La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 February 2012
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 12–26.Court No. 07–00114.
• Citation: 34 ITRD 1261,826 F.Supp.2d 1349
• Parties: LA CROSSE TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

34 ITRD 1261

826 F.Supp.2d 1349

LA CROSSE TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 12–26.Court No. 07–00114.

United States Court of International Trade.

Feb. 29, 2012.

Wm. Randolph Rucker, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, of Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.

Amy M. Rubin, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, for defendant. With her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, and Barbara S. Williams, Attorney–In–Charge. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Choy, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of New York, NY.

OPINION

MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge:

Plaintiff La Crosse Technology, Ltd. (“La Crosse”) challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (“Customs”) classification of imported weather measurement devices and clocks. Proper administrative protest procedure having been undertaken and all liquidated duties, taxes and fees having been paid, see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514, 1515, jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).

I. Facts

Plaintiff La Crosse imports electronic devices which can measure, display and/or record various atmospheric and weather conditions.¹ In addition, the devices at issue function as clocks, displaying time, date and other temporal information. Id. All the merchandise involved here was classified upon liquidation as clocks, under Heading 9105, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (“HTSUS”). The subject merchandise includes wireless instruments to measure outdoor conditions and a base unit with built-in instruments to measure indoor conditions and analyze the weather data collected. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 17. All the models include an LCD display and a microprocessor. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 21. The base unit may contain a thermometer and a hygrometer (to measure humidity). Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 23. All models, save WT–5120, WS–8117, –8236, –8610, –9013 and –9210 contain barometers in the base unit which measure indoor air pressure. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 30; Def. Exh. C, D.

Using a microprocessor, an algorithm analyzes the barometer's historical measurements to predict whether the weather will improve or deteriorate. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶¶ 31, 35. The forecast is presented as a “tendency” arrow, a series of icons, or an image of a boy (“Oscar outlook”) whose clothes indicate which type of weather is predicted. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶¶ 38, 39. Depending on the model, the included outdoor instruments measure temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction or rainfall. These measurements are transmitted wirelessly to the microprocessor in the base unit which processes and displays the data. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 25.

The merchandise can be categorized generally according to the design, features and marketing which distinguish each category. The first category, which the court will identify as “Weather Stations” are characterized by the following features: an indoor display which typically shows time, date, temperature (indoor and/or outdoor), minimum/maximum temperature (in/out), indoor humidity percentage, and weather forecast based upon readings from the device's internal barometer.² These models are often identified in Plaintiff's marketing materials as Weather Stations. Def.'s Exh. A.

The second category are models advertised in La Crosse's “Professional” series. Id. These include the features of the Weather Stations, but also include wind and/or rain sensors as well as additional data storage and the ability to download weather data to a personal computer for analysis.³ Most of the models in this category are also referred to in Plaintiff's marketing literature as “weather centers”. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 11.

The Clock models are described in La Crosse's literature as “Atomic Clocks” and “Projection Clocks”. Pl. Exh. 4; Def. Exh. A. These models include digital clocks some of which project the time and temperature on a wall or ceiling. Id. The Clocks also include indoor/outdoor temperature displays and a weather forecast based on an internal barometer.⁴ Plaintiff markets Models WS–8117, –8236 and –8157 as “Atomic Wall Clocks”. Pl.'s Exh. 4; Def. Exh. A. Models WT–5120, –5130, and WT–5432 and –5442 are marketed as “Projection Alarm Clocks”. Id. The Clocks all display the time in larger size type than the weather-related information. Id.

All of the models at issue display time and date. Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 14. All but one (WS–3512) display indoor temperature. Id. Thirty-three models have a time alarm; twenty-seven show indoor humidity. Id.

II. Applicable Legal Standards

Proper tariff classification is determined by the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) of the Harmonized Tariff System of the U.S. (“HTSUS”) and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed.Cir.1998). The GRIs are applied in numerical order. BASF Corp. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2007). Classification is a question of law requiring ascertainment of proper meaning of relevant tariff provisions and determining whether the merchandise comes within the description of such terms. Pillowtex Corp. v. United States, 171 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed.Cir.1999). Interpretation of the HTSUS begins with the language of the tariff headings and subheadings of the HTSUS and their section and chapter notes, and may also be aided by the Explanatory Notes published by the World Customs Organization. Trumpf Med. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 34 CIT ––––, ––––, 753 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1305–1306 n. 20 (2010).

Both parties move for judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 56, which is appropriate “if 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 judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court will grant a motion for summary judgment “if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a “genuine” dispute as to those facts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). As we have emphasized, “[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.... Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ ” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (footnote omitted).

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).

III. Competing Tariff Provisions

La Crosse classified the subject merchandise under subheadings 9025.80.10, 9026.10.20, 9105.21.40, and 9105.91.40, HTSUS.⁵ Customs reclassified the merchandise at liquidation under HTSUS subheading 9105.91.40, as “other clocks.” Pl.'s Mat. Facts, ¶ 4. Based on its review of the merchandise during this litigation, the government has abandoned the classification under subheading 9105. 21.40 and 9105.91.40, HTSUS, imposed upon liquidation for several models. Def.'s Memo, at 5.

The subheadings at issue are as follows:

Image 1 (5.24" X 6.78") Available for Offline Print

Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote ⁶.

Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote ⁷.

IV. Analysis

After considering the parties' motions, the court finds that there are no material facts in dispute and that the matter may be resolved summarily. The Weather Stations are properly classified in subheading 9025.80.10, HTSUS, the Professional models in subheading 9015.80.80, HTSUS, and the Clocks in subheading 9105.91.40, HTSUS. For the following reasons Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment are each granted in part and denied in part.

A. Parties' Contentions

Plaintiff argues that the subject merchandise should be classified as meteorological devices in Heading 9015, HTSUS, or as combination devices in Heading 9025, HTSUS.

[T]he Subject Merchandise falls into two categories, forecasting weather stations and other weather stations, which will be classified, in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRI”), under one of two HTSUS headings based on (1) a “principal use” analysis pursuant to GRI 1; (2) a rule of relative specificity analysis pursuant to GRI 3(a); or (3) an essential character analysis pursuant to GRI 3(b). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that three of the weather station models are properly classified in HTSUS heading 9025 (model numbers WS–8610, WS–9013, and WS–9210), while the remaining weather models stations [ sic ] belong to a class of articles that are more specifically described as “meteorological appliances” in HTSUS Heading 9015.⁸

Plaintiff argues that Heading 9015 (meteorological instruments) is preferable to Heading 9105 (clocks) because the articles are “more than” clocks. “The forecasting weather stations are much more than clocks as they are not essentially constructed for indicating the time of day.” Pl.'s Memo, at 13, citing Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095, 1097 (Fed.Cir.1996). According to Plaintiff, the “unique function” of weather forecasting takes the devices “beyond the scope of devices covered by headings 9025 and 9105.” Pl.'s Memo, at 13. Based on two definitions of “meteorology”, Plaintiff...