U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States

P	PUBLIC VERSION
Slip Op. 26-7
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
U.S. GLASS PRODUCERS COALITION,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
BERLIN PACKAGING L.L.C.,
TRICORBRAUN, INC., ENCORE GLASS,
INC.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Joseph A. Laroski, Jr., Judge
Court No. 24-00199
OPINION
[Sustaining in full the final negative determination of the U.S. International Trade
Commission concerning its countervailing duty investigation of glass wine bottles
from China and denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record.]
Dated: July 2, 2026
Daniel Brian Pickard and Claire M. Webster, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, of
Washington, D.C., for plaintiff U.S. Glass Producers Coalition.
Jason F. Miller, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, of Washington, D.C., for defendant United States. With him on
the brief were Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel, and Michael K.
Haldenstein.
Jared R. Wessel, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-
intervenor Berlin Packaging L.L.C. With him on the brief were Michael G.
Jacobson and Lyric E. Galvin.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 2
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Stephen W. Brophy, of Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-
intervenor TricorBraun, Inc. With him on the brief was Nithya Nagarajan.
Lizbeth R. Levinson, of Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-
intervenor Encore Glass, Inc. With her on the brief were Alexander D. Keyser, and
Brittney R. Powell.
Laroski, Judge: This action concerns the U.S. International Trade Commission’s
final determination in a countervailing duty investigation concerning imported
glass wine bottles from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Glass Wine
Bottles from China, 89 Fed. Reg. 83,515, P.R. 188 (Int’l. Trade Comm’n. Oct. 16,
2024) (“Final Determination”); see also the accompanying views of the Commission
in Glass Wine Bottles from China, USITC Pub. No. 5550, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-703
(Final), P.R. 184/187, C.R. 297 (Oct. 10, 2024) (“Views”). In that determination, the
U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) concluded that the domestic
industry was not materially injured and was not threatened with material injury by
reason of subject imports of glass wine bottles from China. Id.
The U.S. Glass Producers Coalition (the “Glass Producers Coalition”)
challenges that determination under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (“the Act”), arguing that the Commission’s analysis of (i) price effects, (ii)
adverse impact, and (iii) threat of material injury is unsupported by substantial
evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law. Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J.
on the Agency R., ECF No. 52, at 2–4 (Apr. 15, 2025) (“Glass Producers Br.”) (citing
19 U.S.C. § 1516a).
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 3
P	PUBLIC VERSION
For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the Commission’s
determinations concerning price effects, adverse impact, and threat of material
injury are supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the court sustains the Commission’s determination in full.
BACKGROUND
I. 	Institution of the Investigation
On December 29, 2023, the Glass Producers Coalition filed petitions with the
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) alleging that the
domestic glass wine bottle industry was materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of dumped and subsidized imports from China and
dumped imports from Mexico and Chile. Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Certain Glass Wine Bottles from the
People’s Republic of China, the United Mexican States, and Chile, P.R. 1, C.R. 1, at
1–2 (Dec. 29, 2023).
On the same day, the Commission instituted antidumping and countervailing
duty injury investigations concerning glass wine bottles from Chile, China, and
Mexico during the period of investigation (“POI”) from January 2021 through
September 2024. Glass Wine Bottles from Chile, China, and Mexico: Institution of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of
Preliminary Phase Investigations, P.R. 2 (ITC Dec. 29, 2023). Following institution,
the Commission collected production, shipment, pricing, and financial information
from domestic producers, importers, and purchasers through questionnaires and
other submissions. See Views at 3–6.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 4
P	PUBLIC VERSION
II. 	Preliminary and Final Determinations
In February 2024, the Commission preliminarily found that there was a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured
by reason of subject imports from China. Glass Wine Bottles from Chile, China, and
Mexico, USITC Pub. No. 5493, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-703 and 731-TA-1661-1663,
P.R. 91, C.R. 81 (Feb. 20, 2024) (“Preliminary Determination”). After the
preliminary phase, the Glass Producers Coalition withdrew their petition as to
Chile. See Certain Glass Wine Bottles from Chile: Termination of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigation, 89 Fed. Reg. 106,425 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 30, 2024).
During the final phase, the Commission gathered additional questionnaire
responses and other record evidence concerning the condition of the domestic
industry, the volume and pricing of subject imports, and the effects of those imports
on the domestic industry. See Draft Questionnaire Comment Letter, P.R. 98
(USITC Mar. 12, 2024); Blank Draft Questionnaires, P.R. 99 (ITC Mar. 12, 2024);
Petitioner’s Comments on Draft Questionnaires, P.R. 106, C.R. 83/84 (USITC April
19, 2024). The Commission determined that while subject import volume was
significant, the domestic industry was neither materially injured nor threatened
with material injury by reason of subject imports from China during the POI.
Views at 3. The Commission published notice of its final negative determination in
the Federal Register. See Final Determination at 1.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 4 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 5
P	PUBLIC VERSION
III. 	The Present Action
The Glass Producers Coalition commenced this action to challenge the
Commission’s final determination. Glass Producers Br. at 2. The Glass Producers
Coalition moves for judgment on the agency record under U.S. Court of
International Trade (“CIT” or “USCIT”) Rule 56.2, arguing that the Commission’s
determinations concerning price effects, material injury, and threat are
unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law. Id.
at 1–2.
The Commission opposes the motion and contends that its determination
should be sustained because it is supported by substantial evidence and lawful.
Def. Resp. in Opp’n to Pl. Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 60, at 1–2 (Jul. 25,
2025) (“ITC Br.”). Defendant-Intervenors Berlin Packaging L.L.C., TricorBraun
Inc., and Encore Glass, Inc. (collectively, “Defendant-Intervenors”) likewise oppose
the Glass Producers Coalition’s motion. Def.-Int. Berlin Packaging L.L.C. Resp. in
Opp’n. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 69, at 1 (Aug. 8, 2025) (“DI
Berlin Br.”); Def.-Int. TricorBraun Resp. in Opp’n. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency
R., ECF No. 63, at 1 (Aug. 8, 2025) (“DI TricorBraun Br.”); Def.-Int. Encore Glass,
Inc. Resp. in Opp’n. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 71, at 1 (Aug. 8,
2025) (“DI Encore Br.”).
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of
1930 (“the Act”), as amended, which authorizes judicial review of final
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 5 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 6
P	PUBLIC VERSION
determinations by the Commission in antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i). The court reviews such
determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grants the court exclusive
jurisdiction over civil actions commenced under section 516A. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(c).
The court sustains the Commission’s determinations, findings, and
conclusions unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial
evidence constitutes “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion,” and requires the court to consider the record as a
whole, including evidence that detracts from the agency’s determination. Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 488 (1951) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Although the court does not reweigh the evidence
or substitute its judgment for that of the Commission, the agency must provide a
reasoned explanation that permits the court to discern the path of its analysis and
ensures that it has considered the relevant evidence. See id.; Burlington Truck
Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962); Timken U.S. Corp. v. United
States, 421 F.3d 1350, 1356–59 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Within this framework, the Commission may draw reasonable inferences
from the record and weigh conflicting evidence, and the court may not, “displace the
[Commission’s] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court
would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it
de
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 6 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 7
P	PUBLIC VERSION
novo.” Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 488. The possibility of drawing “two
inconsistent conclusions” from the evidence, in other words, does not prevent the
Commission’s determination from being supported by substantial evidence. See
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006). At the
same time, the Commission must base its determination on the record evidence and
may not rely on conjecture or disregard significant contrary evidence without
explanation. Id.
Furthermore, the Commission is “is presumed to have considered all of the
evidence on the record” and is “not required to explicitly address every piece of
evidence presented by the parties” during an investigation. Nucor Corp. v. United
States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1247 (CIT 2004) (quoting USEC Inc. v. United States,
34 F. App’x 725, 730–31 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), aff’d, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Instead, the Commission need only address the issues that are material to its
determination. Timken U.S. Corp., 421 F.3d at 1354 (citing Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R.Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1,
at 892 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 (“SAA”)).
Finally, when evaluating challenges to the Commission’s choice of
methodology, this court has explained that it will “affirm the chosen methodology as
long as it is reasonable.” JMC Steel Grp. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1309,
1316 n.4 (CIT 2015) (citing Shandong TTCA Biochem. Co., Ltd. v. United States,
774 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1327 (CIT 2011) (citations omitted)).
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 7 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 8
P	PUBLIC VERSION
DISCUSSION
I. 	The Commission reasonably found no significant price effects from subject
imports
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission’s negative price
effects determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law
because the agency failed to reasonably grapple with record evidence that, in their
view, demonstrated significant adverse price effects from subject imports. Glass
Producers Br. at 13. The Commission responds that its price effects analysis
reflects a comprehensive evaluation of the record and that the Glass Producers
Coalition improperly asks the court to reweigh competing evidence and substitute
its preferred interpretation of the record for the Commission’s reasonable
conclusions. See ITC Br. at 4, 17–18.
The Act directs the Commission to evaluate how subject imports affect the
price of the domestic like product by considering whether those imports
significantly undersell the domestic like product, depress domestic prices, or
prevent price increases that otherwise would have occurred. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(7)(C)(ii)(I)–(II). The Act requires the Commission to assess whether any
such effects are “significant,” but it does not prescribe a fixed methodology,
threshold, or quantitative benchmark for making that determination. See id..
Instead, Congress committed the evaluation of price effects to the Commission’s
judgment based on the record as a whole, including pricing data, lost sales and lost
revenues, and other indicia of price competition. Id. The Commission may weigh
competing record evidence, determine the relative importance of particular pricing
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 8 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 9
P	PUBLIC VERSION
indicators, and make reasonable interpretations of the evidence. See Nucor Corp.,
318 F. Supp. 2d at 1247; see also Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F.
Supp. 2d 1082, 1100 (CIT 1998), aff’d, 216 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To establish price depression, the record must show that subject imports
caused domestic prices to decline. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(II). To establish
price suppression, the record must show that subject imports prevented the
domestic industry from increasing prices to recover rising costs. Id. The
Commission evaluates depression and suppression in the context of the overall
market and determines whether any such effects are both attributable to subject
imports and significant in light of the record evidence. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(7)(C)(ii); Timken U.S. Corp., 421 F.3d at 1358–59.
In concluding that subject merchandise did not have significant price effects
on the domestic industry, the Commission reasonably (i) evaluated underselling and
market share trends; (ii) addressed purported level of trade issues concerning
Pricing Products 1–5; (iii) evaluated contemporaneous business documentation
offered to show underselling; (iv) considered the frequency of underselling and lost
sales evidence; (v) addressed purported evidence of price suppression; and (vi)
evaluated inventory evidence and its asserted price effects. Below, the court
addresses each of these points in turn.
A. The Commission reasonably evaluated underselling and market share
trends
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission mischaracterized
the extent and significance of underselling and market share trends by including
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 9 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 10
P	PUBLIC VERSION
certain “objectively factually incorrect” statements in the Views. Glass Producers
Br. at 13–15. Specifically, the Glass Producers Coalition takes issue with the
Commission’s statement that “the subject imports that gained market share during
the latter portion of the POI were from Mexico,” because imports from China also
gained market share during the POI. 	Id. at 13–14 (citing Views at 55–56).
Likewise, the Glass Producers Coalition challenges the Commission’s statement
that “none” of the Mexican imports that gained market share were “purchased at
lower cost during that period,” because this statement purportedly overlooks certain
instances in which Mexican subject imports reflected lower purchase costs while
gaining market share. Id.
The Commission responds that these challenged statements do not materially
misstate the record or undermine the Commission’s reasonable assessment of
pricing data and underselling margins for subject imports. ITC Br. at 18–24.
Defendant-Intervenor TricorBraun further responds that the Glass Producers
Coalition has improperly “cherry-pick[ed] the record” by concentrating on “selected
and isolated” data points that were not the basis for the Commission’s negative
determination. DI TricorBraun Br. at 13, 20–22.
The Act requires the Commission to evaluate whether subject imports
“significantly” undersold the domestic like product. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(I). In
performing that analysis, the Commission may weigh competing evidence and draw
reasonable inferences. See Nippon Steel, 458 F.3d at 1351–52. The possibility that
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 10 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 11
P	PUBLIC VERSION
the record could support competing interpretations does not render the
Commission’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence. See id.
Here, the Commission reasonably determined that overselling predominated
during the POI, and the discrete statements that the Glass Producers Coalition
challenges do not materially undermine its overselling analysis. While the Glass
Producers Coalition takes issue with certain discrete and isolated phrases in the
Views, the Commission’s broader overselling and market share analysis reflects a
detailed understanding of the specific portions of the record at issue in these
statements. See Glass Producers Br. at 13–14; Views at 54–59.
For instance, the Commission’s statement that “the subject imports that
gained market share during the latter portion of the POI were from Mexico,” see
Glass Producers Br. at 13–14 (citing Views at 55–56), is not a material
misstatement because the Commission explicitly acknowledged in the Views that
Chinese imports gained market share as well. See Views at 73 n.285 (“Subject
imports from China also gained 0.6 percentage points of market share in the
interim period comparison, yet the price comparisons show no underselling by
subject imports from China.”) (citation omitted).
Likewise, read in the context of the Views as a whole, the Commission’s
statement about whether certain Mexican imports were “purchased at lower cost”
does not materially misrepresent the underlying record, since the Commission
recognizes in the Views that underselling occurred in a number of quarterly
comparisons, including during quarters in which certain subject imports from
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 11 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 12
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Mexico undersold the domestic like product. See id. at 51, 57; see also Glass
Producers Reply Br. at 4 (conceding that the Commission’s statement in the views
“is technically correct” with respect to Pricing Products 6 through 8). Indeed, the
Commission describes the limited evidence of underselling on the record in
significant detail, including by both frequency and margin, demonstrating that it
did not misunderstand record evidence nor fail to support its conclusions with
substantial evidentiary support. See Views at 51–59.
Significantly, the Commission’s analysis does not rely exclusively or
materially on either of the purportedly “factually incorrect” statements that the
Glass Producers Coalition challenges. See Glass Producers Br. at 13–14. Rather,
the Commission concluded that the weight of the underselling and overselling
evidence did not establish significant adverse price effects because the record as a
whole demonstrated mixed pricing trends, declining apparent U.S. consumption,
and purchaser decisions based on non-price factors. See Views at 65. The Glass
Producers Coalition’s position places undue emphasis on a small number of isolated
data points and statements without sufficiently engaging the broader structure,
content, and depth of the Commission’s price effects analysis. See Altx, Inc. v.
United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that the court must
affirm an International Trade Commission determination if “it is reasonable and
supported by the record as a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the
Commission’s conclusion (quoting Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d
1556, 1562–64 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In sum, because the Commission’s broader
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 12 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 13
P	PUBLIC VERSION
analysis demonstrates that it understood and reasonably evaluated record evidence
regarding pricing and market share trends, and because the challenged statements
do not undermine or even underpin that analysis, the Commission’s determination
is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
B. The Commission reasonably addressed purported level of trade and data
issues concerning Pricing Products 1–5
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission’s pricing analysis
for Products 1 through 5 is unsupported by substantial evidence because the
Commission relied on flawed pricing comparisons that failed to account for
differences in levels of trade between domestic and imported merchandise. Glass
Producers Br. at 15–17. Specifically, the Glass Producers Coalition contends that
the Commission improperly compared (a) domestic producers’ sales to end users,
with (b) sales of subject imports that include a distribution markup before reaching
end users. See Glass Producers Br. at 15–17. The Glass Producers Coalition
further contends that the Commission unreasonably declined to collect import
purchase cost data for Pricing Products 1 through 5, which resulted in the flawed
comparison across different levels of trade. See id. According to the Glass
Producers Coalition, the competing comparative frameworks operate as follows:
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 13 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 14
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Commission’s comparison framework:
U.S. Producer (Level #1) 	ń 	End User
Foreign Producer (Level #1) 	ń 	Distributor/Importer (Level #2) 	ń 	End User
Glass Producers’ proposed approach:
U.S. Producer (Level #1) 	ń 	Distributor
Foreign Producer (Level #1) 	ń 	Distributor/Importer
See Glass Producers Br. at 15.
The Commission responds that it reasonably employed its standard pricing
methodology for Products 1 through 5 and determined that there were no
significant adverse price effects. See ITC Br. at 18–24. The Commission also
contends that the Glass Producers Coalition failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, because as petitioners before the Commission, they offered a qualitatively
different level-of-trade argument. See id. at 21. 1
The court concludes that the Commission reasonably addressed any
purported data or methodological issues concerning Pricing Products 1 through 5.
The Act does not prescribe a specific comparison methodology for the evaluation of
price effects and instead directs the Commission to assess the price effects of subject
imports based on the record as a whole. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). Consistent
with the statute, this court has recognized that the Commission may select among
reasonable methodologies so long as its approach permits fair price comparisons.
See JMC Steel Grp., F. Supp. 3d at 1316 n.4. In other words, the court will “affirm
1 Because the Glass Producers Coalition’s argument does not succeed on the merits, as discussed
infra, the court need not reach this exhaustion issue.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 14 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 15
P	PUBLIC VERSION
the [Commission’s] chosen methodology as long as it is reasonable.” Id. (citations
omitted).
The Commission applied a reasonable approach here. The record reflects
that the Commission consistently collected pricing data on the basis of first sales to
unrelated customers and performed its comparisons at that first commercial level.
See Views at 50, 54–56. The Commission’s approach reflects its “typical
underselling methodology,” which this court has endorsed as capable of yielding an
“apples-to-apples” comparison. See Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. United States, 179 F.
Supp. 3d 1238, 1246–47 (CIT 2016).
The Commission’s choice of methodology is also reasonable because it aligns
with record evidence that both domestic producers and importers predominantly
sell case-packed Pricing Products 1 through 5 to wineries, i.e. end users, rather than
through distributors. See Views at 55–56 nn.221–222 (citing Memorandum from
Nannette Christ, Director, Office of Investigations, to The Commission, re:
Investigation Nos. 701- TA-703 and 731-TA-1661-1663 (Final): Glass Wine Bottles
from Chile, China, and Mexico – Staff Report, P.R. 184, C.R. 268, at Tables D-1 and
D-5 (Sept. 6, 2024) (“Final Staff Report”)). Although some subject imports and
domestic products were sold through distributors, the majority of transactions on
both sides were to wineries. See Final Staff Report at Tables D-1, D-3. The fact
that the Commission’s pricing comparisons reflect the bulk of relevant transactions,
therefore, is yet another reason why the Commission’s chosen methodology offers a
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 15 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 16
P	PUBLIC VERSION
reasonable basis to evaluate price competition between subject imports and the
domestic like product.
Furthermore, even assuming that the Glass Producers Coalition’s proposed
alternative comparison is permissible and feasible on the record, any purported
deficiency regarding Pricing Products 1–5 would not materially undermine the
Commission’s ultimate price effects determination. The Commission did not rely
exclusively on the pricing comparisons for Products 1 through 5, but instead
evaluated multiple independent sources of pricing evidence including purchase cost
data for Pricing Products 6–8, average unit values, and broader pricing trends, all of
which reasonably indicated to the Commission that subject imports predominantly
oversold the domestic like product. See Views at 51–58. Significantly, the
Commission’s comparisons for Pricing Products 6–8 – which more closely align with
the Glass Producers Coalition’s preferred methodology – continued to demonstrate
predominant overselling rather than underselling, which further supports the
Commission’s conclusion. See id.
In sum, the Commission was not required to adopt the Glass Producers
Coalition’s preferred pricing methodology, because the Commission reasonably
explained and supported its chosen approach. See JMC Steel Grp., 70 F. Supp. 3d
at 1316 n.4. Moreover, even if the Glass Producers Coalition’s proposed
methodology were both permissible and feasible, the resulting comparisons would
not materially undermine the Commission’s broader price effects analysis. The
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 16 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 17
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Commission’s pricing comparison for Products 1 through 5 is thus supported by
substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
C. The Commission reasonably evaluated contemporaneous business
documentation offered to show underselling
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission failed to
meaningfully address certain contemporaneous business documentation and lost
sales evidence, including internal communications and purchaser correspondence
that, in their view, demonstrate that purchasers selected subject imports because of
lower prices. See Glass Producers Br. at 17–19. The Commission responds that the
it addressed material contemporaneous business documentation and lost sales
allegations, weighed such evidence against contrary record information, and
reasonably determined that the documentation did not demonstrate significant
price depression or suppression attributable to subject imports. See ITC Br. at 23–
29.
While the Commission must address any material evidence that detracts
from its determination, the Commission is “presumed to have considered all of the
evidence on the record” and need not explicitly “address every piece of evidence
presented by the parties.” Nucor Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1247 (quoting USEC Inc.
v. United States, 34 F. App’x at 730–31). Here, the Commission’s treatment of
contemporaneous business documentation does not warrant remand because the
agency reasonably considered the record and was not required to discuss each
contemporaneous business document individually. See Views at 57–59; see also
Altx, Inc., 370 F.3d at 1121. Contrary to the Glass Producers Coalition’s argument,
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 17 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 18
P	PUBLIC VERSION
the Views demonstrate that the Commission did consider the relevant
contemporaneous business documentation when it expressly discussed lost sales
and lost revenue allegations, purchaser questionnaire responses, and testimony
concerning the role of price in purchasing decisions. Views at 58–59. The
Commission acknowledged that certain purchasers reported switching suppliers
based in part on price and that some domestic producers reported instances in
which they lost sales to lower-priced subject imports. Id. at 58. The Commission
also acknowledged and discussed specific allegations from [[
]] 2 and that [[ 	]] shifted a relatively modest purchase
order to lower-priced subject imports, among other related assertions. Views at 58
n.228.
2 The Glass Producers Coalition correctly flags that footnote 228 of the Views misquotes an email
from [[ 	]]. Even so, this error ultimately proves harmless, because even the correct
version of the quote reasonably supports the Commission’s characterizations and its ultimate
conclusion that the record lacks sufficient evidence that [[
]]. See Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief, P.R. 141,
C.R. 217/225 at Exhibit 6 (Aug. 8, 2024).
Exhibit 6 of Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief states that [[
]]. In the Views, by contrast, the Commission
incorrectly quotes the exhibit as follows: [[
]]. The Glass Producers Coalition suggests that [[
]] matters because [[
], whereas the correct phrasing – [[
]]. See Glass Producers Reply Br. at 8.
While the Glass Producers Coalition is technically correct that the Commission misquoted Exhibit 6,
the Commission’s error is harmless because even the correct version of the Exhibit [[
]]. In Exhibit 6,
[
]].
Ultimately, then, the distinction between [[ 	]] and [[ 	]] is
harmless in light of the Commission’s reasonable analysis of the Exhibit as a whole.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 18 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 19
P	PUBLIC VERSION
The Commission nevertheless determined that the evidence presented a
mixed picture because purchasers also identified non-price considerations –
including supply reliability, product quality, lead times, and inventory availability –
as important purchasing factors. See Views at 45. The Commission also considered
the broader pricing record, including quarterly pricing comparisons, underselling
margins, purchase cost data, and shipment average unit value (“AUV”) data. See
id. at 49–65. Against that broader evidentiary backdrop, the Commission concluded
that the record did not establish significant adverse price effects. See id. at 65.
While the Glass Producers Coalition is correct that the Commission did not
specifically cite each letter, internal communication, or confidential exhibit they
raised, the Commission is presumed to have considered all record evidence, and the
absence of a document-by-document analysis does not suggest that the Commission
failed to consider material evidence. See Nucor Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1247. The
Commission’s discussion reflects that it thoroughly understood the Glass Producers
Coalition’s theory and weighed that theory against contrary evidence in the record.
See Views at 57–59. In light of the Commission’s broader discussion of lost sales
allegations, purchaser behavior, pricing data, and non-price factors, the court is not
persuaded that additional discussion of individual documents would have
materially altered the Commission’s analysis or negative determination. The
Commission therefore reasonably concluded that the contemporaneous business
documentation did not outweigh the broader record evidence demonstrating no
significant adverse price effects.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 19 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 20
P	PUBLIC VERSION
D. The Commission reasonably considered the frequency of underselling and
lost sale evidence
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission failed to
meaningfully address their argument that underselling pervaded throughout the
POI and that more than one out of five purchasers reported buying subject imports
because they were lower priced. See Glass Producers Br. at 19–20. In response, the
Commission explains that it reasonably considered the lost sales allegations and
purchaser questionnaire responses but permissibly concluded that the evidence did
not establish significant adverse price effects when viewed in the context of the
record as a whole. See ITC Br. at 10–11.
Neither the Act nor case precedent requires the Commission to treat isolated
instances of underselling or purchaser preference evidence as dispositive. See 19
U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(I). Rather, the Commission must evaluate the significance of
such evidence within the broader context of the pricing record. See Timken U.S.
Corp., 421 F.3d at 1358–59; Nucor Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1247.
The Glass Producers Coalition’s contentions regarding underselling
frequency and lost sales do not justify remand, because the agency considered both
categories of evidence and reasonably explained why such evidence did not establish
significant price adverse price effects. The Commission expressly discussed the
frequency of underselling, noting that cumulated subject imports undersold the
domestic like product in 9 of 143 quarterly comparisons and that underselling
varied considerably by pricing product and period. Views at 51. The Commission
also noted that 21 of 37 responding purchasers reported purchasing subject imports
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 20 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 21
P	PUBLIC VERSION
instead of the domestic like product because of lower prices since January 2021. Id.
at 53. The Commission nevertheless concluded that these data points did not
establish a broader pattern of significant adverse price effects because the record
also demonstrated mixed pricing trends, evidence of overselling in many
comparisons, and substantial evidence that purchasers considered non-price factors
when making sourcing decisions. See id. at 25–30.
The Commission was not required to separately address “every piece of
evidence” that the Glass Producers Coalition marshaled in support of its
underselling argument. See Nucor Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1257. Nor was it
required to give dispositive weight to the frequency of underselling where the record
shows that the quarters in which 88.8 percent of total subject import sales took
place were quarters in which there was overselling, and only 11.2 percent of sales
took place during quarters with underselling. See id.; Views at 51. In light of the
Commission’s broader analysis of pricing data, purchaser responses, lost sale
allegations, and conditions of competition, the court concludes that the Commission
reasonably addressed the frequency of underselling and permissibly determined
that it did not demonstrate significant adverse price effects.
E. The Commission reasonably concluded that the record did not
demonstrate significant price suppression attributable to subject imports
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission failed to
meaningfully address evidence that domestic producers experienced cost increases
that exceeded price increases during the POI. See Glass Producers Br. at 20–22. In
turn, the Commission argues that it considered cost and net sales data alongside
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 21 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 22
P	PUBLIC VERSION
the broader pricing record and reasonably determined that there was no evidence
that subject imports caused significant price suppression. See ITC Br. at 26–29.
Under section 771(7)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act, the Commission must consider
whether “the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a
significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(II). The statute does
not require the Commission to find price suppression whenever costs increase or
profitability declines; rather the Commission must evaluate whether subject
imports significantly depressed prices or prevented domestic price increases that
otherwise would have occurred. See id.
Under this framework, the Commission reasonably concluded that the record
did not demonstrate significant price suppression attributable to subject imports.
The Commission expressly recognized that the domestic industry’s ratio of cost-of-
goods-sold (“COGS”) to net sales increased by [[ 	]] percent from [[ 	]] percent in
2021 to [[ 	]] percent in 2023. Views at 61. The Commission nevertheless
determined that trends in the COGS-to-net-sales ratio varied across domestic
producers, with [[
]] from interim 2023
to interim 2024. Id at 61 n.244. From these divergent trends, Commission
reasonably inferred that, absent consistent industry-wide effects, the cost pressure
that some domestic producers experienced was likely attributable to “internal
factors” and not “external, industry-wide factors” such as subject imports. See id.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 22 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 23
P	PUBLIC VERSION
The Commission also reasonably concluded that certain non-recurring costs
associated with curtailments, closures, and other one-time events contributed to the
cost pressure that some domestic producers experienced, rather than competition
from subject imports. See id. at 63 nn.247–248. While the Glass Producers
Coalition contends that these events were themselves caused by subject import
competition, see Glass Producers Br. at 21–22, the Commission reasonably
determined that the record tied those events to declining demand and reduced
consumption rather than to subject imports. See Views at 67. In light of this
broader explanation, the court is not persuaded that the Commission impermissibly
discounted evidence of price suppression; rather, the Commission reasonably
concluded that the record did not establish that subject imports prevented domestic
producers from recovering costs or otherwise significantly suppressed prices.
F. The Commission reasonably evaluated the alleged inventory overhang
and its asserted adverse price effects
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission unreasonably
discounted evidence that an inventory overhang of imported merchandise exerted
downward pressure on domestic prices and contributed to adverse price effects
during the POI. See Glass Producers Br. at 22–24. The Commission, however,
responds that it reasonably rejected the Glass Producers Coalition’s inventory
overhang theory because the record did not establish sustained or imminent price
pressure resulting from inventories of subject merchandise. See ITC Br. at 29–33.
In evaluating the record as a whole under section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act, the
Commission may reasonably determine that inventory volumes do not outweigh
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 23 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 24
P	PUBLIC VERSION
broader contrary evidence concerning pricing trends, market conditions, and
purchaser behavior. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i)–(ii). The court may not reweigh
competing evidence where the Commission reasonably explained its conclusions and
supported those conclusions with substantial evidence. See Nippon Steel, 458 F.3d
at 1351–52.
Here, the Commission expressly considered evidence that inventories of
subject imports increased by 9 percent from 2021 to 2023. See Views at 64. The
Commission also noted that domestic prices generally increased during the POI as
inventories rose, and that the broader pricing record continued to demonstrate
predominant overselling rather than underselling, which undermines the Glass
Producers Coalition’s concern that excess inventories were resulting in underselling
in the U.S. market. See id. at 61, 85. Weighing this evidence, the Commission
reasonably determined that subject import inventories remained modest relative to
the size of the U.S. market and that the record did not demonstrate a meaningful
causal relationship between inventories and price effects. See id. at 64–65.
The Commission also reasonably rejected the Glass Producers Coalition’s
argument that an increase in the inventory-to-shipment ratio necessarily reflected a
growing inventory overhang. Although the Glass Producers Coalition emphasizes
that the ratio increased during the POI, the Commission explained that the
increase was chiefly driven by declining shipments – that is, a smaller denominator
– rather than by a substantial buildup in inventories. See Views at 84–85. The
Commission permissibly considered this data in the context of declining apparent
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 24 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 25
P	PUBLIC VERSION
U.S. consumption, and the Commission determined that the record did not show
that importers used inventories to undersell domestic merchandise or depress
prices. See id. at 64–65. Given the Commission’s broader discussion of pricing
trends, demand conditions, shipment levels, and inventory ratios, the Commission
reasonably determined that subject import inventories did not establish significant
adverse price effects, whether on an absolute or relative basis.
II. 	The Commission reasonably found no adverse impact by reason of subject
imports
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission’s adverse
impact analysis is unsupported by substantial evidence and unlawful because the
Commission misapplied both the causation and material injury requirements of the
statute and disregarded material record evidence. See Glass Producers Br. at 24.
The Commission responds that it applied the correct causation and material injury
standards and reasonably concluded, based on the record as a whole, that the
domestic industry was not materially injured by reason of subject imports. See ITC
Br. at 35–36. Defendant-Intervenor Encore Glass LLC further asserts that the
Glass Producers Coalition improperly isolates selective portions of the record while
disregarding broader market conditions, demand fluctuations, and contrary
evidence supporting the Commission’s determination. See DI Encore Br. at 3–4.
To establish material injury, the Act requires the Commission to determine
whether a domestic industry is materially injured “by reason of” subject imports.
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A)–(C). The Act defines “material injury” as “harm which is not
inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” Id. § 1677(7)(A). In assessing
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 25 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 26
P	PUBLIC VERSION
material injury, the Commission may consider broader market conditions and
alternative causes of injury so long as it reasonably evaluates whether subject
imports caused material injury within the meaning of the statute. See Mittal Steel
Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 872 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining
that when “analyzing the issue of causation, the [Commission] has broad authority
to consider any relevant factors”). The Commission may also weigh competing
economic evidence and evaluate the record as a whole in assessing the domestic
industry’s condition and the impact of subject imports. See id.
In concluding that subject merchandise did not have a significant adverse
impact on domestic industry, the Commission (i) applied the correct causation
standard; (ii) applied the correct material injury standard; (iii) reasonably
addressed arguments that the industry entered the POI in an injured state; and (iv)
reasonably addressed industry performance and market share trends in its adverse
impact analysis. The court addresses each of these points below.
A. The Commission applied the correct causation standard and explained its
reasoning
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission misapplied the
“by reason of” causation standard by effectively attributing adverse trends to
changes in demand and other non-subject factors without adequately analyzing
whether subject imports were a contributing cause of injury. See Glass Producers
Br. at 24–30. The Commission responds that it applied the correct causation
standard and reasonably concluded, based upon the record as a whole, that subject
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 26 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 27
P	PUBLIC VERSION
imports did not have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. ITC Br.
at 36–37.
The statute requires the Commission to establish a causal nexus between
subject imports and the material injury found. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i)–(ii).
Although subject imports need not be the sole or predominant cause of injury, they
must be more than an “incidental, tangential, or trivial” cause. Nippon Steel Corp.
v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In
conducting its analysis, the Commission must consider the volume and price effects
of subject imports together with their impacts, and it must address competing
explanations for the industry’s performance such that it does not attribute injury
caused by other factors to subject imports. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii), (C). The
Commission retains discretion to weigh record evidence and determine the
significance of subject imports, provided that it articulates a reasoned explanation
that permits the court to discern the path of its analysis. See Timken U.S. Corp.,
421 F.3d at 1355–56.
The Commission applied the correct standard for causation and reasonably
concluded that subject imports were not more than an “incidental, tangential, or
trivial” cause of the domestic industry’s condition. See Nippon Steel, 345 F.3d at
1381. The Commission explained that it was required to determine whether subject
imports were a cause of material injury, and not merely whether other factors also
affected the industry. See Views at 32 n.109, 34. The Commission further
explained that, although subject imports increased during portions of the POI, the
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 27 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 28
P	PUBLIC VERSION
record did not show that the imports were sufficiently connected to adverse trends
that the industry experienced. See id. at 75–76. The Commission therefore did not
require the Glass Producers Coalition to demonstrate that subject imports were the
sole or predominant cause of injury. Rather, the Commission permissibly concluded
that the record did not establish a sufficient causal nexus between subject imports
and the industry’s declining performance. See id.
The Commission also independently concluded that the adverse impacts that
the Glass Producers Coalition identified were consistent with declining demand.
The Views explain that apparent U.S. consumption declined by 12.5 percent from
2021 to 2023 following the temporary COVID-related increase in demand for wine
bottles. See id. at 29–30. The Commission also found that domestic producers’
declining shipments, production, capacity utilization, and financial performance
generally tracked that broader decline in demand. See id. at 67–68, 75. The
Commission further observed that the domestic industry lost market share to non-
subject imports and that subject imports did not consistently undersell domestic
merchandise or significantly suppress domestic prices. See id. at 59, 65. In light of
these findings, the Commission reasonably determined that the industry’s condition
was likely tied to declining consumption and changing market conditions and not to
subject imports.
The Glass Producers Coalition is correct that causation does not require
subject imports to be the sole – or even most important – cause of domestic injury.
See Glass Producers Br. at 28–30 (citing Nippon Steel, 345 F.3d at 1381). But the
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 28 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 29
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Commission did not apply such a stringent standard here. The Views do not state
that subject imports must be the primary cause of injury or that demand declines
necessarily preclude a finding of causation. See Views at 32. Rather, the
Commission concluded, based on the totality of the record, that subject imports
were not sufficiently connected to the averse trends affecting the industry, and that,
separately, demand declines were. See id. at 67. The court therefore concludes that
the Commission applied the correct causation standard and reasonably determined
that subject imports were not a sufficient cause of injury to the domestic industry to
satisfy the statutory standard. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i).
B. The Commission applied the correct material injury standard and
explained its reasoning
The Glass Producers Coalition asserts that the Commission misapplied the
material injury standard by characterizing the industry’s performance as stable or
improving despite record evidence of declining profitability, capacity utilization, and
facility curtailments during the period of investigation. See Glass Producers Br. at
30–33. The Commission explains that it reasonably evaluated the domestic
industry’s condition as a whole and permissibly concluded that the record did not
support a finding of material injury caused by subject imports. See ITC Br. at 37–
38.
Material injury refers to “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or
unimportant.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). In evaluating material injury, the
Commission must consider the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 29 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 30
P	PUBLIC VERSION
“within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are
distinctive to the affected industry.” Id. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).
Here, the Commission reasonably concluded that the domestic industry’s
condition, although weaker in certain portions of the POI, did not establish material
injury. The Commission defined material injury in accordance with the Act as
“harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” Views at 31
(citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A)). The Commission explained that capacity,
production, capacity utilization, sales, and shipments all declined during the POI,
but that those declines were “generally commensurate with the 12.5 percent decline
in apparent U.S. consumption from 2021 to 2023.” Id. at 67. The Commission also
recognized that the industry reported closures, curtailments, and declining
profitability, but found that the industry returned to profitability in interim 2024
and that reduced capacity had lowered unit fixed costs. Id. at 67, 88. The
Commission therefore did not ignore the adverse facts identified by the Glass
Producers Coalition, but instead concluded that those facts did not establish
material injury by reason of subject imports.
The Glass Producers Coalition isolates several data points that do not
materially undermine or contradict the Commission’s broader analysis. The
Commission expressly discussed lost sales allegations, underselling, and weakening
financial performance, and ultimately determined that there were no significant
adverse price effects that were “particularly probative” to its impact analysis. Id. at
66 n.257. The Commission also found that reduced sales, shipments, and capacity
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 30 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 31
P	PUBLIC VERSION
were tied to declining demand and not to subject imports. Id. at 70. The
Commission was not required to treat allegations of lost sales or underselling in
certain comparisons as automatically establishing material injury. See Timken
U.S. Corp., 421 F.3d at 1354–57 (citing SAA at 892). Instead, the Commission
permissibly weighed those facts against the broader record, including declining
apparent consumption, mixed pricing results, non-price purchasing factors, and
certain improving interim 2024 results. See Views at 45, 75. The Commission
therefore applied the correct material injury standard and reasonably explained
why the adverse facts that the Glass Producers Coalition emphasized did not
amount to material injury under the Act.
C. The Commission reasonably addressed arguments that the industry
entered the POI in an injured state
The Glass Producers Coalition also contends that the Commission failed to
examine its argument that the industry entered the POI in an already injured state
and therefore improperly discounted early-period deterioration of the industry’s
condition. See Glass Producers Br. at 31–33. Specifically, the Glass Producers
Coalition argues that the Commission failed to engage with evidence such as pre-
POI financial filings, sworn testimony, and other record materials that purportedly
demonstrate that the industry was already experiencing injury before the POI.
See id. at 30–32. The Commission responds that it reasonably evaluated such
evidence, as well as the industry’s condition throughout the POI, and permissibly
concluded that the record did not establish a significant adverse impact caused by
subject imports. See ITC Br. at 41–42.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 31 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 32
P	PUBLIC VERSION
Under the Act, the Commission must evaluate the domestic industry’s
condition during the POI based upon the record as a whole. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(7)(C)(iii). Although the Commission may consider historical industry
conditions and pre-period trends, the Act does not require the Commission to
presume that adverse conditions at the beginning of the POI or beforehand were
caused by subject imports in the investigation at issue. See id.
Here, the Commission reasonably considered the Glass Producers Coalition’s
argument that the domestic industry entered the POI in an injured state and
permissibly concluded that the record did not sufficiently support the Glass
Producers Coalition’s characterization. The Commission expressly examined
conditions immediately preceding the POI and determined that subject imports
“pervasively oversold the domestic like product and captured no market share from
the domestic industry during the 2020–2021 period, prior to the POI.” Views at 74–
74. The Commission then reasonably determined that the record did not establish
that the industry entered the POI injured because of subject imports. See id.
The Glass Producers Coalition’s contrary arguments are unavailing. While
the Glass Producers Coalition points to pre-POI filings, testimony from Ardagh and
O-I representatives, and other documentary evidence – including generalized
corporate risk disclosures – that suggest the industry faced challenges prior to the
POI, the Commission reasonably concluded that such evidence does not outweigh
market data and pricing comparisons demonstrating that subject imports did not
gain market share and frequently oversold domestic merchandise during the
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 32 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 33
P	PUBLIC VERSION
preliminary phase. See Glass Producers Br. at 32; Views at 51, 57, 65. To the
extent that the Glass Producers Coalition points to pre-POI documentary evidence
that the Commission did not individually name or address, the Commission is not
required to treat any one document as dispositive or discuss each document
individually where its reasoning and conclusions are otherwise apparent. See
Nucor Corp., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1257 (citations omitted). In sum, the Commission
acknowledged the Glass Producers Coalition’s pre-POI injury theory but
permissibly concluded, based on the record as a whole, that the evidence did not
demonstrate that the industry entered the POI injured because of subject imports.
D. Plaintiff’s asserted factual errors regarding industry performance and
market share trends do not warrant remand
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission’s impact analysis
contains certain “factually incorrect” statements 3 concerning industry performance
and market share trends in interim 2024 that undermine the integrity of the
agency’s reasoning. See Glass Producers Br. at 33–34. The Commission responds
that it addressed these data discrepancies in its trailing views and further explains
that the underlying pricing data for Mexican imports in interim 2024 does not
demonstrate that underselling accounted for any increase in market share for
3 The Glass Producers Coalition first challenges the Commission’s statement that, in quarterly price
comparisons for interim 2024, subject imports from Mexico were higher priced than the domestic like
product for pricing products 1, 3, and 5. See Glass Producers Br. at 32–34 (citing Views at 73 n.286).
The Glass Producers Coalition separately challenges the Commission’s statement that, for Pricing
Products 1 through 5, subject imports from Mexico “predominantly oversold the domestic like
product in interim 2024,” because imports from Mexico only oversold in [[
]]. See id. at 34.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 33 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 34
P	PUBLIC VERSION
subject imports. See ITC Br. at 33 n.19 (citing Glass Wine Bottles from China and
Mexico, USITC Pub. No. 5588, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1662-1663 (Feb. 2025) at 38–39).
Under the substantial evidence standard, the Commission’s determination
must be evaluated based on whether it is “reasonable and supported by the record
as a whole,” not based on individual statements taken out of context. See Altx, Inc.,
370 F.3d at 1121. Here, the Commissions’ statements regarding pricing product
comparisons in interim 2024 do not warrant remand because the Views
demonstrate that the agency understood and reasonably evaluated the underlying
pricing data in drawing its conclusions regarding adverse impact. See Views at 73.
Even if the Glass Producers Coalition would characterize interim 2024 data
differently, nothing in the Views suggests that the Commission misunderstood the
underlying record or that its conclusion lacks substantial evidentiary support.
See id. The Views disclose the underlying interim 2024 comparison on which the
Commission relied, including the products for which Mexican imports oversold and
undersold, the corresponding margins, and the associated quantities. See id. at 73
n.286. The Commission also evaluated pricing trends across the full POI and across
multiple measures, including quarterly price comparisons, underselling frequency,
margins, purchase cost data, and shipment average unit values. See id. at 62, 73–
74. Thus, the challenged statements do not show that the Commission overlooked
contrary pricing evidence; rather, they reflect the Commission’s reasonable
assessment of a subset of pricing data within a broader record.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 34 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 35
P	PUBLIC VERSION
The challenged statements also do not materially affect the Commission’s
ultimate impact determination. The Commission’s adverse impact analysis rested
on broader findings that subject imports declined absolutely as well as relative to
apparent U.S. consumption from 2021 to 2023, that subject imports predominantly
oversold the domestic like product by any measure, that there were few confirmed
lost sales, and that declining industry performance tracked declining apparent U.S.
consumption rather than competition from subject imports. See id. at 53–55. The
Commission likewise determined that, despite an increase in subject import market
share in interim 2024, the domestic industry increased unit net sales values by
more than unit COGS, reduced its COGS-to-net-sales ratio, and improved financial
performance by almost every measure. See id. at 65, 74. In that context, any
disagreement over how to characterize the interim 2024 Mexican pricing data for
certain pricing products does not undermine the Commission’s broader reasoning or
require remand.
Regarding the challenged statement about predominant overselling for
Pricing Products 1 through 5 from Mexico, Views at 73, the Commission corrected
this discrepancy in its trailing views and further explained that the same
underlying data points that do not show “predominant overselling” also do not show
any underselling that accounted for increased market share for subject imports.
See Glass Wine Bottles from China and Mexico, USITC Pub. No. 5588, Inv. Nos.
731-TA-1662-1663 (Feb. 2025) at 38–39 n.157. More importantly, as discussed
above, the Commission’s determination does rest not on this isolated statement
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 35 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 36
P	PUBLIC VERSION
alone but instead on a broader, more comprehensive evaluation of pricing trends
across the POI. See Views at 53–55. The Commission’s impact analysis is therefore
supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, notwithstanding the
Glass Producers Coalition’s objections to certain discrete characterizations of the
record.
III. 	The Commission reasonably found no threat of material injury
The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission’s negative
threat determination cannot be sustained because the record establishes a clearly
foreseen and imminent threat of material injury from subject imports. See Glass
Producers Br. at 34. The Commission responds that it evaluated the statutory
threat factors and reasonably concluded, on the basis of the record as a whole, that
a threat of material injury was not clearly foreseen and imminent. See ITC Br. at
42–44. Defendant-Intervenors reinforce the Commission’s position and contend
that the Glass Producers Coalition’s challenge ultimately reflects disagreement
with the Commission’s weighing of competing evidence and forecasting judgments
rather than a showing that the agency’s threat determination lacks substantial
evidentiary support.
Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether a
domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports
by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and
whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued
or a suspension agreement is accepted.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). The Act
provides that the Commission may not base a threat determination on “mere
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 36 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 37
P	PUBLIC VERSION
conjecture or supposition,” but instead must rely on record evidence demonstrating
that future injury is likely. Id. In making this determination, the Commission
considers several statutory threat factors “as a whole,” including unused capacity,
trends in import volume and market penetration, inventories, pricing behavior, and
other conditions indicating probability of future injury. Id. § 1677(7)(F)(i)–(ii). The
Commission evaluates these factors using the same general volume, price, and
impact framework applied in the present injury analysis, but with a forward-
looking focus. See id.
In concluding that subject imports did not pose an imminent threat of
material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission reasonably determined
that (i) the likely volume of subject imports did not support a determination of
threat; (ii) subject imports were not likely to have significant price effects in the
imminent future; (iii) inventory evidence did not indicate a threat of material
injury; (iv) domestic closures and curtailments did not demonstrate an imminent
threat to the domestic industry; and (v) there was no material change in conditions
of competition. The court addresses each of these factors in turn.
A. The Commission reasonably determined that the likely volume of subject
imports did not support a determination of threat
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission’s likely volume
analysis is unsupported by substantial evidence because record evidence concerning
subject import trends and supply conditions demonstrates a likely increase in
subject imports. See Glass Producers Br. at 34–37. The Commission responds that
the Glass Producers’ likely volume challenge fails because the Commission
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 37 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 38
P	PUBLIC VERSION
evaluated import trends and the evidence bearing on future shipments and
permissibly concluded that the record did not support a likely increase sufficient to
indicate threat. See ITC Br. at 42–44. Defendant-Intervenor Berlin Packaging
additionally argues that the Commission reasonably considered evidence concerning
demand conditions and export markets outside of the United States in concluding
that increased import volumes were not imminent. See DI Berlin Br. at 21–23.
Under section 771(7)(F)(i)(III) of the Act, the Commission must consider
whether any “existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial
increase in production capacity” is likely to increase the volume of subject imports
entering the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(F)(i)(III). Here, the Commission’s
likely volume determination is supported by substantial evidence because the Views
reflect a reasoned evaluation of import trends, capacity, and foreign producers’
projected behavior. See Views at 76–77. The Glass Producers Coalition contends
that the Commission improperly discounted evidence that subject import market
share increased at the end of the POI, including an increase of 1.6 percent in
interim 2024 compared to the same period in 2023, and that those increases were
even more pronounced in the merchant market. See Glass Producers Br. at 34. The
Commission, however, expressly acknowledged these interim increases, Views at
80–81, and determined that they did not outweigh the broader trends that (i)
subject imports declined in absolute terms from 2021 to 2023, and (ii) domestic
producers’ market share in interim 2024 remained the same as in 2021, at 70.7
percent. See id. at 48. The Commission permissibly concluded that short-term
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 38 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 39
P	PUBLIC VERSION
increases at the end of the POI did not establish that imports were likely to increase
significantly in the imminent future when viewed against the longer-term record.
The Commission also reasonably rejected the Glass Producers Coalition’s
arguments concerning foreign producers’ capacity and expansion plans. Although
the Glass Producers Coalition points out that 2021 represented an aberrational
base year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggests that the Commission
did not adequately address these trends, see Glass Producers Br. at 35–36, the
Views demonstrate that the Commission acknowledged and thoroughly considered
data from 2021 as well as the impacts of COVID-19. See Views at 39, 44, 88.
Specifically, the Commission acknowledged and analyzed the impact of rising
demand for glass wine bottles during the pandemic as well as declining demand
thereafter as conditions normalized. See Views at 29–30. The Commission
evaluated import trends across the full POI, including both the elevated demand
period and the subsequent decline, and concluded that the subject imports did not
exhibit a trajectory indicative of likely significant future increases. See id. at 83–
85. The Commission was not required to disregard the 2021 data entirely, but
rather to consider it in context, which it did.
The Commission further reasonably rejected the Glass Producers Coalition’s
arguments concerning foreign producers’ capacity and expansion plans. Although
the Glass Producers Coalition points to evidence that foreign producers brought
additional capacity online and indicated plans to increase imports, see Glass
Producers Br. at 36, the Commission determined that capacity utilization rates
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 39 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 40
P	PUBLIC VERSION
were relatively high in 2023, leaving limited unused capacity available to support a
significant increase in exports. See Views at 82–83. The Commission also
reasonably considered foreign producers’ own projections, which indicated that (i)
excess capacity would decline from 1.8 million gross in 2023 to 1.4 million gross in
2024 and 2025; (ii) that their share of exports to the United States would decline
from 37.7 percent of total sales in interim 2024 to 29.5 percent in 2025; and (iii) that
home market shipments would increase alongside declining exports to the United
States. See id. at 83 nn.316, 321. These projections reasonably supported the
Commission’s conclusion that foreign producers were not poised to direct
significantly increased volumes of subject merchandise to the United States market.
Taken together, the Commission’s analysis reflects a balanced consideration
of recent increases in import market share, longer-term trends, capacity
constraints, and foreign producers’ anticipated behavior. The court therefore
concludes that the Commission reasonably determined that subject imports were
not likely to increase significantly in the future.
B. The Commission reasonably determined that subject imports were not
likely to have significant price effects in the imminent future
The Glass Producers Coalition further contends that the Commission’s likely
price effects analysis in the threat context is unsupported because the record
demonstrates that subject imports will continue to undersell and thereby depress or
suppress domestic prices. See Glass Producers Br. at 37–38. According to the Glass
Producers Coalition, the Commission improperly relied on current pricing trends
while disregarding evidence that increasing import inventories and capacity would
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 40 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 41
P	PUBLIC VERSION
intensify future price competition. Id. The Commission responds that it reasonably
relied on the existing pricing record, including evidence of predominant overselling
and generally increasing domestic prices, in concluding that significant adverse
price effects were not likely imminent. See ITC Br. at 44.
Section 771(7)(F)(i)(IV) of the Act provides that the Commission must
consider “whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that
are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(IV). The Commission may reasonably rely on existing
pricing trends and current conditions to evaluate likely future price effects. See id.
The Commission’s likely price effects determination is supported by
substantial evidence because the Commission reasonably explained why the record
did not indicate that subject imports would depress or suppress domestic prices in
the imminent future. The Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission
improperly discounted evidence that domestic producers were unable to pass along
cost increases, pointing to increases in the COGS-to-net-sales ratio during the POI
and arguing that the Commission relied too heavily on recent improvements in
interim 2024. Glass Producers Br. at 37. The Commission, however, evaluated
pricing trends over the full POI and determined that price effects were mixed, that
subject imports did not consistently undersell domestic merchandise, and that
domestic producers were able to increase unit net sales values relative to costs in
interim 2024. See Views at 65, 85–87. The Commission permissibly relied on those
findings in assessing whether the record indicated likely future price effects.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 41 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 42
P	PUBLIC VERSION
The Commission also reasonably rejected the Glass Producers Coalition’s
arguments concerning inventories and alleged downward pricing pressure. While
the Glass Producers Coalition contends that the inventories held by foreign
producers would contribute to price suppression in the U.S. market, Glass
Producers Br. at 38–39, the Commission found that foreign inventories were
projected to decrease in 2024 and 2025. Views at 84–85. The Commission also
noted that foreign producers anticipated shifting shipments toward home markets
rather than increasing exports to the United States in 2024 and 2025, which further
reduces the likelihood of imminent threat. Id. In light of the Commission’s
determinations regarding mixed pricing trends, declining inventories, and the
absence of significant price effects during the POI, the court concludes that the
Commission reasonably determined that subject imports were not likely to have
significant adverse price effects in the imminent future.
C. The Commission reasonably determined that inventory evidence did not
indicate a threat of material injury
The Glass Producers Coalition asserts that the Commission failed to address
evidence that large inventories of imported merchandise posed a significant threat
to the domestic industry and that such inventories would amplify future price
pressure. Glass Producers Br. at 38. The Commission responds that it expressly
considered inventory levels and permissibly concluded that the record did not
demonstrate that inventories would imminently cause significant adverse price
effects or material injury. See ITC Br. at 44–45.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 42 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 43
P	PUBLIC VERSION
While the Commission must consider inventories of subject merchandise as
part of its threat analysis under section 771(7)(F) of the Act, the statute does not
require the Commission to treat specific inventory figures, whether absolute or
relative to other metrics, as dispositive where the broader record does not
demonstrate that inventories are likely to cause imminent material injury. See 19
U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i).
In its Views, the Commission reasonably considered inventory evidence and
concluded that inventories did not indicate a threat of material injury. Although
the Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission failed to address an
“inventory overhang,” Glass Producers Br. at 38, the Views demonstrate that the
Commission evaluated inventories in its price effects and impact analyses and
found no evidence that subject import inventories contributed to adverse pricing
trends during the POI. See Views at 45, 64–65, 75–76. The Commission also
observed that while foreign producers’ inventories increased over the POI, those
increases coincided with decreasing exports to the United States, suggesting that
foreign inventories “are not likely to serve as a source of increased exports” in the
imminent future. Id. at 81–82. The Commission further noted that foreign
producers’ inventories were projected to decrease in 2024 and 2025. See id. These
findings reasonably address and refute the Glass Producers Coalition’s concern that
excess inventories threatened to imminently depress or suppress domestic prices.
Similarly unavailing is the Glass Producers Coalition’s assertion that the
Commission failed to sufficiently consider inventory volumes relative to shipments.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 43 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 44
P	PUBLIC VERSION
While the inventory-to-shipment ratio increased during the POI, the Commission
found that such increases reflected a declining
denominator – in other words, fewer
shipments associated with reduced demand – rather than a meaningful buildup of
inventories indicative of oversupply. See Final Staff Report at Tables IV-2, VII-17,
C-1. Having determined that inventories did not contribute to adverse price effects
during the POI, then, the Commission likewise concluded that inventories did not
indicate a threat of future material injury. See Views at 82.
Because the Glass Producers Coalition does not demonstrate that the
Commission failed to consider relevant inventory data or provide a reasoned
explanation of inventory-related evidence, the Commission’s determination is
supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
D. The Commission reasonably concluded that domestic closures and
curtailments did not demonstrate an imminent threat to the domestic
industry
The Glass Producers Coalition argues that the Commission did not address
the likelihood of continued closures and curtailments and that omission undermines
the agency’s threat analysis. Glass Producers Br. at 39; see also Pl. Reply Br. in
Supp. Of Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 74, at 20 (Sep. 8, 2025) (“Glass
Producers Reply Br.”). The Commission responds that it reasonably considered
evidence concerning production curtailments and facility closures, but permissibly
concluded that the record did not establish imminent material injury caused by
subject imports. ITC Br. at 45.
Under section 771(7)(F) of the Act, the Commission must evaluate the likely
impact of subject imports on the domestic industry in the imminent future. See
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 44 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 45
P	PUBLIC VERSION
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F). The Commission may reasonably determine that evidence of
specific operational disruptions, curtailments, or even facility closures does not
establish imminent material injury where the broader record does not demonstrate
a sufficient causal nexus to subject imports. See id.
In its determination, the Commission reasonably considered evidence of
domestic plant closures and curtailments and concluded that they did not indicate a
threat of material injury. Although the Glass Producers Coalition characterizes the
Seattle closure and related curtailments as a “catastrophic” event that the
Commission failed to sufficiently address, Glass Producers Br. at 39, the
Commission examined capacity reductions and their implications during the POI.
See Views at 63, 67, 75. Specifically, the Commission determined that “although
the domestic industry closed plants and shut down furnaces to reduce capacity in
the latter portion of the POI,” the industry’s financial position “improved in interim
2024” and is likely “to continue to improve” in light of increasing demand. Id. at 89.
Furthermore, having determined that the timing and magnitude of previous
closures were explained by declining demand, the Commission permissibly
determined that those closures did not indicate that subject imports would cause
further shutdowns or curtailments going forward. See id. As such, the
Commission’s treatment of closures and curtailments in its threat analysis is
supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 45 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 46
P	PUBLIC VERSION
E. The Commission reasonably determined that there was no material
change in conditions of competition
Finally, the Glass Producers Coalition contends that the Commission’s
statement that there was no evidence of any change in conditions of competition is
“objectively false” and materially undermines the agency’s threat reasoning. Glass
Producers Br. at 40. The Commission responds that the Glass Producers Coalition
improperly isolates and misinterprets individual phrases from the Views while
disregarding the Commission’s broader discussion of market dynamics and
conditions of competition. See ITC Br. at 44–45.
The Commission’s determination must be evaluated based on whether it is
“reasonable and supported by the record as a whole,” not based on individual
statements taken out of context. See Altx, Inc., 370 F.3d at 1121. Here, the
Commission’s determination reasonably explains that the record did not
demonstrate any material change in conditions of competition indicative of a threat.
Although the Glass Producers Coalition argues that it was “factually untrue” for the
Commission to suggest that there is “no evidence of any changing conditions that
would cause … subject imports to become injurious” – pointing to certain record
evidence such as capacity expansions, developments at a Chilean facility, and
increased imports toward the end of the POI – this argument reflects a
disagreement with the Commission’s choice of phrasing, rather than a showing that
the Commission ignored material evidence or unreasonably weighed it. See Glass
Producers Br. at 40–41 (citing Views at 88). Indeed, the Views consistently indicate
that the Commission reviewed conditions of competition such as capacity trends,
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 46 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 47
P	PUBLIC VERSION
production trends, import behavior, and more, and ultimately concluded that the
record did not demonstrate changes likely to result in significantly increased
imports or adverse price effects in the imminent future. See Views at 88–89. Read
in context, the Commission’s statement does not imply that there were no changes
in competition whatsoever during the relevant period, but rather that there were no
material changes in competitive conditions that would support a finding of
imminent threat.
The Commission was likewise not required to individually discuss each
document or source that the Glass Producers Coalition cited as evidence of change
in conditions of competition. See Glass Producers Br. at 40; see also Nucor Corp.,
318 F. Supp. 2d at 1247. Moreover, the Commission reasonably assessed that the
factors that Glass Producers cited – such as capacity increases, inventory levels,
and recent import trends – did not, individually or collectively, demonstrate a
likelihood of materially increased imports or adverse price effects. See Views at 88–
89. The Commission’s statement regarding the absence of changing conditions of
competition is therefore supported by substantial evidence in accordance with law.
CONCLUSION
The court concludes that the Commission’s price effects, adverse impact, and
threat determinations are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with
law. Therefore, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency
record and sustains the Commission’s final determination in full. Judgment will
enter accordingly.
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 47 of 48

Court No. 24-00199 	Page 48
P	PUBLIC VERSION
/s/ 	Joseph A. Laroski, Jr.
Judge
Dated: July 2, 2026
New York, New York
Case 1:24-cv-00199-JAL Document 94 Filed 08/07/26 Page 48 of 48