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).

The Commerce Department’s “ex parte” meeting with a domestic producer prior to a scope ruling was “egregious” and demonstrated how the scope ruling process is unfair, a tilemaker said Jan. 31 at the Court of International Trade in response to comments from the U.S. and a domestic petitioner on its motion for summary judgment (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).

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 (Fit for Life LLC v. U.S., CIT # 20-00004).

The petitioner in an antidumping duty case supported its motion for summary judgment Jan. 31 by saying that, since the passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, the Commerce Department is no longer required to consider accuracy when setting antidumping margins. On the same day, an exporter and several importers also fought opposition to their own motions for judgment (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).