Bp Products North America Inc. v. United States

716 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 676, 34 C.I.T. 676, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1601, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 64
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedJune 1, 2010
DocketSlip Op. 10-64; Court 06-00184
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 716 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Bp Products North America Inc. 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
Bp Products North America Inc. v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 676, 34 C.I.T. 676, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1601, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 64 (cit 2010).

Opinion

OPINION

RESTANI, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment by Plaintiff BP Products North America (“BP”), an importer of merchandise for use in the production of commercial-grade unleaded gasoline, and Defendant United States (“the Government”) pursuant to USCIT Rule 56. The Government asserts that the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) properly classified the subject merchandise as preparations under subheading 2710.11.15 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), that is, as gasoline (motor fuel). 1 BP, however, asserts that the subject merchandise is properly classified under subheading 2707.50.00, HTSUS, because it was an oil product and its aromatic constituents exceeded nonaromatic constituents. 2 For the reasons stated below, the court denies BP’s motion for summary judgment and grants the Government’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

The parties agree on the underlying facts of this case. (Def.’s Mem. In Supp. Of Its Cross-Mot. For Summ. J. And In Opp’n To PL’s Mot. For Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) 2.) In December 2004 and February 2005, BP imported a liquid mixture known as 93 octane (premium grade) conventional gasoline (“Conv.93”) into the United States from Germany. (App. To PL’s Mem. In Supp. Of Its Mot. For Summ. J. (“PL’s App.”) Tab B; Def.’s Statement Of Additional Material Facts As To Which There Are No Genuine Issues *1293 To Be Tried (“Def.’s Statement of Facts”) ¶ 1; Pl.’s Resp. To Def.’s First Interrogs. And First Req. For Produc. Of Doc. And Things (“Pl.’s First Interrogs.”) 14, available at Def.’s Mem. Ex. A.) 3 “Conv. 93 consisted] of a blended mixture of components and was likely prepared to satisfy particular specifications and to possess particular measured properties.” (Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 4.) “Petroleum constitute[d] the basic constituent of the imported Conv. 93,” which “contain[ed], by weight, 70 percent or more of petroleum oils.” (Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 2, 3; see also Dep. Of Tim McMahon (“McMahon Dep.”) 45-46, available at Def.’s Mem. Ex. C.) 4 Each cargo of Conv. 93 had an “aromatic hydrocarbon compound content ... greater than 50% by weight, as measured and reported by BP’s independent commercial gauger utilizing the American Society of Testing and Materials (‘ASTM’) D 5769 test method.” 5 (Pl.’s Statement Of Material Facts Not In Dispute (“Pl.’s Statement of Facts”) ¶ 3.) Conv. 93 “satisfied] the typical U.S. requirements for automotive motor fuel as set forth in ASTM D 4814, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) In addition, Conv. 93 was “capable of being used in automobile engines in its condition as imported.” (Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 7.) Thus, it was gasoline motor fuel.

Upon entry, BP classified Conv. 93 under subheading 2707.50.00, HTSUS, subject to no duty. (PL’s App. Tab A.) Customs, however, classified Conv. 93 under subheading 2710.11.15, HTSUS, at a duty rate of 52.5 cents per barrel, (id. at Tab B), and liquidated the entries accordingly, (see id. at Tab C). After liquidation, BP challenged this classification, but Customs denied its protests. (Id.) BP then commenced the present action. Both parties now move for summary judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c). The proper construction of a tariff provision is a question of law, and whether the subject merchandise falls within a particular tariff provision is a question of fact. Franklin v. United States, 289 F.3d 753, 757 (Fed.Cir.2002). Where, as here, “the nature of the merchandise is undisputed, ... the classification issue collapses entirely into a question of law,” and the court reviews Customs’ classification decision de novo. Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2006).

*1294 DISCUSSION

I. Heading 2710, HTSUS

A. Conv. 93 is a preparation under heading 2710, HTSUS.

Conv. 93 is a blended mixture of components, including at least seventy percent petroleum oils, that, once combined with certain additives, 6 may be sold as automobile gasoline in the United States. In its memorandum of law, BP admits that Conv. 93 is described by the terms of heading 2710, HTSUS, but contends that Conv. 93 is a petroleum oil, not a preparation. (PL’s Mem. Of Law In Supp. Of Its M. For Summ. J. (“PL’s Mem.”) 5; PL’s Resp. To Def.’s Cross-Mot. For Summ. J. And Reply To Def.’s Resp. To PL’s Mot. For Summ. J. (“PL’s Resp.”) 4 n. 2.) BP argues that “[b]y failing to recognize that a basic blended nature is common to gasoline and substantially all petroleum fuels, defendant overreaches.” (PL’s Resp. 2.) It argues “[p]etroleum products are not ‘preparations’ as opposed to ‘oils’ for tariff purposes simply because they consist of hydrocarbon streams that are blended to meet specifications.” 7 (Id.) Rather, BP contends that the distinction between petroleum oils and preparations under heading 2710, HTSUS, is the inclusion of additives in the latter. 8 BP’s claim lacks merit.

The General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) of the HTSUS govern the classification of merchandise entered into the United States. Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed.Cir.1998). Under GRI 1, HTSUS, “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.... ” Courts may use plain meanings and dictionary definitions to interpret these terms. See E.T. Horn Co. v. United States, 367 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2004).

Heading 2710, HTSUS, includes “[p]etroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude; preparations not elsewhere specified or included, containing by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals, these oils being the basic constituents of the preparations; waste oils....”

Related

In Zone Brands, Inc. v. United States
456 F. Supp. 3d 1309 (Court of International Trade, 2020)
Altman v. HO SPORTS CO., INC.
821 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (E.D. California, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
716 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 676, 34 C.I.T. 676, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1601, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bp-products-north-america-inc-v-united-states-cit-2010.