195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 98-1546, Zeiss v United States

Docket Nº:98-1546
Citation:195 F.3d 1375
Party Name:CARL ZEISS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:November 10, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 1375

195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

CARL ZEISS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,


UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.


United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

November 10, 1999

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Senior Judge James L. Watson

Page 1376

Mark K. Neville, Jr., International Trade Counsellors, of Westport, Connecticut, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Barbara M. Epstein, Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, International

Page 1377

Trade Field Office, Department of Justice, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General and David M. Cohen, Director, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. Also on the brief was Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Choy, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service, of New York, New York.

Before LOURIE, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Carl Zeiss, Inc. appeals from the June 23, 1998 decision of the United States Court of International Trade denying its motion for summary judgment and granting the United States' cross-motion for summary judgment that the United States Customs Service correctly classified its imported ZMS 319 product under subheadings 9011.10.40 and 9011.90.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 19 U.S.C. § 1202 (1994) (HTSUS). See Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 16 F.Supp.2d 1097 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998). Because we conclude that Customs correctly classified the merchandise, we affirm.


In 1994 and 1995, Zeiss imported a product called the ZMS 319 from Germany. The ZMS 319 is comprised of a Zeiss OPMI microscope, a stand, and accessories, including a camera--all specially tailored for neurosurgical use. The parties dispute which of the following headings and subheadings constitutes the product's proper classification:

9011 Compound optical microscopes, including those for photomicrography, cinemicrography or microprojection; parts and accessories thereof:

9011.10 Stereoscopic microscopes:

9011.10.40 Provided with a means for photographing the image

* * *

9011.90.00 Parts and accessories

* * *

9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof:

* * *

9018.90 Other instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof:

Optical instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof:

* * *

9018.90.20 Other

HTSUS (1995 ed.) (emphasis added).

Customs classified the ZMS 319 as a stereoscopic compound microscope with a means for photographing the image, parts, and accessories, under subheadings 9011.10.40 and 9011.90.00, and liquidated it at the corresponding general duty rates. See Zeiss, 16 F.Supp.2d at 1098. Zeiss timely protested Customs' classification, which protest was denied. Zeiss then challenged Customs' classification in the Court of International Trade, requesting that the court order Customs to reliquidate its ZMS 319 entries under subheading 9018.90.20, duty-free, and to refund the duty that had been assessed. The government responded that Customs had correctly classified the ZMS 319.

Zeiss and the government each cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted the government's motion and held that Customs correctly classified the ZMS 319 under heading 9011 because that heading described the ZMS 319 more specifically than heading 9018, noting the fact that heading 9011 is an eo nomine provision and heading 9018 is a use provision.

Page 1378

See id. at 1099-1100. The court rejected Zeiss's argument that under Nippon Kogaku (USA), Inc. v. United States, 673 F.2d 380 (CCPA 1982), all microscopes used in medicine must be classified under heading 9018. See id. at 1100. The court found that Zeiss had not proved that the term "compound optical microscope" had a commercial meaning distinct from its common meaning, see id. at 1100-01, and noted that the Explanatory Notes to the HTSUS1 supported Customs' classification. See id. at 1101.

Zeiss timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (1994).


A. The Standard of Review

We review the Court of International Trade's grant of summary judgment in a

trade classification case for correctness as a matter of law, deciding de novo whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See U.S. Ct. Int'l Trade R. 56(d); Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Determining the meaning of a tariff term is a question of law. See Baxter Heathcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We give Chevron deference to Customs' interpretations of these terms in its regulations, see United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 119 S.Ct. 1392, 1399 (1999), but not to those interpretations in Customs rulings, see Mead Corp. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Determining whether a particular imported item falls within the scope of the various classifications as properly construed is a question of fact. See Baxter, 182 F.3d at 1337. In this case, the structure and use of the ZMS 319 are not in dispute, and Customs has not promulgated any regulations interpreting these headings and subheadings. Our analysis concerning whether the ZMS 319 has been properly classified only requires a determination of the proper meaning and scope of the relevant provisions and a determination of the preferred heading for classification purposes, both questions of law.

B. The Meaning and Scope of the Proposed Headings

Zeiss challenges Customs' classification of the subject merchandise under heading 9011, which includes "compound optical microscopes." Zeiss argues that this term commonly refers to compound optical microscopes used for laboratory, industry, and research use, not for medical or surgical use. Zeiss concedes that the ZMS 319's OPMI microscope falls within the dictionary definition of a compound optical microscope in that it has multiple stages of magnification (an objective and two eyepieces),2 but maintains that it is not a compound optical microscope for tariff purposes because it only has surgical uses and has a different "commercial identity."

Page 1379

The government responds that the common meaning of the term is the same as its dictionary meaning, which is simply any light microscope with multiple levels of magnification, and that the ZMS 319's use is irrelevant.

The HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (US GRI) govern the proper classification of all merchandise and are applied in numerical order. See Baxter, 182 F.3d at 1337. Under GRI 1, "[c]lassification is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes." Absent contrary legislative...

To continue reading