Importer JBF Bahrain and the U.S. are progressing toward a settlement of the importer's customs case on CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for the company's polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imports. Filing a joint status report on March 12 at the Court of International Trade, JBF said it has "resolved technical issues and provided document production to the defendant," while the U.S., through CBP, continues to examine "representative samples of the raw materials, intermediate product, and imported product" (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).

Two Chinese exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates said March 7 that the Commerce Department was right to not hit them with an adverse inference when they couldn’t locate information for a review (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00118).

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

Importer Masterank America dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade, filing a notice of dismissal on March 10. The importer brought its suit in December 2024 to contest CBP's determination that its paraffin wax of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2712.20.0000, dutiable at 7.5%, has a country of origin of China. Masterank argued that the country of origin should be Taiwan. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Masterank America v. United States, CIT # 24-00235).

The Court of International Trade on March 10 dismissed a group of exporters' antidumping duty suit for lack of prosecution. Exporters Norma (India), USK Exports Private, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal brought the case last month against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on finished carbon steel flanges from India (see 2502030068). Counsel for the exporters said in an email that the companies decided not to pursue the case (Norma (India) Limited v. United States, CIT # 25-00037).

The U.S. defended its decision to find that Vietnamese currency undervaluation is de facto specific to the traded goods sector at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., the government said the exporter failed to undermine Commerce's conclusion that the traded goods sector was the "predominant user of the subsidy" (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00397).

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

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).