Companies and trade associations regularly rely on Mayer Brown's experience in administrative proceedings arising under anti-dumping laws, countervailing duty or anti-subsidy laws, safeguards and other trade remedies. Our team represents parties before the relevant government agencies in the Americas, Europe, Asia and elsewhere around the world. We also appeal rulings before various domestic and international tribunals and apply all appropriate WTO Dispute Settlement Body rulings.

In addition to these proceedings, our lawyers help clients proactively protect market share and structure their international operations to minimize their trade remedy vulnerability to trade remedy actions, often by engaging our professionals to conduct dumping "diagnostics" at the client’s facility.

Anti-dumping and Subsidy Issues

We represent clients in anti-dumping investigations and reviews, anti-circumvention proceedings and related litigation involving both market and non-market economies and countries (such as China) with company-specific market economy status. Our lawyers and professionals have had great success before such administrative authorities as the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission in Washington, the European Commission and Council in Brussels, DECOM in Brasilia, UPCI in Mexico City and MOFCOM in Beijing.

Our lawyers show clients how to receive financial assistance from their governments while minimizing the risks of adverse subsidy proceedings. When controversies over alleged illegal subsidies do arise – such as countervailing duty proceedings, EU trade barrier regulation proceedings, or WTO dispute settlement proceedings – Mayer Brown gives private sector clients and governments effective support and guidance. 


Although safeguard actions remain the exception, providing industries such as steel and textile products with relief from increasing but fairly priced imports, we can help clients avert or cope with them as needed.

Section 301 and EU Trade Barrier Regulation

Our trade group helps clients bring or defend against two key types of trade rights violation complaints: Section 301 proceedings before the US Trade Representative and EU Trade Barrier Regulation proceedings before the European Commission. We also help clients work for improved product and service market access using rights and procedures under EU or EU Member State treaties.


  • Representation of US, Japanese, German, French, Finnish, Malaysian and other exporters in numerous Chinese anti-dumping investigations involving products such as chloroform (leading to a favorable settlement agreement), silicone (resulting in the lowest duties imposed against any exporter), and paper (resulting in the exclusion of the products exported).
  • Representation of Chinese exporters of silicon metal and their US importers in anti-dumping proceedings that lowered a duty of 139 percent, which had stood for more than 15 years, to less than 8 percent.
  • Representation of US manufacturers in various Mexican anti-dumping investigations, including ones on newsprint and line pipe, which resulted in no duties.
  • Successful representation of several US manufacturers in Section 201 (safeguard) proceedings concerning imports of cold-finished steel bar and semi-finished steel products.
  • Representation of Russian fertilizer and chemical manufacturers in EC anti-dumping investigations involving potassium chloride, ammonium nitrate and UAN solutions (all of which resulted in favorable price undertakings), as well as urea, carbon black and silicon carbide (in which the investigations were terminated).
  • Representation of US and Argentine manufacturers in a Brazilian anti-dumping investigation of PET resin and the ensuing WTO dispute settlement challenge, which resulted in removal of the duty.
    Representation of Philippine cement manufacturers in the first safeguard investigation in that country, which led to significant duties protecting the local industry from imports of gray portland cement and clinker.
  • Representation of a large sports brand and seven suppliers in China and Vietnam in the EC anti-dumping proceeding concerning leather footwear, which resulted in the complete exclusion of special athletic footwear.
  • Representation of Korean shipbuilders in the EC Trade Barrier Regulation investigation and subsequent WTO dispute settlement proceedings involving alleged subsidization of the shipbuilding industry, which resulted in a finding of virtually no subsidization.