Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

U.S. Department of Commerce Changes Policy to Include More Small Companies in Antidumping Administrative Reviews

By Craig Lewis, Jonathan T. Stoel & Wes Carrington on November 18, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Cargo on a boatIn a major shift in policy, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) is changing its practice regarding the selection of respondents in a particular type of antidumping duty proceeding known as an administrative review (i.e., annual proceedings to determine the appropriate duty rates for the previous year’s entries). This change promises to profoundly alter the administrative review process, making it less predictable for exporters and importers. The DOC’s change in the selection of respondents is limited to its antidumping administrative review proceedings, and does not currently apply to its investigations or countervailing duty proceedings.

Read more: U.S. Department of Commerce Changes Policy to Include More Small Companies in Antidumping Administrative Reviews

Photo of Jonathan T. Stoel Jonathan T. Stoel

Partner, Washington, D.C.

Multinational companies facing international trade and other complex international disputes look for specific experience in the courtroom and in arbitration. So do investors enmeshed in investment disputes. Jonathan Stoel has the experience to support clients in these challenging circumstances.

A…

Partner, Washington, D.C.

Multinational companies facing international trade and other complex international disputes look for specific experience in the courtroom and in arbitration. So do investors enmeshed in investment disputes. Jonathan Stoel has the experience to support clients in these challenging circumstances.

A partner in the firm’s International Trade and Investment and International Arbitration practices, Jonathan handles complex matters involving treaty-based claims, international investment protections, public international law, and international trade and customs issues. He also provides guidance on the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Jonathan helps clients in many industries, including the steel, pharmaceutical, energy, agriculture, and consumer products sectors. He represents claimant investors in investment arbitrations before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and its additional facility, as well as in ad hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Jonathan also develops strategies for clients to avoid protracted and costly investment dispute settlement proceedings.

Jonathan regularly represents companies in international trade administrative proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). He also litigates appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade. Jonathan has resolved international trade disputes through arbitration before panels constituted pursuant to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Jonathan provides customs law guidance to clients on classification, valuation, tariff preference, and other issues. He has first-chaired client defenses in customs regulatory audits, prior disclosures, and penalty and forfeiture proceedings.

Jonathan also serves as the chair of the Board of Trustees of the Thurgood Marshall Academy, a Southeast Washington charter school, and as counsel to the Court-appointed Receiver for Options Public Charter School.

Read more about Jonathan T. StoelEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Focus on Regulation
  • Organization:
    Hogan Lovells
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo