WILLIAM E. PERRY
Seattle/Washington, D.C. office
Business Telephone 206-224-5657
Home Telephone 425-957-4593
Cell Phone 206-235-4175
China Cell Phone 011-86-13717810676
Concentration in International Trade and Customs Law
J.D., Columbia University, 1978
B.A., Ohio University, 1972 (summa cum laude)
Martindale-Hubbell Rating A(V)
Prior to entering private practice, from October 1980 to May 1987, Mr. Perry was an attorney with the Office of General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and Office of Chief Counsel and Office of Antidumping Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce.
While at the ITC, Mr. Perry advised ITC Commissioners and participated in numerous trade investigations, including the section 201 investigations on automobiles and stainless steel, the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on televisions from Japan and steel from the European Community, and the section 337 investigations on Rubik’s Cube puzzles and gray market Duracell batteries. Mr. Perry also litigated significant cases before the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including Atlantic Sugar Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556 (CAFC 1984); and American Lamb Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 785 F.2d 994 (CAFC 1986) and the 337 cases, American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Travenol Laboratories, 745 F.2d 1 (CAFC 1984) and Warner Brothers, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 787 F.2d 562 (CAFC 1986).
At the Commerce Department, Mr. Perry was assigned to numerous antidumping and countervailing duty cases, including Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan, Nylon Impression Fabric from Japan, Iron Castings from China, and Cut Flowers from Costa Rica and Peru.
After leaving the government, as an associate in the Washington office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Perry advised domestic and foreign clients on trade, intellectual property and customs laws and represented them in trade cases. Some of the trade cases include the antidumping cases, 3.5 Inch Microdisks from Japan, Door Locks from Taiwan, Small Business Telephones from Japan, and Industrial Belts from Israel, the section 201 cases, Certain Knives and Certain Cameras, and the section 337 cases, Electric Power Tools and Cefadroxil Monohydrate.
In November of 1999, Mr. Perry joined the Washington office of Garvey, Schubert & Barer as a partner, where he practiced in international trade law. In April 2010 Mr. Perry joined the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney.
After leaving Skadden, Arps, Mr. Perry as a partner has won more than forty antidumping and other trade cases for Chinese exporters and US importers. Out of those cases, at the ITC he won victories for no injury in nine cases: Shopping Carts, Refined Antimony Trioxide, Sulfur Dyes, Silicon Carbide, Saccharin, Disposable Lighters, Citric Acid, Brake Drums, and DAS Chemistry. In the Silicon Carbide case, he persuaded the Department to give Chinese state-owned companies their own separate dumping margins, after the Commerce Department had refused to do so. In the Sebacic Acid case he succeeded in driving the dumping margins down as low as 0%, and in 2003 successfully obtained three 0% dumping margins for his client Sinochem Tianjin in three consecutive review investigations resulting in revocation of the antidumping order as to that company. In 2004, Mr. Perry obtained a third 0% for Shandong Xinhua in the Aspirin case resulting in revocation of the antidumping order as to that company. In Polyvinyl Alcohol, he successfully obtained a 0 percent antidumping margin for Sichuan Vinylon Works, while the antidumping margin for all other Chinese exporters in the case was 116%. In the Honey case, Mr. Perry assisted the Chinese government in negotiating the first suspension agreement “quota” out of 57 dumping cases against Chinese companies. In the Windshields antidumping case, he obtained the lowest dumping margin of 3.7% for Xinyi. In 2003, he won the DAS Chemistry from India and China case in the preliminary injury investigation at the ITC. In November 2003, his Chinese client obtained a 4% dumping margin in the antidumping review investigation, Indigo from China. In 2004, in the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags antidumping case, he obtained a 0% dumping margin for Hang Lung. In the Violet Pigment case, his team obtained a 5% dumping margin for Goldlink, a Chinese exporter.
In 2009, he obtained 0% for Chinese companies in the Wooden Bedroom Furniture Review Investigations. For a Vietnamese company, Tian Hua, he won a circumvention investigation in which the Petitioner attempted to expand an antidumping order on Chinese Chlorinated Isocyanurates to cover a Vietnamese company. He also won the first countervailing duty case against China in the Coated Free Sheet Paper by persuading the Commerce Department not to expand the scope of the investigation to cover products being exported by the Chinese. This decision at Commerce was one of the major reasons the ITC reached a negative injury determination in the case.
Mr. Perry also obtained a 0% dumping margin for his client, Shanghai Fortune, in the Saccharin antidumping review investigation, making it the exclusive exporter of the product to the United States. In 2009 Shanghai Fortune through its US agent has set up production operations in the United States being the first Chinese producer/exporter in an antidumping case to set up domestic production operations. In 2009, he also obtained a 0% for a Chinese company in the Wooden Bedroom Furniture Review Investigation.
In September 2010, he persuaded the Commerce Department to exclude mechanical tubing from the Seamless Pipes antidumping case so that those Chinese products continue to be exported to the United States. Most recently, in 2011 in Lined Paper from China, he obtained a 4% antidumping rate for Shanghai Lian Li in the first antidumping review investigation, making it the sole Chinese exporter of lined paper products to the United States per order of the US Commerce Department.
At Dorsey & Whitney Mr. Perry is presently representing foreign producers/exporters and U.S. importers in the Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic/Solar Cells, Steel Sinks, Wood Flooring and Circular Pipe initial investigations and the Lined Paper, Saccharin, Steel Wire Nails, and Ironing Tables antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations..
Mr Perry also represented the Latvian Steel producer, Liepajas Metalurgs, in the antidumping case on Rebar from Latvia and Ukrainian producers in various antidumping and other trade cases. He also represented Chinese exporters successfully in the Indian antidumping investigation, Metallurgical Coke from China, and the EC antidumping investigation, Thiourea Dioxide from China. In addition to antidumping investigations, Mr. Perry has successfully represented a Taiwan company in the section 337 intellectual property case, Certain Photoconductor Drums.
Mr. Perry is the past Chairman of the Amicus Committee of the ITC (Section 337) Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Unfair Trade Committee of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association.
From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Perry founded and was the Chief Representative of Garvey, Schubert Barer’s Beijing office. Mr. Perry is also on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, which provides trade adjustment assistance to US companies that have been injured by imports.
Mr. Perry speaks Japanese and from 1979 to 1980 worked for a Japanese law office in Tokyo.
The ITC published in Japanese by JETRO 1989.
Administration of the Import Trade Laws by the U.S. International Trade Commission published in Korean by KOTRA 1990.
“U.S. Antidumping Cases Against China—Lessons Learned” published in Antidumping Book by China Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals 2000
“Learning to Play and Win under the New Rules: How WTO Membership May Subject China to New Legal Actions Challenging Its Trading Practices” co-author with Paul Hoff, published in Chinese by China Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals, Volume 2000/14.
“The U.S. Antidumping Law—The Most Powerful Trade Law”, published by the U.S. Information Agency (“USIA”) in Summer of 1997 and appearing on the Internet at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0697/ijee/ej7com2.htm.
“The Importance of Defending Antidumping Cases at the Commerce Department,” Japan Times, October 22, 1990
“The High Cost of Customs Fraud,” The International Financial Law Review, Fall 1989, and in Japanese in Kokusai Shoji Homu, March 1990.
“The Perils of an Antidumping Case,” The International Financial Law Review and in Japanese in Nihon Keizai Shinbun December 16, 1987.
“Proposed Amendments to the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act,” Japan Times, August 26, 1987, in Chinese in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, September 8, 9, and 10th, and in Japanese in Nihon Keizai Shinbun, September 21, and Nov 2, 1987.
“Reducing Liability in Antidumping Cases,” The International Financial Law Review and in Chinese in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Oct 20, 1988.
“Administration of the Import Trade Laws by the U.S. International Trade Commission,” Vol. 3, No.2 Boston University International Law Journal 345 (Summer 1985).
“Trade Law Before the International Trade Commission” in Japanese in Vol. 11, No. 12 through Vol. 12, No. 5. Kokusai Shoji Homu (December 1983-May 1984).
“The Causation of Material Injury: Changes in the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of the International Trade Commission,” Vol.IIU.C.L.A. Pacific Basin Law Journal 301 (Spring 1984).
“The Statutory Duty to Conduct Unfair Trade Investigations,” Japan Times, June 25, 1986 and Vol. 3, No.1 West’s International Law Bulletin (Winter 1985).
“Section 337 Investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission” in Japanese in Vol. 35, No. 2 Tokkyo Kanri (Patent Management) 145 (Winter 1985).