Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

April 23, 2014 by PKR

Commerce’s Response to Targeted Dumping Defended at the CIT

On behalf of the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“AHSTAC”), an association of domestic producers of warmwater shrimp, PKR today filed a brief at the U.S. Court of International Trade defending the U.S. Department of Commerce in the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from India.  Commerce found that an Indian […]

Filed Under: International Trade, News Tagged With: antidumping, CAFC, CIT, India, International Trade, seafood trade, zeroing

November 1, 2013 by PKR

China Challenges EU Compliance With WTO Fasteners Ruling

The People’s Republic of China this week requested consultations with the European Union to resolve a longstanding trade dispute over the assessment of antidumping duties on Chinese iron and steel fasteners.  According to China, the EU has not complied with the July 2011 WTO Appellate Body (AB) ruling that found the EU to have violated its […]

Filed Under: International Trade Tagged With: antidumping, China, EU, International Trade, nails trade, nonmarket economy, seafood trade, Vietnam, WTO, zeroing

July 26, 2013 by PKR

Federal Circuit affirms Almond Bros. and Union Steel – after years of unnecessary uncertainty

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit in Almond Bros. v. United States (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2013) dismissed is a challenge to the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement term that Canada distribute funds to members of a domestic softwood lumber industry group brought by lumber companies that were not members.  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative […]

Filed Under: International Law, International Trade Tagged With: antidumping, CAFC, Canada, China, CIT, International Trade, nails trade, SLA, USTR, zeroing

March 15, 2013 by PKR

Federal Circuit Hears Trio of Trade Cases

On March 7, 2013, three separate three-judge panels of the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument on important international trade cases. Union Steel v. United States is the latest in the long line of challenges to the “zeroing” methodology in which the Department of Commerce calculates antidumping duty (AD) dumping margins without offsetting sales above normal […]

Filed Under: International Trade Tagged With: antidumping, CAFC, Canada, China, CIT, International Trade, lumber, SLA, USTR, WTO, zeroing

November 10, 2011 by PKR

Judge Wallach Elevated to the Federal Circuit

Judge Evan J. Wallach was two days ago unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a Circuit Judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Washington, DC. For the previous sixteen years he presided at the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) in New York City. Although CIT […]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: antidumping, CAFC, CIT, International Trade, zeroing

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • Using AD and CVD Laws to Address Unfair Labor Practices
  • CBP’s Office of Regulations and Rulings Is Undermining EAPA in Decisions They Don’t Want You to See

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.