The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

British financial giant Standard Chartered Bank waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Standard Chartered said it doesn't intend to file a response unless prompted by the court (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).

The Commerce Department still hasn't proven that Hyundai received a subsidy in the form of a “direct transfer of funds” from the South Korean government due to the country’s cap and trade program, the exporter said Feb. 5 in comments on the department’s remand results (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00170).

Importers seeking reclassification of their 3D-printing pens as toys rather than machinery consolidated their cases Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).

An importer said Feb. 7 that CBP wrongfully prevented a weight loss dietary supplement from entering the U.S. (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Seven plywood importers will not participate in the appeal of a case on the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood from China after participating at the Court of International Trade. The companies -- Canusa Wood Products, Concannon Corp., Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Holland Southwest International, Liberty Woods International, Northwest Hardwood and USPly -- told the court of their decision in a statement last week (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258)

A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).

The Commerce Department unfairly assumed four Chinese tire exporters were under government control because they couldn't participate as separate rate respondents in a 6-year-old administrative review, importers and exporters said Feb. 2 in comments on the department’s remand determination in an antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The Commerce Department misidentified two South Korean government programs as countervailable subsidies, including one that it had previously deemed too unspecific, a Korean steel exporter said Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).