Grk Canada, Ltd. v. United States

885 F.3d 1340
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2018
Docket2016-2623
StatusPublished

This text of 885 F.3d 1340 (Grk Canada, Ltd. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grk Canada, Ltd. v. United States, 885 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Reyna, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of *1343 International Trade granting GRK Canada, Ltd.'s motion for summary judgment that various screws imported by GRK were properly classified as "self-tapping screws" under subheading 7318.14.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Because the Court of International Trade properly classified GRK's imported screws, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This matter returns to the court following remand to the Court of International Trade. GRK Can., Ltd. v. United States (" GRK IV "), 180 F.Supp.3d 1260 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2016) ; see also GRK Can., Ltd. v. United States (" GRK I "), 884 F.Supp.2d 1340 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013) vacated and remanded , 761 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (" GRK II "), reh'g denied , 773 F.3d 1282 (Fed Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (" GRK III ").

Between January 2008 and August 2008, GRK imported three types of screw fasteners into the United States. GRK IV , 180 F.Supp.3d at 1263 . The three types of screws at issue are GRK's Model R4 Screws ("R4"), RT Composite Trim Head Screws ("RT"), and Fin/Trim Head Screws ("Fin/Trim"). 1 Id. GRK's screws are used to mate dissimilar materials, for example, to mate plastics or dense composite materials to wood. Id . at 1264. To that effect, all three GRK screws are made with corrosion-resistant, case-hardened steel and "can be used to penetrate materials such as sheet metal, plastics, medium-density fiberboard, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) board, cement fiberboard, melamine, arborite, and other man-made composite materials." Id . (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon GRK's importation of the subject screws, United States Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") classified the screws as "other wood screws" under subheading 7318.12.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), 2 subject to an import duty of 12.5% ad valorem . Id. at 1263 . GRK protested, claiming that the screws should have been classified under subheading 7318.14.10 as "self-tapping screws," a classification that carries a 6.2% ad valorem duty. Customs denied GRK's protest. Id. at 1272 . 3

GRK appealed Customs' decision to the Court of International Trade, which granted summary judgment in GRK's favor. The court determined, as eo nomine provisions that describe all forms of an article by a specific name, the subheadings for "other wood screws" and "self-tapping screws" cannot be interpreted based on use "[a]bsent limiting language or contrary legislative intent." GRK I , 884 F.Supp.2d at 1345 . Applying the General Rules of Interpretation ("GRIs"), the Court of International Trade defined the classification scope of "other wood screws" and "self-tapping screws" without accounting for use. Id. at 1348, 1351-52 . The court found, *1344 based on their design characteristics, that all three of GRK's imported screws are properly classified as "self-tapping screws" under subheading 7318.14.10. GRK I , 884 F.Supp.2d at 1356 . The Government appealed.

On appeal, we held that the Court of International Trade erred in "refus[ing] to consider the use of the screws at any step of determining the classification of the subject articles at issue." GRK II , 761 F.3d at 1355 . We instructed the Court of International Trade to consider use in interpreting the common and commercial meaning of HTSUS terms (1) where the name of the tariff provision itself inherently suggests a type of use, or (2) "once the tariff terms have been defined ... the use of subject articles defines an article['s] identity when determining whether it fits within the classification's scope." Id. at 1359 (first citing CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States , 649 F.3d 1361 , 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ; then citing Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States , 195 F.3d 1375 , 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ). Accordingly, we vacated the judgment of the Court of International Trade and remanded for the court to consider use in both "defining the legal meaning of the tariff terms at issue" and in "determining the proper classification of the subject articles." Id. at 1361.

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

Related

Amoena USA Corp. v. United States
2026 CIT 22 (Court of International Trade, 2026)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
885 F.3d 1340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grk-canada-ltd-v-united-states-cafc-2018.