The Gerson Co. v. United States

254 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 2017 CIT 96, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 95
United States Court of International Trade·Decided August 2, 2017·No. Court 11-00225; Slip Op. 17-96·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Stanceu, Chief Judge:

In this action to contest the denials of its administrative protests by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), plaintiff The Gerson Company (“Gerson”) contests the tariff classification Customs determined for certain imported articles that resemble candles and that use as a source of illumination internal, battery-powered light-emitting diodes.

Before the court are cross motions for summary judgment. The court awards summary judgment in favor of defendant United States.

I. Background

Gerson was the importer of record on 27 entries of the merchandise at issue in this litigation. Summons (June 30, 2011), ECF No. 1. The entries were made during the period of January 6 through October 16, 2009, at the Port of Kansas City, Missouri. Id. Customs liquidated the entries between November 20, 2009 and September 3, 2010, inclusive, and Gerson contested the liquidations by filing four protests, on May 12, June 8, August 31, and September 14, 2010, respectively. Id. Customs denied all four protests on January 4, 2011, and this action followed.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in July 2016; defendant filed its cross motion the following November. Pl.’s Br. and Éxs. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (July 15, 2016), ECF No. 43-2 (“PL’s Mot.”); Def.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. and in Supp. of Def.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J.- (Nov. 4, 2016), ECF No. 53 (“Def.’s Mot.”). 1

*1273 II. Discussion

A.Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2006), according to which the court has jurisdiction over an action brought under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Tariff Act”), as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1515 (2006), to contest a denial of a protest by Customs. In such an action, the court proceeds de novo. See Customs Courts Act of 1980 § 301, 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1) (2006).

B.Description of the Merchandise

The facts as stated in this Opinion are not in dispute between the parties. See Agreed Statement of Facts (July 15, 2016), ECF No. 43-1; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Agreed Statement of Facts (Nov. 4, 2016), ECF No. 53-1.

The merchandise at issue consists of various models of what Gerson terms “candles” and “tea lights.” 2 Pl.’s Mot. 5. Each of these articles is comprised principally of translucent wax or plastic and is made to resemble a style of an ordinary candle (such as a votive, pillar, taper, or tea light). Id. Instead of providing illumination by means of a wick and the combustion of candle wax, as does an ordinary candle, each of these articles provides illumination by means of an internal semiconductor that is a “light-emitting diode,” or “LED,” powered by a battery contained within the article. Id. Catalogue illustrations of the articles show that when the LED is energized by the battery, the illuminated article resembles a lit candle. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex. 3c, ECF No. 43-7. The illustrations also show that Gerson’s articles provide decoration as well as illumination and that some are in holiday themes, including Christmas. See id.

C.Tariff Classification under the General Rules of Interpretation, HTSUS

Tariff classification is determined according to the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”), and, if applicable, the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (“ARIs”), of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). GRI 1 directs that tariff classification, in the first instance, “be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.” GRI 1, HTSUS (2009). 3 Once merchandise is determined to be correctly classified under a particular heading of the HTSUS, a court then looks to the HTSUS subheadings to determine the correct classification of the merchandise in question. GRI 6, HTSUS; see Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Unless there is evidence of “contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed according to their common and commercial meanings.” La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States, 723 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“La Crosse”) (quoting Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Although not binding law, the Explanatory Notes (“ENs”) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (“Harmonized System” or “HS”), maintained by the World Customs Organization, “may be consulted for guidance and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of a tariff provision.” 4 Degussa Corp. v. United *1274 States, 508 F.3d 1044, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In cases involving a disputed tariff classification, the court first considers whether “the government’s classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with the importer’s alternative.” Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has the burden of showing the government’s deter: mined classification to be incorrect. Id. at 876. If plaintiff meets that burden, the court has an independent duty to arrive at “the correct result, by whatever procedure is best suited to the case at hand.” Id. at 878.

D.Summary Judgment under USCIT Rule 56

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

The Gerson Co. v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 2017 CIT 96, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 95 (cit 2017).

254 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (The Gerson Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Target Gen. Merch., Inc. v. United States
2025 CIT 104 (Court of International Trade, 2025)
Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States
698 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (Court of International Trade, 2024)
Gerson Company v. United States
898 F.3d 1232 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Kalle USA, Inc. v. United States
273 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (Court of International Trade, 2017)