Schulstad USA, Inc. v. United States

240 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1347, 26 C.I.T. 1347, 24 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2204, 2002 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 143
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedDecember 9, 2002
DocketSLIP OP. 02-144; Court 97-09-01572
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Schulstad USA, 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
Schulstad USA, Inc. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1347, 26 C.I.T. 1347, 24 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2204, 2002 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 143 (cit 2002).

Opinion

Opinion

AQUILINO, Judge.

To bake, or not to bake, in the state of Denmark, that is the trans-Atlantic question that underlies this test case within the meaning of USCIT Rule 84(c). The decision not to fire up the oven over there has not left the U.S. Customs Service cool to imposing duties on the danish upon entry over here, which imposts have been protested and then sued upon by the plaintiff importer.

I

The duties assessed upon the entries that are the predicate of this action were 8.8 and 8.2 percent ad valorem per subheading 1901.90.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), depending on the year of arrival. The plaintiff continues to pray for entry duty free under subheading 1905.90.10.41 (“Frozen: ... Pastries, cakes and similar sweet baked products; puddings”).

Following its answer to the complaint, the defendant has interposed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(c). The plaintiff has filed papers in opposition to that motion. Thereafter, it sought and obtained leave to file its own cross-motion for summary judgment upon condition that the parties confer and file herein either a stipulation or statement(s) within the meaning of CIT Rule 56(h). They have complied by filing a Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 9-12 of which describe the subject merchandise as consisting of “ingredients such as unbleached flour, eggs, leaven, fats, fruit, sugar, milk and bakery improvers”, as being “frozen and unbaked”, that is, “pre-proofed, pre-filled, flash frozen and ready for oven baking”; *1337 as being available in “five flavors: apple crown, vanilla crown with hazelnuts, raspberry crown, cinnamon swirl and cheese plait”; and as “imported in bulk packages consisting of 48 units per case for ‘classic’ and 100 units per case for ‘mini’ ”, each case “also containing] two icing bags for use as pastry topping.”

In their joint statement, the parties stipulate that in this case “there are no material facts as to which there exists a genuine issue to be tried and the issues are amenable to resolution through dispositive motions” within the meaning of USCIT Rule 56. Upon review of their written submissions, this court concurs.

The crux of this test case is interpretation of the HTSUS on its face, issue(s) of law that can be resolved without trial. And the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a), 2631(a) et seq.

II

Plaintiffs entries were classified (and thereafter liquidated) by Customs as “food preparations of flour ... not elsewhere specified or included[ ]; ... other ... other ... other ... other ... other ... other”, HTSUS subheading 1901.90.90. In denying plaintiffs protest thereof, the Service referred to its Headquarters Ruling HQ 089810 (Nov. 7, 1991) to the effect that,

[s]ince the articles are unbaked and will only be baked after importation, we do not believe that they would be considered products of the type specified in heading 1905, HTSUSA, at the time of importation. 1

The defendant further reasons now that the words “and similar baked products” in plaintiffs preferred HTSUS subheading 1905.90.10.41, supra, make it “evident that the items preceding the[m] ... must be in fact baked prior to importation in order to fit within this provision.” Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment, p. 7. And it emphasizes that,

through plaintiffs own representations, ... the imported merchandise here is not subject to baking prior to its importation. In fact, the merchandise is designed to be baked after importation. According to the information submitted in Schulstad’s protest with attached marketing materials, the imported merchandise is pre-proofed[ ], flash frozen Danish pastry that are ready to bake in any commercial oven.

Id. at 8.

The plaintiff replies that those words “and similar baked articles” do

not exclude unbaked pastries from the subheading because the[y] ... do[ ] not clearly modify all the articles enumerated before or after it. The subheading also provides for “puddings” which are not baked.

Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment, p. 3. It also argues that “the merchandise is an incomplete pastry and as such would still be classifiable under Heading 1905.” Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 10.

A

The HTSUS (1997) contains General Rules of Interpretation, which govern this action as follows:

1.... [F]or legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do *1338 not otherwise require, according to the following provisions:
2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as entered, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article....
(b) Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3.
3. When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, pri-ma facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:
(a) The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods ..., those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.
(b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials ..., which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.
(c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or 3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.

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

Related

Nippon Express USA, Inc. v. United States
28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1845 (Court of International Trade, 2004)
Vanetta U.S.A. Inc. v. United States
306 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Court of International Trade, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1347, 26 C.I.T. 1347, 24 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2204, 2002 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulstad-usa-inc-v-united-states-cit-2002.