The Court of International Trade set aside its previous dismissal for lack of prosecution of importer Warby Parker's case on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions to its glasses frames and lenses. Judge Timothy Reif agreed to restore the case to the customs case management calendar and extend the time for the case to remain on the calendar for another six months (Warby Parker v. United States, CIT # 23-00042).

Nike reached a settlement with importer City Ocean International and freight forwarder City Ocean Logistics in Nike's case against the companies for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, importation of goods bearing infringing marks and violation of the Tariff Act. The terms of the settlement weren't disclosed, though Nike dismissed its complaint with prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled (Nike v. Eastern Ports Custom Brokers, D.N.J. # 2:11-04390).

The International Trade Commission and a petitioner each argued that the ITC hadn’t been required to consider the impact of the conflict in Gaza on its affirmative injury finding regarding Israeli brass rod (Government of Israel v. United States, CIT # 24-00197).

The International Trade Commission responded last week to arguments made by an amicus appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit criticizing the commission's policy regarding the redaction of business proprietary information. The ITC said the amicus, Alex Moss, executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, ignored the "statutory requirement to preserve the confidentiality of information designated as BPI" and the "reasonable expectations of firms that supply BPI essential to" the ITC's AD/CVD determinations (In re United States, Fed. Cir. #s 24-1566, 25-127).

The Commerce Department rejected a submission from respondent Assan Aluminyum as untimely in its third remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey at the Court of International Trade. Despite accepting the submission in its second remand results, the agency said on remand that the information in the submission didn't correct information from the company's earlier submission but rather was an "untimely effort by Assan to supplement its own prior questionnaire response" (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00246).

Two companies, Rugby Holdings and Hardwoods Specialty Products, dropped their challenges to the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in anti-circumvention inquiries regarding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (Rugby Holdings LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00119, -00122) (Hardwoods Specialty Products US v. United States, CIT #s 25-00117, -00121).

Petitioner Giorgio Foods on Sept. 8 said it will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the antidumping duty investigation on Dutch mushrooms to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, Judge M. Miller Baker said the Commerce Department permissibly picked Germany as the third country for determining AD respondent Prochamp's normal value, which ultimately led to a zero percent dumping margin for the respondent (see 2507160066). Specifically, Baker said the agency fully supported its efforts to account for the percentage of Prochamp's product sold to Germany that is actually resold in another country and, thus, its finding that Germany remained the best comparison market (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's application of its quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce adequately explained its approach, which stemmed from difficulties using Tecnosider's U.S. sales to analyze correlations between sales and costs of production, and why it "produces reasonable and reliable results."

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Detroit Axle, the company challenging President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold on goods from China, moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's stay of its case pending the lead suit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The company said while the relief it's seeking initially overlapped with the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the lead tariff suit, that's "no longer the case" in light of Trump's recent executive order rescinding the de minimis threshold globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).