The U.S. waived its right to file a response to a U.S. Supreme Court petition in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the government's waiver, filed Feb. 2, that it won't respond to the petition "unless requested to do so by the Court" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).

In a Jan. 31 supplemental filing after oral arguments held a week earlier by the Court of International Trade, petitioners again rejected the Commerce Department's calculation of a Turkish exporter's duty drawback adjustment. On the same day, DOJ pushed back in its own supplemental filings on a pair of questions from the court (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).

A Canadian steel products exporter asked the Court of International Trade to reverse a Jan. 31 dismissal of six of its cases for failure to prosecute, saying its lawyers had accidentally overlooked the deadline while negotiating with the government out of court (Arcelormittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00037, -00038, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042).

The Court of International Trade's mediation in a challenge from importer California Steel Industries seeking exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties "did not result in a settlement," the court said in a Feb. 2 report of mediation. While Judge M. Miller Baker presides over the case, Judge Leo Gordon served as "Judge Mediator" for the process, which wrapped up Feb. 1 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Correction: Fit for Life, a company that partners with brands such as Gaiam, Reebok, New Balance and Adidas, said at the Court of International Trade that CBP should have classified its imported balance ball chairs as seats of rubber or plastic, a duty-free provision under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9401, rather than as “other articles and equipment for general physical exercises” under heading 9506, which carries a 4.6% duty (see 2402010049).

The U.S. on Feb. 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for another 60 days to file its opening brief in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China. All parties consented to the request (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held oral argument on Jan. 25 in Judge Pauline Newman's suit against three of her colleagues' fitness investigation on the 96-year-old judge. In a Jan. 30 brief filed after the oral argument, the three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Richard Taranto and Sharon Prost -- clarified that they didn't intend to suggest that the appellate court's Judicial Council would need to take action for Newman's suspension to lapse. Instead, the judges meant to confirm that the council would need to "take some action" for the "suspension to continue beyond the one-year period" (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

Correction: DOJ in a Nov. 20 brief once again defended its right to use adverse facts available in calculating an Indian quartz surface product exporter's antidumping duty rate after that importer missed a filing deadline by five hours (see 2311300052).

The U.S. said in a Jan. 25 stipulation that it won't oppose an argument from Auxin Solar and Concept Clean Energy that the Court of International Trade has the power to tell the U.S. to reliquidate certain entries in a suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties covering solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries. The U.S. stipulation covers entries that were unliquidated as of the date of an order from CIT that accepts DOJ's stipulation but that subsequently liquidate before the case is resolved (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).