Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 93-03-00159.,Slip Op. 97-73. |
| Citation | 966 F.Supp. 1245 |
| Parties | MITA COPYSTAR AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, L.L.P., New York City (Steven P. Florsheim), for plaintiff.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Barbara M. Epstein); Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service (Beth C. Brotman), New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Neville, Peterson & Williams, New York City (John M. Peterson and George W. Thompson), for Amici Curiae Katun Corporation and Xerox Corporation.
This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. It involves the proper tariff classification of toner cartridges imported at various times between 1990 and 1992 for use in Mita electrostatic photocopy machines. The subject toner cartridges are made of plastic and cardboard in various shapes and sizes. The toner cartridges do not contain any electrical contacts or moving parts, and are generally simple in design. Each cartridge contains between 50 and 1000 grams of toner, the black powder used by photocopiers to produce an image on paper.
The United States Customs Service ("Customs") classified the imported merchandise as "chemical preparations for photographic uses," under subheading 3707.90.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (1992)("HTSUS"), dutiable at 8.5% ad valorem. Plaintiff, Mita Copystar America, Inc. ("Mita"), challenges the classification, arguing that the toner cartridges should be classified as "parts and accessories of electrostatic photocopying apparatus," under subheading 9009.90.30, HTSUS, or alternatively, as "parts and accessories" of "other office machines" under subheading 8473.40.40, HTSUS. Under plaintiff's proposed classification, the goods enter duty free.
After evaluating Customs' and Mita's proposed classifications, the Court finds that both proposed classifications accurately describe different aspects of the subject merchandise. Thus, the Court has resolved the matter according to the General Rules of Interpretation, holding that toner cartridges are properly classified as "chemical preparations for photographic uses," under subheading 3707.90.30, HTSUS.
The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)(1988).
When faced with a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether a case presents any genuine issues of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If a case presents no such issues, and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court may grant summary judgment. USCIT R. 56(d). Since the Court has determined that this case presents no genuine issues of material fact, granting summary judgment is appropriate.
In order to determine the proper classification of a given import, the Court considers whether Customs' classification is correct, both independently, and in comparison with the importer's alternative classification. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 2 Fed. Cir. (T) 70, 75, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (1984).
Drawing on this Court's decision in Mita Copystar Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 374, 1993 WL 179285 (1993) ("Mita I"), aff'd, ___ Fed. Cir. (T) ___, 21 F.3d 1079 (1994), Customs classified the subject merchandise as "chemical preparations for photographic uses," under 3707.90.30, HTSUS. Customs contends that Mita I controls the instant case because it established the appropriate classification of the toner cartridges at issue. While the Court finds Mita I relevant, the Court cannot agree that Mita I controls the instant case.
In Mita I, the Court decided an entirely different question than the one before it today. Specifically, the Court in Mita I resolved whether the toners and developers used in photocopy machines were properly classified as "chemical preparations" or as "[u]nmixed products." Mita I, 17 CIT at 374. Consequently, the Court focused solely on the nature of toners and developers as chemicals. However, the issue today is whether a toner cartridge constitutes a "part" or "accessory" of a photocopy machine. This issue was neither argued by the parties nor considered by the Court in Mita I. Hence, the Court concludes that Mita I does not, as a matter of law, resolve the question now presented. Rather, the Court relies on Mita I for the limited purpose of determining the proper classification of the toners and developers contained in the cartridges of the present case.
Because Chapter 37 does not restrict or limit how these chemicals may be packaged, the Court finds the subheading classification broad enough to encompass toner packaged in cartridges. The Court also finds that the toners and developers of Mita I are the same chemical preparations contained in the cartridges at issue here, and thus concludes that the toner cartridges at issue here may be properly classified under subheading 3707.90.30, HTSUS.
Mita challenges Customs' classification, contending that the toner cartridges should be classified as "parts and accessories of electrostatic photocopying apparatus," under subheading 9009.90.30, HTSUS, or alternatively as other "parts or accessories" of "other office machines" under subheading 8473.40.40, HTSUS. The Court finds Mita's contention persuasive.
In a recent Federal Circuit opinion, Bauerhin Tech. Ltd. Partnership v. United States, ___ Fed. Cir. (T) ___, ___ - ___, 110 F.3d 774, 778-79 (1997), the Federal Circuit employed two prominent customs cases, United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, 21 C.C.P.A. 322, 1933 WL 1887 (1933), and United States v. Pompeo, 43 C.C.P.A. 9, 1955 WL 6859 (1955), as standards when it decided whether an article legally constitutes a "part." Under Willoughby Camera, a part is an item that is "an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article." Bauerhin Tech. Ltd., ___ Fed. Cir. (T) at ___, 110 F.3d at 778 (quoting Willoughby Camera, 21 C.C.P.A. at 324). Under Pompeo, "an imported item dedicated solely for use with another article is a `part' of that article within the meaning of the HTSUS." Id. at 779 (citing Pompeo, 43 C.C.P.A. at 13). The Federal Circuit also instructed that although these cases provided different standards, they were not inconsistent and "must be read together." Id.
It is undisputed that a photocopier could not function as such without a toner cartridge. Hence, the cartridges function as an integral part under Willoughby Camera. It is also undisputed that the toner cartridges were dedicated solely for use with Mita photocopiers. Thus, the toner cartridges also meet the Pompeo standard. Therefore, the Court concludes that under the standards set forth in Bauerhin Tech., the toner cartridges are properly considered parts under the HTSUS. See also Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 75, 82 n. 5, 287 F.Supp. 999, 1004 n. 5 (1968) (); Bruce Duncan Co. v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 412, 1969 WL 13830 (1969) ().
Moreover, lexicographic and scientific authorities bolster Mita's proposed classification.1 A part may be defined as an essential portion or integral element of something. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 1645 (1986). A part may also be defined as an element of a subassembly that is not normally useful by itself. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1167 (3rd ed. 1984). The Court finds that Mita's toner cartridges come within the scope of both definitions. A toner cartridge is an essential portion or integral element of a photocopier because the machine cannot perform its intended function without one. A toner cartridge is also a subassembly not normally used by itself.
An accessory, in turn, may be defined as a part or subassembly that contributes to the effectiveness of a piece of equipment without changing its basic function. Id. at 10. Toner cartridges satisfy the accessory definition as well because they contribute to the effectiveness of the photocopier without changing its basic function. Thus, the Court finds that these authorities likewise support Mita's argument that a toner cartridge constitutes a part and accessory of the photocopy machine.
Because the toner cartridges meet the criteria established both by case law and by lexicographic authorities, the Court finds that the toner cartridges may also be properly classified as "parts and accessories of electrostatic photocopying apparatus," under subheading 9009.90.30, HTSUS.2
Because the Court finds that both Customs' and Mita's classifications accurately describe different aspects of the subject merchandise, the Court turns to the General Rules of Interpretation ("GRI") in order to determine the tariff classification.
GRI 1 instructs the Court to classify an item according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes and, provided that these headings or notes do not require otherwise, according to the remaining Rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-2.
...Plaintiff, Mita Copystar America ("Mita"), moves under USCIT R. 59(a) for a rehearing of Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. United States, ("Mita II"), ___ CIT ___, 966 F.Supp. 1245 (1997), holding that toner cartridges are properly classified as "chemical preparations for photographic uses," u......