Slip Op. 19-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

QUAKER PET GROUP, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge 

Court No. 13-00393 

OPINION

[Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted.] 

Dated:0DUFK

Alan Goggins, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, LLP, of New York, NY, for plaintiff. 

Monica P. Triana, Trial Attorney, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, for defendant. With her on the brief 

were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, and Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were Beth C. Brotman and Sheryl A. French, Office of Assistant Chief 

Counsel for International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of New York, 

NY. 

Katzmann, Judge: The court returns to the question of the tariff classification under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2012) (“HTSUS”) of Plaintiff Quaker Pet 

Group, LLC’s (“Quaker Pet”) pet carrier products. Previously, the court held that, as a matter of 

law, Quaker Pet’s carriers could not be classified under HTSUS heading 4202, which comprises 

containers that organize, store, protect, and carry various items, because pets are living beings and 

not items. Quaker Pet Group, LLC v. United States, 42 CIT__, 287 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (2018). 

However, the undisputed facts available to the court at that time were insufficient to determine 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 2

whether the pet carriers could be covered by HTSUS 6307 -- a provision containing made up 

articles of textile that are not included under another tariff category -- or some other HTSUS 

heading. Id. at 1359–60. The parties have undertaken discovery and provided the court with 

additional, undisputed facts, which now permit the court to conclude that Quaker Pet’s carriers 

should be classified under HTSUS 6307. 

BACKGROUND

I. Tariff Classification Generally 

In a classification case, “the court construes the relevant (competing) classification 

headings, a question of law; determines what the merchandise at issue is, a question of fact; and 

then . . . adjudges . . . the proper classification under which it falls, the ultimate question in every 

classification case and one that has always been treated as a question of law.” Bausch & Lomb, 

Inc. v. U.S., 148 F.3d 1363, 1366 (1998); see Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263, 

1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When there is no factual dispute regarding the merchandise, the resolution 

of the classification issue turns on the first step, determining the proper meaning and scope of the 

relevant tariff provisions. See Wilton Indus., 741 F.3d at 1266–67; Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. U.S., 195 

F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Bausch & Lomb, 148 F.3d at 1365–66. 

“The HTSUS scheme is organized by headings, each of which has one or more 

subheadings; the headings set forth general categories of merchandise, and the subheadings 

provide a more particularized segregation of the goods within each category.” Alcan Food 

Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States, 773 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Wilton 

Indus., 741 F.3d at 1266). Chapter and section notes of the HTSUS are statutory law, not 

interpretative guidelines, and are binding on the court. Quaker Pet, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 1355 (citing 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 3

Arko Foods Intern., Inc. v. United States, 654 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Park B. Smith, 

Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). 

Tariff classification is determined according to the General Rules of Interpretation 

(“GRIs”), and, if applicable, the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. The “General Rules of 

Interpretation govern classification of merchandise under the HTSUS, and are applied in numerical 

order.” Honda of Am. Mfg. v. United States, 607 F.3d 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). 

Under GRI 1, “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings 

and any relative section or chapter notes.”1

 See also Faus Grp., Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 

1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Unless there is evidence of “contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be 

construed according to their common and commercial meanings.” La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United 

States, 723 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 

1044, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In ascertaining a term’s common meaning, the court may “consult 

lexicographic and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other reliable information” or may rely 

on its “own understanding of the terms used.” Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. United States, 182 F.3d 

1333, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Millennium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 

1326, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379. “Where a tariff term has various 

definitions or meanings and has broad and narrow interpretations, the court must determine which 

 

1

 GRI 1 provides that: 

The table of contents, alphabetical index, and titles of sections, chapters and 

subchapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, 

classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any 

relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not 

otherwise require, according to the following [GRI] provisions. 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 4

definition best expresses the congressional intent.” Richards Med. Co. v. United States, 910 F.2d 

828, 830 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although not binding law, courts also look to the Explanatory Notes 

(“ENs”) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, maintained by the World 

Customs Organization, as persuasive authority on how to interpret and apply HTSUS provisions. 

See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 491 F.3d 1334, 1336 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(“Although the Explanatory Notes ‘do not constitute controlling legislative history,’ they are 

nonetheless intended to offer guidance in clarifying the scope of HTSUS subheadings.” (citing 

Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1994))); Deckers Outdoor 

Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363, 1367 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see generally Alcan Food 

Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States, 37 CIT __, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (2013) (relying 

extensively on the guidance provided by the ENs to resolve the case under GRI 1), aff’d, 771 F.3d 

1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

“The HTSUS is designed so that most classification questions can be answered by GRI 1.” 

Telebrands Corp. v. United States, 36 CIT__, __, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1280 (2012), aff’d, 522 

Fed. App’x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “What is clear from the legislative history of the World Customs 

Organization and case law is that GRI 1 is paramount . . . The HTSUS is designed so that most 

classification questions can be answered by GRI 1, so that there would be no need to delve into 

the less precise inquiries presented by GRI 3.” Id. A product is classifiable under GRI 1 if it “is 

described in whole by a single classification heading or subheading” of the HTSUS; however, 

“[w]hen goods are in character or function something other than as described by a specific statutory 

provision -- either more limited or more diversified -- and the difference is significant, then the 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 5

goods cannot be classified” pursuant to GRI 1.2

 La Crosse Tech., 723 F.3d at 1358 (quoting 

CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

II. Procedural History

In this case, the Government classified the subject pet carriers under subheading 

4202.92.3053

 of the HTSUS, the provision covering traveling bags and similar containers of textile 

material. Amended Compl. ¶ 10; Def.’s Answer ¶ 10. This classification carries a 17.6 percent 

duty rate. HTSUS 4202.92.30. Quaker Pet contested the liquidations by filing a protest on April 

25, 2013, because it believed that pet carriers are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

6307.90.98, “Other made up articles, including dress patterns:...Other:...Other,” which carries a 

duty rate of seven percent. Summ., Dec. 9, 2013, ECF No. 1. Customs denied the protest on June 

21, 2013, and this action followed. Id. Initial disclosures were served on January 21, 2015 and 

supplemented on July 17, 2015. Resp. to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings as to Count I of the Amended 

Compl. (“Def.’s Br.”), Oct. 30, 2015, ECF No. 28, at Exhibits 1–2. Quaker Pet moved for 

judgment on the pleadings as to Count I of its Amended Complaint on September 18, 2015, and 

the Government filed its response on October 30, 2015. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings as to Count I 

 

2

 This case need not proceed beyond GRI 1, as discussed below, and so further discussion of GRI 

2 and GRI 3 is unnecessary. 

3

 HTSUS 4202.92.30 covers: 

Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attaché cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle 

cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters 

and similar containers; traveling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiletry 

bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map 

cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry 

boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of 

composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber 

or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper:... 

With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials:... 

Other...
Court No. 13-00393 Page 6

of the Amended Compl. (“Pl.’s Br.”), ECF No. 21; Def.’s Br. Quaker Pet filed its reply on 

November 12, 2015, and the first oral argument was held on February 11, 2016. Pl.’s Reply Br., 

ECF No. 29; Oral Argument, ECF No. 35. 

On November 29, 2017, the case was reassigned to a new judge. Reassignment Order, 

ECF No. 52. Quaker Pet filed a motion to withdraw Count II4

 of the amended complaint on 

December 14, 2017, and the Government filed its response opposing withdrawal of Count II on 

January 2, 2018. ECF. No. 57; ECF No. 59. Oral argument was held anew on January 17, 2018. 

ECF No. 60. 

In its ensuing opinion, issued in February 2018, the court held that, as a matter of law, 

Quaker Pet’s products could not be classified under heading 4202. Quaker Pet, 287 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1358–59. Under the Federal Circuit’s Avenues In Leather test, “the common characteristic or 

unifying purpose of the goods in heading 4202 consist[s] of organizing, storing, protecting, and 

carrying various items.” Avenues In Leather, Inc. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The court reasoned that because the primary purpose 

of Quaker Pet’s products was to carry living beings -- namely, pets -- and not items, these pet 

carriers did not meet the Avenues In Leather test. Quaker Pet, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 1358–59. 

However, “the undisputed facts contained in the pleadings d[id] not provide sufficient information 

-- for example, the materials comprising each style of pet carrier or any procedure through which 

the products were assembled or otherwise made up -- for the court to determine whether the pet 

carriers are properly classifiable under HTSUS heading 6307 or another heading.” Id. at 1359. 

4 In Count II, Quaker Pet argued that “[i]n the alternative, the imported pet carriers are properly 

classified under subheading 4201.00.30, HTSUS, dutiable at the rate of 2.4% ad valorem, as: 

‘Saddlery and harness for any animal (including traces, leads, knee pads, muzzles, saddle cloths, 

saddle bags, dog coats and the like), of any material: Dog leashes, collars, muzzles, harnesses and 

similar dog equipment.’” Id. ¶13.
Court No. 13-00393 Page 7

The court also granted Quaker Pet’s Motion to Withdraw Count II of the Amended Complaint, 

reasoning that “the court has an independent duty to evaluate all potential HTSUS classifications, 

and so withdrawing Count II will not prevent the court from considering heading 4201 and any 

other potentially relevant headings when ruling on Count I” after the relevant facts were further 

developed. Id. at 1360. 

Subsequently, the parties conducted discovery to determine both the materials comprising 

each style of pet carrier and the procedure by which each carrier was assembled. Based on that 

discovery, the parties submitted their Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JSUF”) on October 5, 

2018. ECF No. 73. On January 9, 2019, the court held a teleconference with the parties and 

requested supplemental submissions concerning the parties’ positions on the appropriate 

classification of the pet carriers in light of discovery and the court’s previous opinion. ECF No. 

77. Quaker Pet filed its supplemental submission on January 9, 2019 and a motion for summary

judgment on February 6, 2019. ECF No. 78; ECF No. 79. In its February 15, 2019 response to 

Quaker Pet’s motion for summary judgment, while continuing to maintain that the appropriate 

classification for the pet carriers is in heading 4202, the Government agreed that, based on Quaker 

Pet and the undisputed facts, the court has enough information to enter final judgment. ECF No. 

80. 

III. The Merchandise at Issue

The imported merchandise consists of five styles of pet carriers. Amended Compl. ¶ 5, 

Feb. 12, 2015, ECF No. 7; JSUF ¶¶ 2–3, Oct. 5, 2018, ECF No. 73. Pet carrier style numbers 

55234, 55534, 97009, and 98791 were imported into Newark, NJ, and style number 94279 was 

imported into Long Beach, CA. Amended Compl. ¶¶ 6–7; JSUF ¶¶ 2–3. The pet carriers were 

manufactured in and imported from China. JSUF ¶ 4. These pet carriers are used to carry cats, 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 8

dogs, or other pets. Amended Compl. ¶ 8; Answer to Pl.’s Amended Compl. ¶ 8, Apr. 27, 2015, 

ECF No. 13 (“Def.’s Answer”). Subsequent to the commencement of this action, Quaker Pet, the 

importer of record, was sold to Worldwise, Inc. Letter from Pl.’s Counsel, Jan. 17, 2018, ECF No. 

61. Worldwise, Inc. has continued to import the same pet carriers, typically under the SherpaTM

brand trademark. Id. A description of the pertinent aspects of each of the pet carriers is as follows: 

1) Style No. 55534, the Original Small Deluxe, measures approximately 15 by 10 by 8 1⁄2 

inches and is composed of approximately 62% textile materials (nylon and polyester), 13% 

polyvinylchloride plastic, 5% medium density fiberboard, 14% metal (nickel plated iron), 

2% fiberglass, and 4% packing material. JSUF ¶¶ 2(a), 5–6. The Original Small Deluxe 

is made “by cutting both the solid and mesh materials into panels of the appropriate size 

and sewing the panels together with zippers.” Id. ¶ 8. The red trim of this model and the 

strap handles are also sewn onto the carrier. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Metal clasps and rings attach the 

shoulder strap. Id. ¶ 10. 

2) Style No. 55234, the Original Medium Deluxe, measures approximately 17 by 11 by 10 1⁄2 

inches. Id. ¶¶ 2(b), 11. Otherwise, its composition and method of manufacture are 

essentially identical to those of the Original Small Deluxe above. Id. ¶¶ 12, 16–18. 

3) Style No. 97009, the AKC Medium Duffle, measures approximately 14 by 9 1⁄4 by 9 inches 

and is composed of 60% textile materials (nylon and polyester), 16% polyvinylchloride 

plastic, 8% medium density fiberboard, 12% metal (nickel plated iron), and 4% packing 

material. Id. ¶¶ 2(c), 19, 21. The AKC Medium Duffle is manufactured in essentially the 

same way as the Original Small Deluxe and Original Medium Deluxe models. Id. ¶¶ 23–

25. 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 9

4) Style No. 98791, Sherpa on Wheels, measures approximately 18 5

/8 by 10 by 8 1⁄2 inches 

and is composed of approximately 60% textile materials (nylon and polyester), 13% 

polyvinylchloride plastic, 5% medium density fiberboard, 16% metal (nickel plated iron), 

2% fiberglass, and 4% packing material. Id. ¶¶ 2(d), 26, 29. The Sherpa on Wheels 

undergoes essentially the same manufacturing process as the previously discussed models, 

with an additional step for attaching the wheels. Id. ¶¶ 31–34. 

5) Style No. 94279, the Tote-Around-Town, measures approximately 18 by 8 by 15 inches 

and is composed of approximately 68% textile materials (nylon and polyester), 15% 

polyvinylchloride plastic, 5% medium density fiberboard, 8% metal (nickel plated iron), 

and 4% packing material. Id. ¶¶ 3, 35, 37. The Tote-Around-Town is made “by cutting 

both the solid and mesh materials into panels of the appropriate size and sewing the panels 

together with zippers.” Id. ¶ 39. Its handles and safety strap are also sewn to the sides of 

the carrier. Id. ¶ 40. 

Additionally, for each pet carrier at issue in this case, the textile portions account for at least 60% 

of the cost of the materials. Id. at Ex. 3 p. 55–56, Deposition of Neil Werde, Aug. 21, 2018. 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

 The court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). In a tariff 

classification case, the court proceeds de novo. Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 

922, 924 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see Customs Courts Act of 1980 § 301, 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1)(2012) 

(directing the Court of International Trade to review classification rulings on “the basis of the 

record made before the court”). 

DISCUSSION

 The court grants summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 10

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(a). 

In a tariff classification action, summary judgment is appropriate when “the material facts of what 

the merchandise is and what it does are not at issue.” Wilton Indus., 741 F.3d at 1266–67; Bausch 

& Lomb, 148 F.3d at 1365. Here, as mentioned previously, the parties have submitted a JSUF 

detailing the characteristics of the merchandise in question, and thus material facts regarding the 

pet carriers are not in dispute. What remains is for the court to determine, based on these facts, 

the appropriate classification for the merchandise. 

As discussed above, GRI I requires that classification be determined “according to the 

terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.” See Faus Grp., Inc., 581 F.3d at 

1372 (citing Orlando Food Corp., 140 F.3d at 1440). Chapter 63, Note 1 provides that “SubChapter I [63.01–63.07] applies only to made up articles, of any textile fabric.” Section XI, Note 

7(f) defines “made up” as “assembled by sewing, gumming or otherwise (other than piece goods 

consisting of two or more lengths of identical material joined end to end and piece goods composed 

of two or more textiles assembled in layers, whether or not padded).” “Assemble,” as defined by 

the Federal Circuit in ABB, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1274, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary p. 131 (1993)), “means to fit together the various 

parts of [sic] so as to make into an operative whole.” However, heading 6307 includes only “made 

up textile articles of any textile fabric (woven or knitted fabric, felt, nonwovens, etc.) which are 

not more specifically described in other Chapters of Section XI or elsewhere in the [HTSUS] 

Nomenclature.” Chapter 63, ENs (emphasis in original). Essentially, for merchandise to be 

classified under heading 6307, it must be an assembled textile article that fits under no other 

HTSUS heading. 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 11

 Quaker Pet’s products meet these requirements. The textile portion constitutes at least 60% 

of both the cost and material used to manufacture all five models of pet carriers. JSUF ¶¶ 6, 12, 

21, 29, 37, Ex. 3 at pp. 55–56. The pet carriers are assembled by sewing together the various 

components. Id. ¶¶ 8–10, 16–18, 23–25, 31–34. Finally, the pet carriers fit under no other HTSUS 

heading. For the reasons discussed in Quaker Pet, the pet carriers cannot be classified under 

heading 4202. See Quaker Pet, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 1358–59. 

Moreover, Quaker Pet’s pet carriers also cannot be classified under heading 4201, 

“[s]addlery and harness for any animal (including traces, leads, knee pads, muzzles, saddle cloths, 

saddle bags, dog coats and the like), of any material.” The Explanatory Notes for the chapter 

elaborate on this category with further examples: 

This heading covers equipment for all kinds of animals, of leather, composition 

leather, furskin, textiles or other materials. 

These goods include, inter alia, saddles and harness (including reins, bridles, and 

traces) for saddle, draught and pack animals, knee pads, blinkers and boots for 

horses, decorated trappings for circus animals, muzzles for any animal, collars, 

leads and trappings for dogs or cats, saddle cloths, saddle cushions and saddle bags, 

horse blankets specially shaped for the purpose, coats for dogs. 

The HTSUS does not define “saddlery” or “harness,” and so the court may “consult lexicographic 

and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other reliable” or may rely on its “own understanding 

of the terms used.” Baxter Healthcare Corp., 182 F.3d at 1337–38; see Millenium Lumber, 558 

F.3d at 1328–29 (citation omitted); Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d 1379 (citation omitted). The American 

Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (3rd Ed., 1992 at pp. 825, 1586) defines “saddlery” 

as “[e]quipment, such as saddles and harnesses, for horses” and “harness” as “[t]he gear or tackle, 

other than yoke, with which a draft animal pulls a vehicle or an implement” or “[s]omething 

resembling such gear or tackle, as the arrangement of straps to hold a parachute to the body.” 

Crucially, saddlery, harnesses, and the other exemplars listed in the heading and Explanatory Note 
Court No. 13-00393 Page 12

all fasten to the animal, while the pet carrier does not. Because Quaker Pet’s products do not share 

the unifying characteristic of fastening to the animal that the imports included under heading 4201 

share, they are different from saddlery and harnesses and cannot be classified under this category. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the undisputed material facts, Quaker Pet’s products are properly classified under 

heading 6307 because they are made up articles of textiles that cannot be classified under any other 

heading. Consequently, the court grants Quaker Pet’s motion for summary judgment. Quaker 

Pet’s products shall be reliquidated under HTSUS subheading 6307.90.9889 and Quaker Pet will 

be refunded excess duties collected or payments tendered, including interest, to the extent provided 

by law. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Gary S. Katzmann

Gary S. Katzmann, Judge 

Dated: 0DUFK

New York, New York