Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States

929 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 2013 CIT 94, 2013 WL 4007836, 35 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1896, 2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 105
United States Court of International Trade·Decided July 25, 2013·No. Slip Op. 13-94; Court 09-00095·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION

BARZILAY, Senior Judge:

This case is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) (“Al-can”), challenges the decision of Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) denying Alcan’s protests of Custom’s classification of its “Flexalcon” (short for Flexible Aluminum Conserve) packaging material within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Customs classified the subject merchandise under the provision for “plastics” and rejected Alcan’s proposed classification of the merchandise under the provision for “aluminum foil.” More specifically, Customs classified the subject merchandise under HTSUS subheading 3921.90.40, which carries a 4.2% ad valorem duty. Alcan, however, contends that the subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS subheading 7607.20.50, which is duty free. Alcan filed an application for further review, which Customs denied in a Ruling Letter. See HQ Ruling H008142 (Nov. 26, 2008). This matter involves imported merchandise from Germany, entered through the Ports of Louisville, Blaine, and Detroit between October 2005 and September 2006. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendant’s motion is granted.

*1341 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court reviews Customs’ protest decisions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1). USCIT Rule 56 permits summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact....” USCIT R. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In considering whether material facts are in dispute, the evidence must be considered in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, as well as all doubts over factual issues. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 253-54, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

A classification decision involves two steps. The first addresses the proper meaning of the relevant tariff provisions, a question of law. See Faus Group, Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1369, 1371-72 (Fed.Cir.2009) (citing Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed.Cir.1998)). The second step determines the nature of the imported merchandise and is a question of fact. See id. When there is no factual dispute regarding the merchandise, as is the case here, the resolution of the classification issue turns on the first step, determining the proper meaning and scope of the relevant tariff provisions. See Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed.Cir.1999); Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1365-66 (Fed.Cir.1998).

While the court accords deference to Customs’ classification rulings relative to their “power to persuade,” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 235, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)), the court has “an independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the proper meaning and scope of HTSUS terms.” Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2001)).

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

The following facts are not in dispute. The subject merchandise is known commercially as Flexalcon. It consists of plastic film and aluminum foil. Flexalcon is produced by laminating aluminum foil with multiple layers of plastic film. [[Redacted]]. Flexalcon is imported on reels as two separate products (base and lid material). The base material is formed into a pouch and the lid material covers the base. The base and lid materials are designed to form a package that holds food. Flexalcon packages store and extend the shelf-life of food in the form of ready-to-eat meals. They are a substitute for conventional preserve packaging such as aluminum cans, steel cans, or glass jars.

[[Redacted]] Flexalcon is used by the United States military to package ready-to-eat meals for soldiers (called “Meals, Ready-to-Eat” or “MREs”). The remaining imported Flexalcon material is used for packaging the same type of meals for allied forces. From World War II until 1980, U.S. Army field rations were supplied as shelf stable processed foods in metal cans, called “C-rations.” In 1980, the first retort pouch rations (MREs) were procured by the military and have subsequently been deployed in ground operations around the world. See Def. Ex. G at 4 n. 2 (Dunn Declaration).

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

Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 2013 CIT 94, 2013 WL 4007836, 35 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1896, 2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 105 (cit 2013).

929 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Quaker Pet Grp., LLC v. United States
2018 CIT 9 (Court of International Trade, 2018)
Quaker Pet Group, LLC v. United States
287 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (Court of International Trade, 2018)
Kalle USA, Inc. v. United States
273 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (Court of International Trade, 2017)
Tyco Fire Products L.P. v. United States
82 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (Court of International Trade, 2015)
Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States
771 F.3d 1364 (Federal Circuit, 2014)