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 Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade said that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use (T-type) tires fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The position represents a reversal of the agency's previous decision to exclude the tires from the scope of the order (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The U.S. renewed its motions to pause proceedings in two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a pair of cases on the same issue. Plaintiffs in both appeals, the State of California and members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, opposed the renewed motions (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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).

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 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).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, backing, among other things, the agency's decision to rely on the financial statements of Timken Romania alone as part of its surrogate value calculations and the decision to deduct the cost of Section 301 duties from respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing's U.S. price (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1405).

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).