Slip Op 07 111 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION Plaintiff v UNITED STATES Defendant Before Court No WALLACH Judge 03 00526 PUBLIC VERSION Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED Dated July 18 2007 Baker McKenzie LLP Lynn S Preece Bart M McMillan and Louisa V Carney for Plaintiff Whirlpool Corporation Peter D Keisler Assistant Attorney General Barbara S Williams Attorney in Charge International Trade Field Office Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U S Department of Justice Bruce N Stratvert and Chi S Choy Office of Assistant Chief Counsel U S Customs and Border Protection of Counsel for Defendant United States OPINION Wallach Judge I INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool challenges the decision of the United States Customs and Border Protection Customs to classify its imported merchandise entry number 327 0126404 9 under Heading 9032 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States HTSUS 1999 as an a utomatic regulating or controlling instrument and apparatus at a duty rate of 1 7 ad valorem 1 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U S C 1581 a and jurisdiction is uncontested by the parties Because the subject merchandise is classified under an eo nomine designation as an automatically controlling apparatus in HTSUS Heading 9032 Customs classification of the refrigerator control box subassembly in subheading 9032 89 60 was proper Accordingly Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied and Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted II BACKGROUND Plaintiff Whirlpool is the importer of record for entry number 327 0126404 9 consisting of refrigerator control box subassemblies 1 knob identified as part number 2204604 Amended Complaint Complaint 2 Answer to Amended Complaint Answer 2 Composite Statement of Uncontested Facts 8 The subject merchandise was exported from Mexico by Whirlpool de Reynosa S A de C V and entered the United States through the port of Hidalgo Texas on March 30 1999 In its imported condition the merchandise consisted of a thermostat defrost timer light socket and wire harness all of which were contained inside a plastic housing 2 Complaint 2 3 5 Answer 2 3 5 Customs classified part number 2204604 under HTSUS Subheading 9032 89 603 and liquidated on March 8 2002 assessing duties at the rate of 1 This rate represents the Column 1 general rate for HTSUS Subheading 9032 89 60 in effect at the time of entry in 1999 2 Plaintiff alleges that the imported merchandise also contained terminals and connectors but the Government denies this This discrepancy is not material to the court s decision however 3 HTSUS Heading 9032 and subheading 9032 89 60 provide for 9032 Automatic regulating or controlling instruments and 2 1 7 ad valorem and disallowed duty free treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA Complaint 6 8 Answer 6 8 Plaintiff timely paid all additional duties and fees assessed on liquidation and on June 5 2002 filed a protest against Customs classification and liquidation decision and its denial of NAFTA benefits for the entry 4 Complaint 9 10 Answer 9 10 Customs denied the protest on February 13 2003 and Plaintiff timely filed a summons with this court on July 30 2003 Whirlpool argues that the subject merchandise was improperly classified in HTSUS subheading 9032 89 60 and should instead have been classified in HTSUS subheading 8537 10 90 5 or alternatively in HTSUS subheading 8418 99 80 6 Complaint 13 15 23 Both parties submitted motions for summary judgment apparatus parts and accessories thereof 9032 89 60 Other 1 7 4 Protest number 2304 02 100182 5 HTSUS Heading 8537 and subheading 8537 10 90 provide for 8537 Boards panels consoles desks cabinets and other bases equipped with two or more apparatus of heading 8535 or 8536 for electric control or the distribution of electricity including those incorporating instruments or apparatus of chapter 90 and numerical control apparatus other than switching apparatus of heading 8517 8537 10 For a voltage not exceeding 1 000 V 8537 10 90 6 Free MX Other Free MX HTSUS Heading 8418 and subheading 8418 99 80 provide for 8418 Refrigerators freezers and other refrigerating or 3 before this court Oral Argument on those motions was held on April 3 2007 III STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for summary judgment is granted when the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law USCIT R 56 c In classification cases the proper classification under which an article falls has always been treated as a question of law thus summary judgment will be appropriate when there is no underlying factual issue regarding the nature of the merchandise remaining in dispute Bausch Lomb Inc v United States 148 F 3d 1363 1366 Fed Cir 1998 The court reviews classification cases de novo in accordance with 28 U S C 2640 a When deciding classification cases the court employs a two step analysis in which the first step concerns the proper meaning of the tariff provisions at hand and the second step concerns whether the subject imports properly fall within the scope of the possible headings Universal Elecs Inc v United States 112 F 3d 488 491 Fed Cir 1997 Additionally the factual determinations made by the agency are presumed to be correct therefore the party challenging the classification bears the burden of proof Totes Inc v United States 69 F3d 495 498 freezing equipment electric or other heat pumps other than the air conditioning machines of heading 8415 parts thereof 8418 99 80 Other Free 4 Fed Cir 1995 citing 28 U S C 2639 a 1 IV DISCUSSION The HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation GRI govern the classification of merchandise entering the United States See Orlando Food Corp v United States 140 F 3d 1437 1439 Fed Cir 1998 GRI 1 states in pertinent part that for legal purposes classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States General Rule of Interpretation GRI 1 An eo nomine provision describes goods according to their common and commercial meaning Carl Zeiss Inc v United States 195 F 3d 1375 1379 Fed Cir 1999 A court may rely upon its own understanding of the terms used or consult lexicographic
View Full Document
Unlocking...