11;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 14;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 26,169.0;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 14. 

Partner: British Indian Ocean Territory; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: British Virgin Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 26.3;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Brunei; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 492.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Bulgaria; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 61.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 13;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 457.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 13. 

Partner: Burkina Faso; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.0;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 6. 

Partner: Burundi; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.9;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Cambodia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 5.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,188.2;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Cameroon; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 152.4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 68;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 223.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 69. 

Partner: Canada; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2303,034.0;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 16; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Cape Verde; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 9;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.0;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 11. 

Partner: Cayman Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 15.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Central African Republic; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.3;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Chad; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 166.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,531.4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 80;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,904.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 89. 

Partner: Chile; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 9,551.3;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: China; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 287,052.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 16; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Christmas Island; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.4;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Cocos (Keeling) Island; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Colombia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 181.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 4,791.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 52;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 9,239.8;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 54. 

Partner: Comoros; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Congo (Brazzaville); 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 774.5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 25;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,045.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 25. 

Partner: Congo (Kinshasa); 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 85.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 3. 

Partner: Cook Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Costa Rica; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 113.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,382.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 36;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,813.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 39. 

Partner: Cote d'Ivoire; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 20.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 722.7;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 3. 

Partner: Croatia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 145.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 41;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 352.6;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 41. 

Partner: Cuba; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Cyprus; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 51.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Czech Republic; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,295.1;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Denmark; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 5,451.5;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Djibouti; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.3;
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Dominica; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Dominican Republic; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 132.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,481.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 55;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4,540.0; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 58. 

Partner: Ecuador; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 71.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 5,325.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 76;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7,011.4; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 77. 

Partner: Egypt; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 69.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,404.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 3. 

Partner: El Salvador; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 9.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 154.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 8;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,842.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 9. 

Partner: Equatorial Guinea; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,558.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 91;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,718.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 91. 

Partner: Eritrea; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Estonia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 461.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Ethiopia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 5.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 81.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 9. 

Partner: Falkland Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 12.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Faroe Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Federated States of Micronesia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Fiji; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 52.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 36;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 145.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 36. 

Partner: Finland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4,953.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: France; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 36,837.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: French Guiana; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.6; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: French Polynesia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 58.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: French Southern and Antarctic Lands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Gabon; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,290.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 97;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,331.0; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 97. 

Partner: Gambia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 5. 

Partner: Gaza Strip; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 40;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 40. 

Partner: Georgia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 34.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 30;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 115.6; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 30. 

Partner: Germany; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 87,756.4; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 5; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Ghana; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 10.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 34.9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 18;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 192.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 24. 

Partner: Gibralter; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 15;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 15. 

Partner: Greece; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 967.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Greenland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 10.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Grenada; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.5; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Guadaloupe; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.5; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Guatemala; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 46.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 652.8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 21;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,102.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 23. 

Partner: Guinea; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 91.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Guinea-Bissau; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.5; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Guyana; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 14.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 12;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 5.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 125.0; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 16. 

Partner: Haiti; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 379.3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 76;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 496.1; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 77. 

Partner: Honduras; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 12.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 555.8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 15;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,734.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 15. 

Partner: Hong Kong; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7,920.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Hungary; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,582.6; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Iceland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 246.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: India; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 5,678.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 17;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 26;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 21,673.6; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 26. 

Partner: Indonesia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,945.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 15;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 13,267.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 15. 

Partner: Iran; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 157.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Iraq; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 11,326.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Ireland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 28,920.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Israel; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 19,156.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Italy; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 32,706.5; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Jamaica; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 12.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 245.8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 52;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 470.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 55. 

Partner: Japan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 148,070.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 8; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Jordan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 15.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,421.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Kazakhstan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 483.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 49;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 988.9; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 49. 

Partner: Kenya; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 265.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 75;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 352.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 77. 

Partner: Kiribati; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.3; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Kuwait; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,902.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Kyrgyzstan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Laos; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 8.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Latvia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 298.2; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Lebanon; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 34.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 39;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 87.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 39. 

Partner: Lesotho; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 384.5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 94;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 408.4; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 94. 

Partner: Liberia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 139.8; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Libya; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,418.7; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Liechtenstein; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 324.4; 
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Lithuania; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 569.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Luxembourg; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 533.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Macau; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,228.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Macedonia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 18;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 42.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 18. 

Partner: Madagascar; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 229.5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 82;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 281.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 82. 

Partner: Malawi; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 31.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 39;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 29.9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 38;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 79.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 77. 

Partner: Malaysia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 36,440.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Maldives; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.5;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Mali; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 6. 

Partner: Malta; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 379.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Marshall Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 14.5;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Martinique; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 26.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Mauritania[a]; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 28.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 55;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 51.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 55. 

Partner: Mauritius; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 11.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 145.8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 67;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 218.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 72. 

Partner: Mexico; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 197,055.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 11; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Moldova; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 37.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 6. 

Partner: Monaco; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 30.5;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Mongolia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 113.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Montserrat; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Morocco; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 546.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Mozambique; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 10.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 70;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 6;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 15.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 76. 

Partner: Namibia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 33.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 29;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 115.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 29. 

Partner: Nauru; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Nepal; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 99.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 4. 

Partner: Netherlands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 18,139.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Netherlands Antilles; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,100.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: New Caledonia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 50.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: New Zealand; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,100.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Nicaragua; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 111.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 7;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,526.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 7. 

Partner: Niger; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 123.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Nigeria; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 25,823.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 43;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 93;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 27,863.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 93. 

Partner: Niue; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 69;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 69. 

Partner: Norfolk Island; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 19;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 19. 

Partner: Norway; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 6,851.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Oman; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 64.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 782.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 8. 

Partner: Pakistan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 130.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,666.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 4. 

Partner: Palau; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Panama; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 24.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 7;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 33.8;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 10;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 337.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 17. 

Partner: Papua New Guinea; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 7;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 83.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 3. 

Partner: Paraguay; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 24.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 48;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 51.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 48. 

Partner: Peru; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 179.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,201.9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 54;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 5,896.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 57. 

Partner: Philippines; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,141.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 12;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 9,696.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 12. 

Partner: Pitcairn Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Poland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,254.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Portugal; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,044.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Qatar; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 261.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Reunion; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Romania; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 283.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 25;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,151.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 25. 

Partner: Russia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 512.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 3;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 19,641.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 3. 

Partner: Rwanda; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 10;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 8.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 10. 

Partner: Samoa; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 30;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 4.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 30. 

Partner: San Marino; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Sao Tome and Principe; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Saudi Arabia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 31,141,9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Senegal; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 14.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 66;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 21.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 67. 

Partner: Serbia/Montenegro; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 29.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 43;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 68.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 43. 

Partner: Seychelles; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 10.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Sierra Leone; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 35.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Singapore; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 17,750.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Slovakia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,346.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Slovenia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 482.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Solomon Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Somalia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: South Africa; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,065.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 14;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 717.4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 10;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7,497.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 24. 

Partner: South Korea; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 44,713.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Spain; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 9,831.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Sri Lanka; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 143.6;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 7;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2,141.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 7. 

Partner: St. Helena; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: St. Kitts and Nevis; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 24.7;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 49;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 50.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 52. 

Partner: St. Lucia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.5;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 19;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 37.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 20. 

Partner: St. Pierre and Miquelon; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: St. Vincent and the Grenadines; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 10;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 11. 

Partner: Sudan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 6.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Suriname; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 164.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Swaziland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 14.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 9;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 135.4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 87;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 155.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 96. 

Partner: Sweden; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 13,790.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Switzerland; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 14,174.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Syria; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 188.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Taiwan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 38,085.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Tajikistan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 60.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Tanzania; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 9;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 34.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 11. 

Partner: Thailand; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 4,252.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 13;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 19;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 22,344.7;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 1; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 19. 

Partner: Togo; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 64;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 64. 

Partner: Tokelau; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 21;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 5.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 21. 

Partner: Tonga; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Trinidad and Tobago; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 7.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 3,677.7;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 6;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 44;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 8,398.5;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 44. 

Partner: Tunisia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 113.9;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 27;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 427.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 27. 

Partner: Turkey; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,125.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 21;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 5,387.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 21. 

Partner: Turkmenistan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 94.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Turks and Caicos Islands; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 12.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 0. 

Partner: Uganda; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.5;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 7;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 21.8;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 11. 

Partner: Ukraine; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 23.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,637.9;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: United Arab Emirates; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1,314.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: United Kingdom; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 53,501.6;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 3; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Uruguay; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 50.3;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 10;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 512.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 10. 

Partner: Uzbekistan; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 151.5;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Vanuatu; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 4;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 2.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 4. 

Partner: Vatican City; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 1.3;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: Venezuela; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 685.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 2;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 36,283.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 2; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 2. 

Partner: Vietnam; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 8,463.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): [Empty]. 

Partner: West Bank; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.8;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 27;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 3.1;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 27. 

Partner: Yemen; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 390.2;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 1;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 87;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 447.4;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 87. 

Partner: Zambia; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.4;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 1;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: 0.0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: 0;
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 0;
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 29.0;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 1. 

Partner: Zimbabwe; 
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Dollars in millions: 67.7;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Percent: 0;
Generalized System of Preferences (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): 66;
Regional preference programs (2006), Dollars in millions: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Percent: [Empty];
Regional preference programs (2006), Share of preferences in total 
imports from partner (percent): [Empty];
Total imports (2006), Dollars in millions: 103.2;  
Total imports (2006), Percent: 0; 
Total imports (2006), Share of preferences in total imports from 
partner (percent): 66. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. official trade statistics from the Census. 

Notes: Regional programs include the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
(AGOA), the Andean Trade Preference Act, the Andean Trade Promotion and 
Drug Eradication Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the Caribbean 
Basin Trade Partnership Act. 

[a] Mauritania lost AGOA eligibility on Jan. 1, 2006, and regained AGOA 
eligibility on June 28, 2007. 

Blank spaces [Empty] indicate the trade partner was not eligible for a 
preference program during 2006. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: U.S. Preference Imports by Key Product Sectors, Dollars in 
billions: 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Total; 
1995: 21.7; 
2000: 21.2; 
2001: 33.3; 
2002: 37.0; 
2003: 50.7; 
2004: 63.9; 
2005: 82.9; 
2006: 92.1. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Agriculture; 
1995: 2.7; 
2000: 3.1; 
2001: 3.1; 
2002: 3.1; 
2003: 4.0; 
2004: 4.1; 
2005: 4.7; 
2006: 5.3. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Chemicals, plastics, paper; 
1995: 2.9; 
2000: 4.0; 
2001: 4.2; 
2002: 3.9; 
2003: 4.6; 
2004: 4.7; 
2005: 5.9; 
2006: 6.7. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Fuels; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 3.2; 
2001: 10.1; 
2002: 11.5; 
2003: 20.4; 
2004: 30.5; 
2005: 46.8; 
2006: 54.8. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Textiles and apparel; 
1995: 1.1; 
2000: 0.9; 
2001: 6.2; 
2002: 7.6; 
2003: 9.1; 
2004: 10.2; 
2005: 10.0; 
2006: 6.8. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Jewelry and glassware; 
1995: 1.4; 
2000: 2.1; 
2001: 2.3; 
2002: 3.0; 
2003: 3.9; 
2004: 4.7; 
2005: 5.1; 
2006: 6.0. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Base metals and articles; 
1995: 2.1; 
2000: 3.2; 
2001: 2.6; 
2002: 2.5; 
2003: 2.8; 
2004: 3.5; 
2005: 4.0; 
2006: 5.1. 

Preference program: All;
Product Group: Machinery, electronics; 
1995: 11.5; 
2000: 4.9; 
2001: 4.8; 
2002: 5.4; 
2003: 5.9; 
2004: 6.2; 
2005: 6.4; 
2006: 7.5. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Total; 
1995: 18.5; 
2000: 16.4; 
2001: 15.7 
2002: 17.7; 
2003: 21.3; 
2004: 22.7; 
2005: 26.7; 
2006: 32.6. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Agriculture; 
1995: 1.3; 
2000: 1.1; 
2001: 1.1; 
2002: 1.3; 
2003: 1.6; 
2004: 1.6; 
2005: 1.8; 
2006: 2.0. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Chemicals, plastics, paper; 
1995: 2.6; 
2000: 3.1; 
2001: 3.3; 
2002: 3.3; 
2003: 3.8; 
2004: 3.8; 
2005: 4.6; 
2006: 5.0. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Fuels; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 3.2; 
2001: 2.8; 
2002: 3.5; 
2003: 4.7; 
2004: 4.2; 
2005: 5.8; 
2006: 8.8. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Textiles and apparel; 
1995: 0.8; 
2000: 0.6; 
2001: 0.5; 
2002: 0.6; 
2003: 0.7; 
2004: 0.8; 
2005: 0.8; 
2006: 0.8. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Jewelry and glassware; 
1995: 1.0; 
2000: 1.7; 
2001: 1.9; 
2002: 2.6; 
2003: 3.5; 
2004: 4.1; 
2005: 4.5; 
2006: 5.4. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Base metals and articles; 
1995: 1.9; 
2000: 2.4; 
2001: 1.9; 
2002: 1.9; 
2003: 2.1; 
2004: 2.8; 
2005: 3.3; 
2006: 3.8. 

Preference program: GSP;
Product Group: Machinery, electronics; 
1995: 10.9; 
2000: 4.5; 
2001: 4.1; 
2002: 4.5; 
2003: 4.9; 
2004: 5.4; 
2005: 5.8; 
2006: 6.6. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Total; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 7.6;  
2002: 8.4; 
2003: 13.2; 
2004: 22.0; 
2005: 32.7; 
2006: 36.1. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Agriculture; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.1; 
2002: 0.1; 
2003: 0.1; 
2004: 0.1; 
2005: 0.2; 
2006: 0.2. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Chemicals, plastics, paper; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.0; 
2002: 0.0; 
2003: 0.0; 
2004: 0.0; 
2005: 0.0; 
2006: 0.0. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Fuels; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 6.8; 
2002: 6.8; 
2003: 11.1; 
2004: 19.6; 
2005: 30.9; 
2006: 34.1. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Textiles and apparel; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.4; 
2002: 0.8; 
2003: 1.2; 
2004: 1.6; 
2005: 1.3; 
2006: 1.3. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Jewelry and glassware; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.0; 
2002: 0.0; 
2003: 0.0; 
2004: 0.0; 
2005: 0.0; 
2006: 0.0. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Base metals and articles; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.1; 
2002: 0.1; 
2003: 0.1; 
2004: 0.2; 
2005: 0.1; 
2006: 0.1. 

Preference program: AGOA;
Product Group: Machinery, electronics; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.2; 
2002: 0.5; 
2003: 0.6; 
2004: 0.4; 
2005: 0.1; 
2006: 0.4. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Total; 
1995: 2.3; 
2000: 2.8; 
2001: 8.3;  
2002: 10.0; 
2003: 10.4; 
2004: 10.8; 
2005: 12.1; 
2006: 9.9. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Agriculture; 
1995: 0.9; 
2000: 1.3; 
2001: 1.3; 
2002: 1.4; 
2003: 1.4; 
2004: 1.4; 
2005: 1.6; 
2006: 1.8. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Chemicals, plastics, paper; 
1995: 0.2; 
2000: 0.5; 
2001: 0.6; 
2002: 0.6; 
2003: 0.7; 
2004: 0.8; 
2005: 1.1; 
2006: 1.4. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Fuels; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.4; 
2002: 1.0; 
2003: 1.2; 
2004: 1.4; 
2005: 2.1; 
2006: 2.7. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Textiles and apparel; 
1995: 0.3; 
2000: 0.3; 
2001: 5.3; 
2002: 6.2; 
2003: 6.4; 
2004: 6.6; 
2005: 6.6; 
2006: 3.3. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Jewelry and glassware; 
1995: 0.2; 
2000: 0.2; 
2001: 0.2; 
2002: 0.3; 
2003: 0.3; 
2004: 0.3; 
2005: 0.3; 
2006: 0.3. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Base metals and articles; 
1995: 0.1; 
2000: 0.1; 
2001: 0.1; 
2002: 0.1; 
2003: 0.1; 
2004: 0.0; 
2005: 0.0; 
2006: 0.0. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Machinery, electronics; 
1995: 0.5; 
2000: 0.4; 
2001: 0.4; 
2002: 0.4; 
2003: 0.4; 
2004: 0.4; 
2005: 0.4; 
2006: 0.4. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Total; 
1995: 0.9; 
2000: 2.0; 
2001: 1.7;  
2002: 1.0; 
2003: 5.8; 
2004: 8.4; 
2005: 11.4; 
2006: 13.5. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Agriculture; 
1995: 0.6; 
2000: 0.7; 
2001: 0.6; 
2002: 0.3; 
2003: 0.8; 
2004: 1.0; 
2005: 1.0; 
2006: 1.3. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Chemicals, plastics, paper; 
1995: 0.1; 
2000: 0.4; 
2001: 0.3; 
2002: 0.1; 
2003: 0.1; 
2004: 0.1; 
2005: 0.2; 
2006: 0.2. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Fuels; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.0; 
2002: 0.2; 
2003: 3.4; 
2004: 5.3; 
2005: 8.0; 
2006: 9.1. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Textiles and apparel; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.0; 
2002: 0.0; 
2003: 0.8; 
2004: 1.2; 
2005: 1.3; 
2006: 1.4. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Jewelry and glassware; 
1995: 0.2; 
2000: 0.2; 
2001: 0.2; 
2002: 0.1; 
2003: 0.2; 
2004: 0.2; 
2005: 0.2; 
2006: 0.3. 

Preference program: CBI/CBTPA;
Product Group: Base metals and articles; 
1995: 0.1; 
2000: 0.7; 
2001: 0.5; 
2002: 0.3; 
2003: 0.5; 
2004: 0.5; 
2005: 0.7; 
2006: 1.1. 

Preference program: ATPA/ATPDEA;
Product Group: Machinery, electronics; 
1995: 0.0; 
2000: 0.0; 
2001: 0.0; 
2002: 0.0; 
2003: 0.0; 
2004: 0.0; 
2005: 0.0; 
2006: 0.1. 

Legend: 

GSP = Generalized System of Preferences: 
AGOA = African Growth and Opportunity Act: 
CBI = Caribbean Basin Initiative: 
CBTPA = Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act: 
ATPA = Andean Trade Preference Act: 
ATPDEA = Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act: 

Source: GAO analysis of official U.S. trade statistics from the Census. 

Notes: Product sectors are discussed in appendix II. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Country Eligibility Criteria: 

The Generalized System of Preferences, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
and the Andean Trade Preference Act have similar country eligibility 
criteria, including mandatory exclusion if the country: 

* is Communist; 
* extends preferential treatment to a developed country with adverse 
effects on the United States; 
* nationalizes or expropriates property of any U.S. citizen or business 
entity; 
* fails to recognize or enforce arbitral award favoring any U.S. 
citizen or business entity, or; 
* does not afford internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights. 

The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Haitian Hemispheric 
Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act have similar country 
eligibility criteria, including making or establishing progress toward 
the following:  

* market economy; 
* elimination of trade barriers; 
* political pluralism; 
* rule of law; 
* anti-corruption; 
* poverty reduction, and; 
* internationally recognized workersï¿½ rights. 

In addition, the country may not: 

* undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy; 
* commit gross violations of human rights, or; 
* support international terrorism. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Generalized System of Preferences Administrative Reviews: 

Table 4: Changes in Countriesï¿½ GSP Beneficiary Status since Program 
Implementation: 

Beneficiary: Laos; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 10/1/76; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Portugal; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 10/1/76; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Portuguese Timor; 
Action: No longer BDC; 
Effective: 3/1/79; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Became part of 
Indonesia. 

Beneficiary: Ethiopia; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 3/28/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Ecuador; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/30/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Indonesia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/30/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Zimbabwe; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/30/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Uganda; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/30/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Venezuela; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/30/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Afghanistan; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 5/20/80; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Portugal; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 1/1/86; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European 
Community. 

Beneficiary: Aruba; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 1/1/86; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Marshall Islands; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 10/21/86; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Micronesia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 11/3/86; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Nicaragua; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 3/4/87; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Paraguay; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 3/4/87; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Romania; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 3/4/87; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Greenland; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 8/7/87; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Chile; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 2/2/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Panama; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 4/9/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Bahrain; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Bermuda; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Brunei; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Nauru; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/88; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Hong Kong; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Competitiveness. 

Beneficiary: South Korea; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Competitiveness. 

Beneficiary: Singapore; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Competitiveness. 

Beneficiary: Taiwan; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Competitiveness. 

Beneficiary: Burma; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 7/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Central African Republic; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 7/1/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Marshall Islands; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 10/18/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered Compact of 
Freely Associated States. 

Beneficiary: Micronesia; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 10/18/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered Compact of 
Freely Associated States. 

Beneficiary: Hungary; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 11/3/89; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Poland; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 1/9/90; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Panama; 
Action: Reinstate BDC; 
Effective: 3/17/90; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Liberia; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 7/1/90; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Bahrain; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/1/90; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Chile; 
Action: Reinstate BDC; 
Effective: 2/6/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Paraguay; 
Action: Reinstate BDC; 
Effective: 2/6/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 


Beneficiary: Central African Republic; 
Action: Reinstate BDC; 
Effective: 2/6/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Namibia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 2/6/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Czechoslovakia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 4/21/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Sudan; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 7/1/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Bulgaria; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 12/4/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Yugoslavia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 12/24/91; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Estonia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 2/22/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Latvia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 2/22/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Lithuania; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 2/22/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Romania; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/4/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: South Africa; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/4/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Syria; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 8/17/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Bosnia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/11/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Croatia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/11/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Macedonia (FYR); 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/11/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Slovenia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/11/92; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Ethiopia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 1/12/93; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Albania; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/1/93; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Mauritania; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 7/1/93; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Russia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 10/18/93; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Kyrgyzstan; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 12/29/93; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Mexico; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 1/1/94; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered North American 
Free Trade Agreement. 

Beneficiary: Kazakhstan; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/4/94; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Ukraine; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 3/24/94; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Belarus; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/3/94; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Uzbekistan; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/3/94; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Armenia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 2/2/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: West Bank/Gaza; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 4/1/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Bahamas; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Israel; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 7/1/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Moldova; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 8/15/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Maldives; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 9/29/95; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: Malaysia; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/97; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Competitiveness. 

Beneficiary: Cambodia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 1/31/97; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Cyprus; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Aruba; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Macau; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Netherland Antilles; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Greenland; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Cayman Islands; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/98; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Gabon; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/1/99; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Mongolia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/1/99; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Mauritania; 
Action: Reinstate (LDBDC); 
Effective: 9/1/99; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Nigeria; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 8/27/00; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Belarus; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 9/1/00; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Workers' rights. 

Beneficiary: AGOA Beneficiaries; 
Action: Designate AGOA BDCs; 
Effective: 10/2/00; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Eritrea; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 10/2/02; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Georgia; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/5/01; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Ukraine; 
Action: Remove; 
Effective: 8/10/01; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Intellectual property 
rights. 

Beneficiary: French Polynesia; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/02; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Malta; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/02; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: New Caledonia; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/02; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Slovenia; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/02; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Afghanistan; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 1/29/03; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Afghanistan; 
Action: Designate LDBDC; 
Effective: 2/13/03; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Chile; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 1/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered FTA. 

Beneficiary: Algeria; 
Action: Designate LDBDC; 
Effective: 3/16/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty].  

Beneficiary: Czech Republic; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Estonia; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Hungary; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Latvia; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Lithuania; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Poland; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Slovakia; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 5/1/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Iraq; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 9/22/04; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Serbia and Montenegro; 
Action: Designate BDC; 
Effective: 7/15/05; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Antigua and Barbuda; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Barbados; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Bahrain; 
Action: Graduate; 
Effective: 1/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: High income. 

Beneficiary: Slovakia; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 1/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered FTA. 

Beneficiary: Ukraine; 
Action: Reinstate; 
Effective: 2/3/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Liberia; 
Action: Designate LDBDC; 
Effective: 2/22/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: El Salvador; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 3/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered CAFTA-DR. 

Beneficiary: Honduras; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 4/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered CAFTA-DR. 

Beneficiary: Guatemala; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 7/1/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered CAFTA-DR. 

Beneficiary: East Timor; 
Action: Designate LDBDC; 
Effective: 12/29/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: [Empty]. 

Beneficiary: Bulgaria; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 12/29/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Romania; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 12/29/06; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Joined European Union. 

Beneficiary: Dominican Republic; 
Action: Terminate; 
Effective: 3/1/07; 
Reason for Removal, Graduation, or Termination: Entered CAFTA-DR. 

Legend: 

BDC = GSP beneficiary developing country: 
CAFTA-DR = Central Americaï¿½Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement: 
FTA = Free trade agreement: 
LDBDC = GSP least-developed beneficiary developing country: 

Source: USTR. 

Notes: 

Graduate refers to when a beneficiary is no longer eligible for GSP 
benefits because it has exceeded statutory gross national income per 
capita limits or has been determined to be competitive within the 
meaning of U.S. trade laws. 

Remove refers to statutory action to ï¿½withdraw, suspend, or limitï¿½ a 
countryï¿½s GSP eligibility or benefits, based on country practices 
pertinent to eligibility. 

Terminate refers to when a GSP beneficiary joined the European 
Community or European Union, was no longer recognized as a sovereign 
state, or entered into a free trade agreement with the United States.

[End of table] 

Table 5: GSP Country Practice Petitions Filed, by Country and Type of 
Petition, 2001-2006: 

Number of petitions filed with USTR: 

Country: Armenia; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 2; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 1; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Brazil; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Bulgaria; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 1; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Congo (Kinshasa); 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 1; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Costa Rica; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 3; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Czech Republic; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Dominican Republic; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 3; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 5; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Guatemala; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 5; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Honduras; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Hungary; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: India; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Iraq; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Kazakhstan; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Lebanon; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Niger; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Oman; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Pakistan; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Panama; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Peru; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Poland; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Romania; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 3; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Russia; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Slovenia; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 1; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Sri Lanka; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Swaziland; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Thailand; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Uganda; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 1; 
Intellectual property rights: 0; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Ukraine; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Uruguay; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0.

Country: Uzbekistan; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 0; 
Intellectual property rights: 1; 
Market access: 0; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 0; 
Contract nullification: 0; 
Expropriation: 0. 

Country: Total; 
Workersï¿½ rights: 24; 
Intellectual property rights: 15; 
Market access: 6; 
Reverse preferential treatment: 4; 
Contract nullification: 2; 
Expropriation: 1.

Source: GAO analysis of USTR documents. 

Note: According to USTR, some of these petitions were accepted for 
review and resolved; others were not accepted for review; a few were 
withdrawn; and four remain open, as of Aug. 2, 2007. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Loren Yager, (202) 512-4347 or [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, the following persons made major
contributions to this report: Kim Frankena, Assistant Director; Ann Baker;
Gezahegne Bekele; Ken Bombara; Perri Chai; Karen Deans; Juan Gobel;
Richard Gifford Howland; Ernie Jackson; Marisela Perez; and Tim Wedding.
The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Martin de
Alteriis, Susan Offutt, and Mark Speight.

(320513)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [13]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[14]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [15]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [16][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [17][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [18][email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1209.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Loren Yager at (202) 512-4347 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-07-1209, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, and the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives

September 27,2007

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

An Overview of Use of U.S. Trade Preference Programs by Beneficiaries and
U.S. Administrative Reviews

Goods imported into the United States under trade preference programs,
which extend unilateral tariff reductions to over 130 developing countries
to assist their economies, totaled approximately $92 billion in 2006. The
United States offers four primary trade preference programs--the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI), the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA). Some economists and others have raised concerns
about the programs; for example, because the beneficiaries may lose
interest in reciprocal multilateral or bilateral trade liberalization. In
addition, the global trade context in which the programs operate is
changing. Most U.S. trade preference programs will need to be renewed over
the next several years. As a result, Congress needs to reexamine the
programs and explore options for improvement. To provide information for
such a reexamination, at your request we (1) identified and compared key
features of U.S. preference programs, (2) analyzed use of U.S. preference
programs by beneficiaries, and (3) examined U.S. agency administrative
reviews of preference programs.

U.S. trade preference programs have notable similarities and differences.
In general, their goal is to promote economic development in poorer
nations by supporting exports. GSP provides a basic level of product
coverage available to all beneficiaries, with added products for
least-developed beneficiaries. The three regional programs cover
additional products and generally have more liberal conditions for product
entry than GSP. On the other hand, regional beneficiaries are held to more
extensive criteria for participation. Further, the regional programs serve
specific foreign policy interests--for example, ATPA complements
counternarcotics efforts.

Although they represent a small share of total U.S. imports (see figure),
imports under U.S. preference programs have grown sharply since 2002 and
constitute a significant share of many beneficiary countries' exports to
the United States. For example, fuel imports under preference programs
have grown rapidly and, by 2006, accounted for over half of preference
imports in terms of value. Other growing sectors include machinery,
electronics, jewelry, and agriculture. About 10 countries accounted for
over 75 percent of preference imports in 2006. The largest suppliers are
Nigeria and Angola, primarily because of fuel imports; India, Thailand,
and Brazil are the three largest non-fuel suppliers. Countries that have
the highest share of their exports to the United States benefiting from
preferences tend to be lower income countries.

U.S. administrative reviews vary in frequency and scope, but have resulted
in few changes to country and product eligibility. GSP has annual reviews
based on petitions (requests). Between 2001 and 2006, one country was
removed from eligibility because of intellectual property rights concerns
but was later reinstated after it addressed them. In addition, duty-free
imports of products from particular countries above import share or value
thresholds are excluded by statute unless a waiver is requested and
received. Legislation passed in 2006 required a review of existing GSP
waivers above specified competitiveness thresholds; of the nine reviewed,
eight were revoked. ATPA has an annual review of country eligibility
practices, based on petitions filed, which has not withdrawn or suspended
benefits from any country. The reviews of AGOA and CBI are not based on
petitions; all AGOA countries are reviewed annually, while CBI countries
are reviewed biennially. From 2001 to 2007, four countries lost AGOA
eligibility, largely due to concerns about lack of economic reform, rule
of law, and human rights.

Five Percent of U.S. Imports Enter under Preference Programs

References

Visible links
  11. http://www.gao.gov/
  12. mailto:[email protected]
  13. http://www.gao.gov/
  14. http://www.gao.gov/
  15. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  16. mailto:[email protected]
  17. mailto:[email protected]
  18. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***