The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The International Trade Commission provided "impermissible post hoc rationalizations" for its determination of a lack of adverse price effects on glass wine bottles from China, the U.S. Glass Producers Coalition argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The coalition argued that the commission failed to "fully engage" with the petitioner's arguments regarding "contemporaneous business documentation and lost sales" and doubled down on its "illogical determinations as to price suppression and the effects of an inventory overhang in the market" (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00199).

Exporter Zhejiang Dingli Machinery challenged the Commerce Department's decisions made on remand to use Maersk data to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data. Filing a response to the agency's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China, Dingli said the Maersk price quotes are unreliable and that the agency strayed from its normal practice in picking the data for subheading 8431.20.90 (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00152).

The U.S. defended Sept. 9 the Commerce Department’s flipped position, on a second remand, regarding the application of antidumping and countervailing duties to exporter Elysium Tiles’ composite tiles (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

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).