Bergan Pets and the federal government reached an agreement surrounding the correct classification of imported pet carriers, according to a stipulated judgment agreement, signed by Judge Gary Katzmann on July 25 (Bergan Pets v. U.S., CIT #15-00134). Bergan imported the items in October 2012 through Kansas City. CBP liquidated the merchandise in 2013 under the subheading 4202.92.90, as "travel, sports or similar bags," and assessed 17.6% duties. Bergan filed three protests in 2014, all of which were denied, before filing suit at CIT. Both sides have agreed that the correct classification should be under subheading 6307.90.98 as "Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Other: Other," dutiable at 7%.

The Court of International Trade should overturn a decision by CBP to classify imported desk pad and planning calendars, importer Blue Sky said in a complaint filed Aug. 4 at the Court of International Trade (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00624).

Four honey importers -- Honey Solutions, Sunland Trading, Export Packers Co. and Sweet Harvest Foods -- filed four nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4 arguing against the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The six-count complaints argue against that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume has not jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping order such as to require a critical circumstances determination.

Importer Compart Systems dismissed its customs dispute in an Aug. 4 motion at the Court of International Trade. The company filed the case to contest the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of its parts and accessories for the manufacture of semiconductors. The parts liquidated under subheading 8481.10.0090, dutiable at 2%, but the company vied for classification under subheading 8486.90.0000, free of duty. Compart Systems' notice of dismissal did not provide a reason for the case being tossed, and counsel for the importer did not reply to request for comment (Compart Systems v. U.S., CIT #21-00558).

Court of International Trade Judge Leo Gordon ruled against importer Cyber Power Systems in four motions -- two from Cyber Power, and two from the government -- in a case regarding the country of origin of imported surgery protectors (Cyber Power Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00124).

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

CBP and importer Ohka America reached a settlement over the proper tariff classification of photoresists in three different cases at the Court of International Trade. According to the three separate stipulated judgments on agreed statement of facts, the parties reached an agreement on the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the entries, dropping the duty rate from 6.5% to 3%. CBP originally liquidated the photoresists under HTS subheading 3707.90.32, which provides for "Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations...: Other:Chemical preparations for photographic uses: Other." The parties agreed, though, to liquidate the entries under subheading 3707.10.00, whch provides for “Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations). Sensitizing emulsions." The cases were filed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (Ohka America v. United States, CIT #05-00118, #06-00415, #08-00029).

The Commerce Department's "practice" cited by an antidumping duty respondent that says that Commerce will not consider new issues after an undefined point in a proceeding "does not actually exist," AD petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a July 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Wheatland said that Commerce properly used adverse facts available in the contested antidumping duty review to find that respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. was affiliated with various home market customers and that there is no merit to Saha Thai's claims that information submitted by Wheatland to clarify this affiliation information did not comply with Commerce's regulations (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00627).

CBP and Lerner New York reached a settlement over the proper classification of two types of ladies' knitted tops. Filing a stipulated judgment on an agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade Aug. 1, the parties settled on a Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the tops, dropping the duty rate from 17% to 10.9%. The dispute concerned ladies' knitted tops of over 90% cotton and less than 10% spandex with a built-in shelf bra and ladies' knitted tops of manmade fibers with a built-in shelf bra (Lerner New York v. U.S., CIT #05-00412).

Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).