GDLSK: Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt LLP
Close this search box.

ADD/CVD Litigation in the CIT and CAFC

ADD/CVD investigations are adversarial matters and GDLSK’s representation of our clients’ interests does not stop after the DOC/USITC issues their administrative decisions.  When we are successful for our clients at the DOC/USITC, we assist these agencies in defending their favorable decisions in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). Similarly, when our clients receive adverse decisions from the DOC/USITC and we have exhausted our administrative appeal options, we can challenge those decisions in the CIT and CAFC.

The CIT and CAFC are courts of exclusive jurisdiction which are tasked with hearing and resolving all issues arising under the Customs and trade laws. GDLSK trade attorneys have extensive litigation experience. We are responsible for landmark judicial decisions which have industry-wide impact, as well as cases which have resulted in victory solely for our clients based on the unique record we had developed before the Agency.

Our success stories include the following decisions.

  • Wind Towers from Vietnam; CIT reversed DOC on complex substantive issues and the CAFC reversed the CIT/DOC on two other issues, resulting in the investigation rate being reduced from 50% to de minimis. Our client was excluded from ADD Order
  • Pipe from India; CIT reduced the Annual Review ADD rate from 11.83 to zero
  • Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China; CIT reversed DOC decisions that products are within scope of ADD/CVD Orders
  • Solar Panels from China; CIT reversed DOC decisions that China’s refusal to respond to certain questions justified reliance on AFA
  • Nails from Taiwan; CIT reversed DOC AFA determination, reducing rate from 78.76% to zero
  • Nails from China; CAFC reversed CIT decision that plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies, leading to reversal of DOC decision on effective date of scope decision
  • Nails from Vietnam: CIT/CAFC reversed DOC decision that “zinc anchors” fell within the scope of the ADD/CVD Orders on steel nails from Vietnam
  • Aluminum extrusions from China; CIT/CAFC reversed DOC on effective date of anticircumvention decision
  • Ribbons from China; CAFC reversed DOC/CIT on ADD rate applicable to co-operative separate rate company
  • PVLT from China; CAFC reversed DOC/CIT on selecting merely one respondent in an Annual Review
  • Nails from Taiwan; CAFC reversed DOC/CIT twice as to DOC’s differential pricing analysis


ADD/CVD Litigation in the CIT and CAFC
GDLSK Professionals: