Aero Rubber Co. v. United States

389 F. Supp. 3d 1296
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedMay 14, 2019
DocketSlip Op. 19-57; Court No. 15-00174
StatusPublished

This text of 389 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (Aero Rubber Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aero Rubber Co. v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (cit 2019).

Opinion

Kelly, Judge:

This action concerns the classification of an assortment of molded silicone bands that are larger than wrist size and contain some form of printed wording or motif. Compl. ¶ 8, Sept. 15, 2015, ECF No. 8 ("Compl."); Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 2, 27, Dec. 26, 2017, ECF No. 52 ("Def.'s 56.3 Statement").1 Defendant, the United States, moves for summary judgment, requesting that the court find as a matter of law that Plaintiff's imports were properly classified within subheading 3926.90.99, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2013) ("HTSUS"),2 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Def.'s Mot. Summary J., Dec. 22, 2017, ECF No. 45; Mem. Supp. Def.'s Mot. Summary J. at 1, Dec. 22, 2017, ECF No. 45 ("Def.'s Br."). Plaintiff, Aero *1301Rubber Company, Inc., opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment, requesting that the court find as a matter of law that the imports are properly classifiable within subheading 4911.99.80, HTSUS. See Compl. ¶ 8; Pl.'s Mot. Summary J., Jan. 29, 2019, ECF No. 53; Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Summary J. & Supp. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. Summary J. at 17, Jan. 29, 2018, ECF No. 53 ("Pl.'s Br."). For the reasons that follow, both motions are granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff designs and produces customized rubber products, including molded and rolled sheet rubber, extruded rubber products of various elasticities, rubber bands, "PromoStretch" silicone bands, and wristbands. Def.'s 56.3 Statement ¶ 1. At issue in this case is the proper classification of ten customized PromoStretch silicone bands, each larger than wristband size and containing some printed wording or motif. Def.'s Br. at 7-12; Def.'s 56.3 Statement ¶ 27.3 The silicone bands are nearly as elastic as a natural rubber band, highly durable, and considered to be of a higher quality than natural rubber bands. Def.'s 56.3 Statement ¶¶ 16-17. The individual bands are discussed in greater detail below.

CBP classified and liquidated the subject entries under subheading 3926.90.99, HTSUS, which covers: "Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914: Other: Other," dutiable at 5.3 percent ad valorem. Def.'s 56.3 Statement ¶ 3. Plaintiff timely filed administrative protests4 challenging CBP's classification determination, asserting that the bands are properly classifiable under subheading 4911.99.80, HTSUS.5 Subheading 4911.99.80, HTSUS, covers "Other printed *1302matter, including printed pictures and photographs: Other, Other." CBP denied Plaintiff's protests in relevant part. See Protest No. 3195-14-100229 Determination [attached as Def.'s Ex. 1 at 2], Dec. 22, 2014, ECF No. 49; Protest No. 2809-14-100802 Determination [attached as Def.'s Ex. 1 at 48], Mar. 6, 2015, ECF No. 49.

Plaintiff commenced this action to contest CBP's denial of its protests.6 See Summons, June 22, 2015, ECF No. 1; Compl. Plaintiff contends that the printed silicone bands in dispute were improperly classified under subheading 3926.90.99, HTSUS, and are instead properly classifiable as "Other Printed Matter" under subheading 4911.99.80, HTSUS. See Compl. ¶ 8. Plaintiff asserts that printed silicone bands in question "consist of articles of plastic," "have been printed with motifs, characters, or pictorial representations," and "have printed motifs, characters or pictorials representations that are not merely incidental to the primary use of the Printed Silicone Bands." Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff maintains that the printing on the silicone bands is the reason the bands are produced in the first place. Compl. ¶ 13. Defendant responds that the printed silicone bands were properly classified under subheading 3926.90.99, HTSUS, because the printing on these bands "is incidental to the bands' essential nature and use in binding, bundling, securing, and gripping." Def.'s Br. at 15.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has "exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in whole or in part, under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930, [as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1515 (2012) ]," 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012), and reviews such actions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1) (2012). The court will grant summary judgment when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." USCIT R. 56(a).

DISCUSSION

Classification involves two steps. First, the court determines the proper meaning of the tariff provisions, which is a question of law. See Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d 962, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Second, the court determines whether the subject merchandise falls within the scope of the tariff provision, which is a question of fact. Id. Where there is no dispute regarding the nature of the merchandise, "the two-step classification analysis 'collapses entirely into a question of law.' " Id. at 965-66 (quoting Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ). The court must determine "whether the government's classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with the importer's alternative." Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

A. The Meaning of the Relevant Tariff Terms

Customs classification is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation *1303("GRIs") and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. See Roche Vitamins, Inc. v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Airflow Technology, Inc. v. United States
524 F.3d 1287 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Storewall, LLC v. United States
644 F.3d 1358 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States
733 F.2d 873 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Simod America Corp. v. The United States
872 F.2d 1572 (Federal Circuit, 1989)
Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States
195 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 1999)
Del Monte Corporation v. United States
730 F.3d 1352 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States
742 F.3d 962 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. United States
772 F.3d 728 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Aero Rubber Company, Inc. v. United States
359 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (Court of International Trade, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 F. Supp. 3d 1296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aero-rubber-co-v-united-states-cit-2019.