The Container Store v. United States

864 F.3d 1326, 2017 WL 3027546, 38 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2393, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12846
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 18, 2017
Docket2016-1666
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 864 F.3d 1326 (The Container Store 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
The Container Store v. United States, 864 F.3d 1326, 2017 WL 3027546, 38 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2393, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12846 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MAYER, Circuit Judge.

The Container Store appeals the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and concluding that imported elfa® top tracks and hanging standards were properly classified under subheading 8302.42.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as “[b]ase metal mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture.” See Container Store v. United States, 145 F.Supp.3d 1331, 1348-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016) (“Container Store II”). Because we conclude that the subject imports should instead be classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of unit furniture, we reverse and remand.

Background

The Container Store’s top tracks and hanging standards are two components of its elfa® modular storage and organization system. See id. at 1333. Consumers can assemble the different components of this system “in a variety of configurations to create a customized, modular storage unit.” Id. The top tracks and hanging standards, which are made of epoxy-bonded steel, see id., “serve as the frame or support structure in a complete elfa® system,” id. at 1344.

*1328 A top track has a flat back and is designed to be affixed horizontally, using screws or anchors, to a vertical surface such.as a door or a wall. It has top and bottom edges that “protrude and respectively bend downward and upward to form the track’s upper and lower lips.” Id. at 1333. A hanging standard, which has an open back and a flat front with rows of evenly spaced slots, is suspended vertically “from a top track by means of notches on the top end of the standard that slide into the top track’s lower lip.” Id. Consumers can attach various additional elfa® components, such as baskets, drawers, and shelves, to the hanging standards. Id. at 1334. The top tracks and hanging standards are designed to be used only with other elfa® system components. Id.

The Container Store imported the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards through the Port of Houston, Texas, in October 2007 and January 2008. See id. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) liquidated the subject merchandise under subheading 8302.41.60, a provision for base metal mountings and fittings suitable for buildings. The Container Store filed timely protests challenging Customs’ classification, arguing that the subject merchandise should instead be classified under subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of furniture. Customs denied these protests, relying on a prior Customs ruling that had been issued to The Container Store. See Cust.. B. & Dec. HQ 967149, 2004 U.S. CUSTOM HQ LEXIS 411 at *1 (Nov. 2, 2004) (“HQ 967149”), In that prior ruling, Customs held that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards at issue were properly classified under subheading 8302.41.60 as mountings suitable for buildings. Id. at *11, *20-21. In declining to classify the merchandise under subheading 8302.42,30 as mountings suitable for furniture, Customs explained that “the top tracks and hanging standards are not accessory items to be used with furniture,” but “[ijnstead ... form the structure’of the furniture.” Id.' at *17. Customs further explained that • “[structural elements of furniture are not mountings and fittings suitable for furniture" and therefore cannot be classified under subheading 8302.42.30. Id. The Container Store then appealed to the Trade Court, which placed the appeal on its reserve calendar pending resolution of another appeal filed by The Container Store involving identical merchandise. See Container Store v. United States, 800 F.Supp.2d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) (“Container Store I”).

In Container Store I, Judge Ridgway granted The Container Store’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards at issue were properly classified under subheading 9403190.80 as parts of unit furniture. Id. at 1336-38. Relying on this court’s decision in storeWALL, LLC v. United States, 644 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Judge Ridgway determined that the elfa® organization and storage system, like the storeWALL organization, and storage system, “constitutes ‘unit furniture,’ because it consists of components that are fitted together with other pieces to form a larger system, it is designed to be hung on or fixed to a wall, and it is assembled together so as to suit specific individual consumers’ particular needs to organize and store various objects or articles.” Container Store I, 800 F.Supp.2d at 1337. She emphasized, moreover, that “it is the very versatility and adaptability of systems such as the elfa® system and the storeWALL system that render them unit furniture and distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill coat, hat and similar racks that are specifically excluded from classification as furniture.” Id. at 1338 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). According to Judge Ridgway, because the metal elfa® top tracks and hanging standards, like the plastic wall panels and locator tabs at issue in storeWALL, are “dedicated solely for *1329 use with a completed” unit furniture system, they are properly classified as parts of unit furniture under heading 9403. 1 Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Judge Barnett reached a different conclusion with respect to the classification of the-elfa® top tracks and hanging standards at issue in the present appeal. See Container Store II, 145 F.Supp.3d at 1348-49. Judge Barnett'acknowledged that this court, in storeWALL, 644 F.3d at 1363-64, held that the plastic wall panels and locator tabs used in the storeWALL modular storage system were properly classified under heading 9403 as parts of unit furniture. See Container Store II, 145 F.Supp.3d at 1340-41. He further acknowledged that the “elfa® top [tracks] and hanging standards are functionally equivalent to the storeWALL system.” Id. at 1344 (footnote omitted). Judge Barnett noted, however, that “Chapter 94 Note 1(d) excludes parts of general use from Chapter 94, while Section XV Note 2(c) specifically places parts of general use into heading 8302, HTSUS.” Id. at 1346. In Judge Barnett’s view, because the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards are parts of general use, -they are properly classified under heading 8302 and excluded from heading 9403. Id. at 1349.

The Container Store then appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

Discussion

I.

We review the grant of summary judgment by the Trade Court de novó. Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States,

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

Related

Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States
2023 CIT 180 (Court of International Trade, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
864 F.3d 1326, 2017 WL 3027546, 38 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2393, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-container-store-v-united-states-cafc-2017.