International Trade > Trade Remedy Litigation

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP’s international trade lawyers and advisors have the significant depth and range of experience necessary to meet the complex challenges presented in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases. Our trade remedy lawyers are described in Chambers USA as “just excellent … they’ve never let us down and have always provided expert and timely assistance.” We handle cases involving products from both market and nonmarket economy countries. Further, our credibility and success in trade remedy cases are greatly enhanced by the breadth of our practice, since we advise both domestic industries and foreign producers, exporters, importers and purchasers. We understand fully the importance of political factors and consumer participation in trade remedy proceedings; members of our public law and policy practice are fully integrated and collaborative members of our practice.

Every trade remedy matter presents unique challenges; therefore, our lawyers develop a plan of attack tailored to each client and case, bearing in mind the cost and potential for success at each step along the way. Success in trade remedy litigation requires not only intimate familiarity with the statutory and regulatory framework, but experience in addressing the specific legal and practical issues unique to each industry, geographic area and company. We have represented clients before the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in a full range of industries—such as basic steel, chemical, agriculture and aquaculture, consumer electronics, semiconductors and manufactured goods—and with respect to locations around the globe, including Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand and the United Kingdom. Likewise, we have represented clients before agencies in other countries, including Mexico and China. Some of our recent successes include:

  • obtaining a 5-1 decision at the ITC in which it ruled that there is no injury or threat of injury from swimming pool chemicals from Japan. The ITC, at the same time, determined that there is a threat of injury from China. To reach this decision, the ITC had to decide not to “cumulate” imports from the two countries in its injury analysis, contrary to the approach that it almost always takes in AD injury investigations.
  • representing the U.S. catfish industry in achieving a unanimous final injury determination at the ITC in an expedited sunset review of the antidumping order against certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam
  • achieving a final negative injury determination in the AD and CVD cases against bottom mount refrigerators from Korea and Mexico
  • representing the Norwegian salmon industry in achieving revocation of the AD and CVD orders against Atlantic salmon from Norway
  • successfully representing the government of British Columbia in arbitration under the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement.