CBP and importer Motivation Design settled a customs case on pet carriers, with the government agreeing to go with the importer's preferred tariff classification for a lower duty rate. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade, the parties agreed that CBP will classify the pet carriers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6307.90.98, dutiable at 7%, as "other textile articles," instead of subheading 4202.92.90, dutiable at 17.6%, as a case with outer surface of textile materials. CBP classified the goods under subheading 4202.92.90 at entry (Motivation Design v. United States, CIT # 15-00212).

The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

The Court of International Trade should not give importer Under the Weather leave to amend its complaint to add a claim in its customs suit on the tariff treatment of its see-through pop-up tent "pods," the U.S. said in a brief filed last week. The government said the proposed amendment to Under the Weather's complaint is "untimely," since it's "now years after" the importer "could have presented its claim to Customs," adding that the claim also fails to state a valid argument (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

Frozen fish fillet petitioner Catfish Farmers of America again argued March 5 the U.S. was wrong to state that it hadn’t sought certain information from a review respondent, and, because of that, a gap in the record was justified (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).

Pea protein exporters filed their motion for judgment March 4 in their case challenging the use of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhaoyuan Junbang Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00180).

Correction: In oral argument, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif grappled with whether the Commerce Department reasonably selected a broader, less-specific plywood price dataset over a smaller, more specific one. He also dealt with the department’s application of adverse facts available to multilayered wood flooring review respondents after a finding of government control based on the Chinese government’s “deficient” questionnaire responses (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136) (see 2503050059).

The U.S. filed a March 4 motion to consolidate cases brought by exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations (see 2412240029) and petitioner United Steel, Paper and Forestry (see 2502070071). Both cases concern the final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263; United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).

Petitioner The Mosaic Company and exporter OCP again traded briefs at the Court of International Trade regarding a countervailing duty review on Moroccan-origin phosphate fertilizer. Each defended its own prior motion for judgment (see 2408120049) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

In a March 5 complaint before the Court of International Trade, German importer MTU Maintenance Hannover brought a single claim disputing CBP’s classification of a mid-frame assembly used in GE Aerospace’s LM2500 gas turbine engine. It said it had just sent the U.S.-origin product back for repairs (MTU Maintenance Hannover v. United States, CIT # 25-00023).

In a March 4 complaint before the Court of International Trade, petitioner Bio-Lab again took issue with the Commerce Department’s surrogate selection in its antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates, or pool chlorine, from China (see 2407190046) (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).