The Commerce Department illicitly expanded the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to cover goods made out of phragmites, exporter Nanjing Kaylang Co. argued in an Aug. 27 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The suit challenges Commerce's scope ruling including Kaylang's goods in the AD order (see 2402210053) (Nanjing Kaylang Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00045).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit didn't select the Section 301 litigation for its October schedule, setting up early November as the earliest time the case could be heard. Matt Nicely, counsel for the lead plaintiffs in the case involving over 4,000 companies, said in an email that he's "optimistic" oral argument in the action "will still happen before the end of the year." All arguing attorneys finished submitting their notices of conflicts with oral argument in April (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

A domestic trade group argued Aug. 26 that a Chinese cabinet exporter was barred from raising its ministerial error allegation by the doctrine of judicial estoppel (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

The U.S. submitted proof of service in its customs penalty case against German paper exporter Koehler a week after the Court of International Trade allowed the government to serve the company through its U.S. counsel. The proof of service said the summons and complaint were served on Koehler's Holland & Knight attorneys (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

Exporter Your Standing International argued on Aug. 26 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department erred in using the financial statements of Taiwanese company San Shing Fastech Corporation in calculating Your Standing's constructed value profit in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).

The U.S. didn’t double-count domestic producers when conducting an industry support survey for an investigation of oil country tubular goods products, the government said Aug. 26. An importer claiming otherwise keeps making arguments it hadn’t raised earlier, it said (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

Importers led by Sweet Harvest Foods argued on Aug. 23 that the government's claims in defense of its affirmative critical circumstances determination on the importers' Vietnamese honey imports "contravene the plain language and logic of the statute." Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sweet Harvest said the statute plainly tells the International Trade Commission to conduct an "inherently forward-looking analysis" in assessing whether imports from the 90-day critical circumstances period will likely undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order and that any arguments to the contrary undercut this clear message (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).

Vietnam Finewood Co. and Far East American dropped their case at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's premature liquidation of hardwood plywood entries subject to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. In a status report filed earlier this month, the companies said they received "partial refunds" and that the rest of the money at issue is "caught up in issues that have caused extraordinary delays not involved with the merits of the appeal or CBP's apparent willingness to work" with the companies to "ultimately effect the refunds in total" (Vietnam Finewood Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00155).

A new Vietnamese frozen fish fillet exporter didn’t actually make a bona fide sale in the U.S. during the period of a new shipper antidumping review, a domestic trade group said Aug. 23 (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).

The U.S. and importer Fanuc Robotics America said they hope to reach an agreement on the final two models of robots at issue in a customs spat after agreeing to settle the classification battle over the remaining models of robots covered by the case. Submitting a joint status report on Aug. 26, the government and importer said they "arranged for the exchange of technical information" on the two models for CBP's review, but the information will need to be sent again because DOJ didn't receive it. The information should be exchanged by Sept. 4, the report said. The parties said they are "hopeful that they will be able to reach an agreement in principle on the final two models of robots and avoid the need for litigation" (Fanuc Robotics America v. United States, CIT # 12-00052).