Bauerhin Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. U.S.

• Citation: 110 F.3d 774
• Decision Date: 02 April 1997
• Docket Number: 96-1276,Nos. 96-1275,s. 96-1275
• Parties: BAUERHIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and John V. Carr & Son Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 774

110 F.3d 774

19 ITRD 1001

BAUERHIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and John V. Carr & Son Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 96-1275, 96-1276.

United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit.

April 2, 1997.

Jerry P. Wiskin, Simons & Wiskin, New York City, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Philip Yale Simons.

Mikki Graves Walser, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, International Trade Field Office, New York City, argued for defendant/cross-appellant. With her on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, D.C., and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Choy, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service, New York City.

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V. Carr & Son Inc. (collectively, Bauerhin) appeal from the summary judgment of the United States Court of International Trade holding that the United States Customs Service correctly classified their imported child seat inserts. Bauerhin Techs. Ltd. v. United States, 914 F.Supp. 554 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995). The United States cross-appeals from the court's holding that Customs incorrectly classified certain canopies as parts of car seats. Because the court did not err in determining the proper classification for either the seat inserts or the canopies, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Bauerhin imports cushioned inserts and canopies for child seats. The cushioned inserts, described in the commercial invoices as "baby pads" or "upholstery for baby car seats," are specially designed to fit child automobile safety seats, infant carriers, and infant swings. It is undisputed that the inserts are imported in the shape and form of the seats for which they are designed and that they have sewn openings to allow the insertion of a restraining device or safety belts. It is also undisputed that the inserts are imported separately from the seats with which they are to be used, although when sold to the ultimate consumer they are either packaged together with the seats or sold specifically as replacement parts. Likewise the canopies are designed to fit over the child automobile safety seats and, although imported separately, are sold as parts of the seats to which they are attached.

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Chapter 63. Other made up articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile

articles; rags.

6307 Other made up articles, including dress patterns

* * *

6307.90 Other:

6307.90.99 Other:

* * *

Other

* * *

Chapter 94. Furniture; bedding, mattresses, mattress supports, cushions and

similar stuffed furnishings ...

9401 Seats (other than those of heading 9402), whether or not convertible

into beds, and parts thereof:

* * *

9401.90 Parts:

9401.90.10 Of seats of a kind used for motor vehicles

* * *

9404 Mattress supports; articles of bedding and similar furnishing

(for example, mattresses, quilts, eiderdowns, cushions,

pouffes and pillows) fitted with springs or stuffed or

internally fitted with any material or of cellular rubber or

plastics, whether or not covered:

* * *

9404.90 Other: Pillows, cushions and similar furnishings:

9404.90.10 Of cotton

9404.90.20 Other

The seat inserts are composed of cotton and polyester with polyester fiberfill. Customs classified them under heading 9404.90.20 as non-cotton cushions under the broader heading of "articles of bedding and similar furnishing," dutiable at the rate of 6% ad valorem. Customs classified the imported canopies under heading 6307 as "other made up textile articles," and specifically under subheading 6307.90.94 (now 6307.90.99), dutiable at the rate of 7% ad valorem. This subheading is a basket provision, encompassing all "other made up textile articles" that are not enumerated elsewhere under that heading.

Bauerhin appealed to the Court of International Trade, arguing that Customs had misclassified both the inserts and the canopies. In particular, it argued that both items were properly classified under heading 9401 as parts of seats, with duties during the relevant time period no higher than 3.1%. Heading 9401 covers "seats (other than those of heading 9402), whether or not convertible into beds, and parts thereof." Subheading 9401.90.10 specifically covers parts of seats of a kind used for motor vehicles.

Although not persuaded by Bauerhin's arguments concerning the inserts, the Court of International Trade agreed with Bauerhin that the canopies should have been classified as parts of seats and not as "other made up textile articles." The court held that the canopies were properly classifiable as parts of car seats, notwithstanding the fact that they are not necessary to the operation of the car seats to which they are attached. Finding no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the court held on summary judgment that Customs correctly classified the inserts in heading 9404, but incorrectly classified the canopies. The court held that the canopies are properly classified under subheading 9401.90.10.

DISCUSSION

We review the Court of International Trade's grant of summary judgment "for correctness as a matter of law, deciding de novo the proper interpretation of the governing statute and regulations as well as whether genuine issues of material fact exist." Guess? Inc. v. United States, 944 F.2d 855, 857 (Fed.Cir.1991). Determining the proper scope of a classification in the HTSUS is an issue of statutory interpretation and thus a question of law. Determining whether a particular imported item falls within the scope of the various classifications as properly construed is a question of fact. See Marcel Watch Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1054, 1056 (Fed.Cir.1993). Because the nature and use of the imported products are not in dispute in this case, the resolution of this appeal turns on the determination of the proper scope of the relevant classifications.

A. The Seat Inserts

Bauerhin argues that heading 9404, "articles of bedding and similar furnishing," is limited to articles that have a primary purpose associated with sleeping or napping. Because sleeping or napping is not the principal use of the car seat inserts, Bauerhin argues that the court erred by classifying the inserts within heading 9404. The government responds that the scope of heading 9404 is broader than the traditional notion of "bedding" and encompasses stuffed articles that render "comfort and protection." Specifically, the government argues that the court properly recognized that the car seat inserts are "cushions" within the meaning of subheading 9404.90.

The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) for the HTSUS provide that "for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes," GRI 1, and that "[f]or legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules," GRI 6. Therefore, we begin our inquiry by examining the descriptions of the relevant headings, subheadings, and accompanying notes. Subheading 9401.90.10 covers "parts: of seats of a kind used for motor vehicles" within heading 9401 which includes "seats ... whether or not convertible into beds, and parts thereof." It is undisputed that the seat inserts fall within the description of heading 9401.

However, Note 3(b) for Chapter 94 of the HTSUS states: "Goods described in heading 9404, entered separately, are not to be classified in heading 9401, 9402 or 9403 as parts of goods." It is undisputed that the seat inserts are entered separately from the seats with which they are a part. Therefore, if the seat inserts are otherwise classifiable within both headings 9404 and 9401, Note 3(b) expressly excludes them from heading 9401. Thus, even though a fact finder might conclude that heading 9401 would ordinarily be the better classification for the imported seat inserts, heading 9404, if applicable, must prevail.

Had the heading and subheading descriptions of 9404 been limited solely to "articles of bedding and similar furnishing," Bauerhin's argument that seat cushions are not similar to bedding might have been more persuasive. However, given that "cushions" are specifically enumerated in the subheadings of 9404, Note 3(b) must control over heading 9401 as long as the term "cushions" is construed in accordance with its common and popular meaning. This must occur unless evidence of legislative intent indicates that the term was intended to exclude cushions designed to be used with seats. See E.M. Chems. v. United States, 920 F.2d 910 (Fed.Cir.1990) ("[T]ariff terms are to be construed in accordance with their common and popular meaning, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent."). No such legislative intent exists; in fact, the contrary appears to be true.

Bauerhin argues that the inserts cannot be classified under heading 9404 because they are not associated with beds, but are parts of seats. The government readily concedes that the inserts are parts of seats. However, the government contends that they are also undoubtedly cushions. Bauerhin responds that the term "cushions" must be interpreted in light of the heading description and that under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the seat inserts cannot genuinely be considered "similar furnishing" to "bedding." Ejusdem generis is a well-settled rule of statutory construction which provides that

where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to...