Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

269 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 2017 CIT 129
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedSeptember 21, 2017
DocketSlip Op. 17-129; Court 14-00061
StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Home Depot U.S.A., 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
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 269 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 2017 CIT 129 (cit 2017).

Opinion

OPINION

Richard W. Goldberg, Senior Judge

BACKGROUND

This case arises from the classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). Plaintiff Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) is an importer and retailer of home improvement merchandise. Home Depot challenges Customs’ classification of certain key-operated locking hardware articles (“entry locks” or “entry door knobs” or “subject articles”).

The subject articles were entered between July and December of 2012 and liquidated by Customs between May and November 2013. See Summons, ECF No. 1. Customs liquidated the subject articles under HTSUS subheading 8301.40.6030, at a duty rate of 5.7% ad valorem. See Complaint ¶ 17, ECF No. 5. Home Depot insists that Customs should instead classify the subject articles under HTSUS subheading 8302.41.6045, at a duty rate of 3.9% ad valorem. See Complaint ¶¶ 24, 28, ECF No. 5.

Home Depot timely protested Customs’ classification of its merchandise. Customs denied Home Depot’s protest. Home Depot timely filed suit in this court to contest the denial of its protest. Home Depot and Defendant, the United States (“Defendant”), each filed a motion for summary judgment. Because Customs’ appropriately classified the subject articles within HTSUS heading 8801, the court denies Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment and grants Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).

“The court shall grant summary judgment if 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). Summary judgment in a classification case is appropriate only if “the material facts of what the merchandise is and what it does are not at issue.” BASF Corp. v. United States, 35 CIT -, -, 798 F.Supp.2d 1358, 1356-57 (2011) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

“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’ determines ‘the proper classification under which [the merchandise] falls, the ultimate question in every classification case and one that has always been treated as a question of law.’” BASF Corp., 35 CIT at -, 798 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (quoting Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

Merchandise is classified in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”). The GRIs are applied in numerical order. If the proper classification is achieved through a particular GRI, the remaining successive GRIs should not be considered. See Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712-13 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Under GRI 1, the court must determine the appropriate classification “according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes,” HTSUS GRI 1, according all terms their “common commercial meaning,” Millenium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In construing tariff provisions, “[a] court may rely upon its own understanding of the terms used and may consult lexicographic and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other reliable information sources.” Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

An article is classifiable under GRI 1 if it “is described in whole by a single classification heading or subheading” of the HTSUS. La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States, 723 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). “With regard to assessing an imported article pursuant to GRI 1, we consider a HTSUS heading or subheading an eo nomine provision when it describes an article by a specific name.” CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1364 (citation omitted). “Absent limitation or contrary legislative intent, an eo nomine provision ‘include[s] all forms of the named article[,]’ even improved forms.” Id. at 1364-65 (citation omitted). 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 goods cannot be classified under an eo nomine provision pursuant to GRI 1.” See La Crosse Tech., 723 F.3d at 1358 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“In order to determine whether the subject article is classifiable within an eo nomine provision, we look to whether the subject article is merely an improvement over or whether it is, instead,. a change in identity of the article described by the statute.” CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1365 (citation omitted). “The criterion is whether the item possesses features substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of the term.” Id. (quoting Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

.“Several commercial factors also guide the court’s assessment of whether articles fall within the scope of an eo nomine provision, including how the subject articles are. regarded in commerce” and “how the subject articles are described in sales and marketing literature.” Id. at 1368 (citations omitted).

For the reasons discussed below, the court holds that the subject articles -are classifiable under heading 8301,. and only heading 8301, pursuant to a GRI 1 analysis.

a. The Parties’ Competing Tariff Provisions

The court begins by construing the. parties’ competing tariff provisions. Customs classified the subject articles under HTSUS subheading 8301.40.6030. 1 The Government argues that “[a]ll of the keyed entry locksets at issue are covered by Heading 8301 pursuant to GRI 1 in that they are ‘... locks (key, combination or electrically operated).’” • Def.’s Mem. in Opp’n to.PL’s Mot. for Summ, J. and in Supp. of Def.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ.. J. 11, ECF No. 47 (“Def. MSJ”), Home Depot disagrees, insisting, that “the subject entry door knobs are properly classified under Heading 8302 using a GRI 1 analysis.” PL’s Mem. in Supp, of Mot. for Summ. J. 10, ECF No. 35 (‘‘Home Depot MSJ”). The relevant portions of each HTSUS provision are excerpted below:

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

Related

Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court, 1944)
United States v. Mead Corp.
533 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Millenium Lumber Distribution Ltd. v. United States
558 F.3d 1326 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Agfa Corp. v. United States
520 F.3d 1326 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
CamelBak Products, LLC v. United States
649 F.3d 1361 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated v. United States
148 F.3d 1363 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Mita Copystar America v. United States
160 F.3d 710 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States
195 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 1999)
Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States
267 F.3d 1354 (Federal Circuit, 2001)
Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States
282 F.3d 1349 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
BASF Corp. v. United States
798 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Court of International Trade, 2011)
La Crosse Technology, Ltd. v. United States
723 F.3d 1353 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States
757 F.3d 1349 (Federal Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 2017 CIT 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-depot-usa-inc-v-united-states-cit-2017.