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).

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).

Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit seeking an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).

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).

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).

The U.S. and importer Greenlight Organic, along with its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, agreed to settle a customs fraud suit, the pair said in a joint status report at the Court of International Trade Aug. 23. No details of the settlement were provided, and counsel for Greenlight didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

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).