再次重申，请不要用翻译机敷衍我。。。
These 10 chapters also ranked high according to both countries in terms of their absolute value of trade. The first five chapters listed in Table 2 were also the top five ranked chapters in terms of the value of imports from China, according to the United States, and accounted for 62.3% of the total value of imports in 2006. The first four sources for the discrepancies were also the top four sources of exports to the United States, according to China. Of the 10 chapters listed in Table 2, nine were among the top 10 sources of China’s exports (leather goods ranked 13th among the HS chapters) and all 10 were among the top10 in rank order, according to the United States — but not in the same order. The 10 chapters listed above provided 77.3% of the value of what the United States said it imported from China in 2006, and 74.4% of what China said it exported to the United States.
On the other side of the trade equation, there were three chapters where China’s imports exceeded U.S. exports by more than $1 billion, and one chapter where U.S. exports exceeded Chinese imports by more than $1 billion. China’s imports from the United States of machinery (84), electrical machinery (85), and optical and medical equipment(90)were more than $1 billion greater than the U.S. exports to China. However, U.S. exports to China of iron and steel (72) were more than $1 billion greater than China’s imports from the United States. It is also worth noting that on both sides of the trade balance equation, the greatest differences in the official trade statistics of the two nations occurred in the same HS chapters — machinery (84) and electrical machinery (85). The discrepancies between the official trade statistics for these two types of goods have been consistently large for flows in both directions since 2001. This indicates a systemic difference in the evaluation of the bilateral trade of these goods.
The question as to why China’s official statistics are routinely much lower in value than the official U.S. trade statistics has been and continues to be the subject of analysis by scholars, government officials and other interested parties. The following is a short review of some of the key explanations provided in this literature, categorized into “technical” and “non-technical” explanations. “Technical” explanations refer to procedural or administrative causes for the discrepancies; “non-technical” explanations include causes arising from non-procedural or administrative sources.