In this article
A shipment can appear in two national records: the exporting country's report and the importing country's report. Those figures need not match exactly. But on two hair-trade routes, the differences in the published records are large enough to change the apparent scale of the business.
The tables below compare the same direction of trade, naming both reporters. They establish discrepancies, not which reporter is correct or why the gap exists.
China to the United States: finished human-hair articles
This comparison uses HS 670420, finished human-hair articles. Values are millions of US dollars. The ratio divides China's reported exports to the US by US-reported imports from China; calculations use underlying unrounded records.
| Year | China says it exported to the US | US says it imported from China | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | $878.0m | $547.5m | 1.60× |
| 2015 | $1,103.1m | $626.9m | 1.76× |
| 2016 | $749.3m | $572.9m | 1.31× |
| 2017 | $633.6m | $544.7m | 1.16× |
| 2018 | $595.8m | $531.6m | 1.12× |
| 2019 | $724.3m | $629.7m | 1.15× |
| 2020 | $812.6m | $518.7m | 1.57× |
| 2021 | $1,832.9m | $915.0m | 2.00× |
| 2022 | $1,827.4m | $853.7m | 2.14× |
| 2023 | $1,899.5m | $587.0m | 3.24× |
| 2024 | $2,205.8m | $660.4m | 3.34× |
The ratio narrowed from 1.76 in 2015 to 1.12 in 2018, then increased in each annual interval through 2024. China's 2024 report was about 3.34 times the US report. This is a value comparison, not a claim that one side physically shipped or received three times as much hair.
These are historical records through 2024. They do not describe the effect of subsequent policy changes.
India to Myanmar: raw human hair
This second comparison uses HS 050100, unworked human hair and waste of human hair. It must not be added to the finished-article table as a measure of one market.
| Year | India says it exported to Myanmar | Myanmar says it imported from India | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $8.2m | $8.9m | 0.92× |
| 2023 | $187.4m | $16.8m | 11.16× |
| 2024 | $185.4m | $13.2m | 14.09× |
In 2019, the two reported values were relatively close; by 2024 they differed by about fourteenfold. India's reported value also rose sharply between 2019 and 2023. Neither observation identifies a donor source or the later destination of the same physical material.
What a mirror comparison can and cannot establish
A mirror comparison is a useful consistency check. The exporter and importer may use different valuation bases, reporting periods, partner attribution or coverage. Matching a six-digit code helps define the comparison but does not prove that the two records contain exactly the same shipments.
A difference can also reflect reporting or valuation problems. Aggregate records do not identify which transactions explain the gap. They cannot establish an allegation of fraud, under-invoicing or smuggling by any party.
Quantity fields need their own checks. Some trade quantities are agency estimates rather than independently reported weights. An apparent weight difference should not be treated as physical confirmation of a value discrepancy without checking those flags.
Questions for further investigation
- Valuation: are freight and insurance included on each side, and do comparable valuation fields narrow the difference?
- Timing: do monthly records suggest a shipment was reported in different periods?
- Partner attribution: does transit through another country change the partner assigned by each administration?
- Coverage: how are low-value shipments and missing records represented?
- Classification: does a broader, consistently defined basket change the result?
These are research questions, not explanations established by the tables. Determining their contributions requires more detailed records than the annual totals shown here.
How to use these numbers
Cite the reporter, partner, year, flow, code and value. If quoting China's exports, say so; do not relabel that figure as US imports. Do not average the two reports and present the result as verified trade.
The evidence remains useful precisely because its boundaries are explicit. It documents how the recorded values changed and shows where closer reconciliation is needed. It does not provide a single independently verified measure of all trade on either route.
Sources and calculation notes
World Bank WITS / UN Comtrade: China's 2024 HS 670420 exports and US 2024 HS 670420 imports; corresponding annual tables for 2014–2023 provide the earlier rows.
For the second table: India's 2024 HS 050100 exports and Myanmar's 2024 HS 050100 imports, with corresponding tables for 2019 and 2023. Displayed values are rounded; ratios are calculated before rounding.
For compilation and estimation limits, see the UN Comtrade methodology guide.
Related: Who imports finished human-hair articles and product forms versus trade codes.
