Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Puerto Rico v. U.S.

Decision Date24 February 1998
Docket NumberCourt No. 95-05-00637.,Slip Op. 98-16.
Citation998 F.Supp. 1133
PartiesBAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Katten Muchin & Zavis (Mark S. Zolno, Michael E. Roll), New York City, for Plaintiff.

Frank W. Hunger, Asst. U.S. Atty. General of U.S.; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Barbara Silver Williams), Sheryl A. French, Office of Asst. Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs Service, for Defendant.

OPINION

CARMAN, Chief Judge.

This case is before this Court on cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to U.S. CIT R. 56. Plaintiff, Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Puerto Rico ("Baxter"), challenges the United States Customs Service's ("Customs") classification of the merchandise at issue under subheading 5404.10.8080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS")1, at a duty rate of 7.8% ad valorem as a "synthetic monofilament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm". Plaintiff argues the merchandise at issue is neither synthetic nor a monofilament, but is classified properly in subheading 9019.20.0000, HTSUS, as part of an "artificial respiration apparatus" because it is a part of plaintiff's UNIVOX blood oxygenator. Alternatively, plaintiff argues blood oxygenators and their parts are classified properly in subheading 9018.90.7080, HTSUS, as part of an "electromedical apparatus". Plaintiff requests this Court order Customs to reliquidate plaintiff's entries under subheading 9019.20.0000, HTSUS, dutiable at 4.2% ad valorem, or alternatively under subheading 9018.90.7080, HTSUS, dutiable at 3.8% ad valorem, and refund all excess duties with interest as provided by law. Plaintiff also moves for oral argument on its Motion for Summary Judgment and defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, contending oral argument on the issues raised in the pending motions will aid the Court in reaching its decision.

Defendant cross moves for summary judgment, requesting this Court deny plaintiff's motion and dismiss this action. Defendant argues the merchandise at issue falls within the definition of a synthetic monofilament set forth in the HTSUS, the Explanatory Notes and all lexicographic sources. Alternatively, defendant argues even if the merchandise at issue were classifiable as a part of an oxygenator, it is not classifiable as an artificial respiration apparatus, nor as part of an electromedical apparatus, but rather as an "electrosurgical apparatus" under subheading 9018.90.60, HTSUS, dutiable at a rate of 7.9% ad valorem.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1988) and this action is before the Court for de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1) (1988). For the reasons which follow, this Court denies plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and grants defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court denies plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument.

BACKGROUND
A. Subject Merchandise

Plaintiff, the importer of the merchandise at issue in this case, described the merchandise on its commercial invoices as the "Oxyphan (R) Capillary Membrane for Oxygenation." (Pl.'s Stmt of Mater. Facts at 1.) The trademarked name of the merchandise sold to plaintiff is OXYPHAN. Plaintiff imports the merchandise at issue from Germany and purchases the OXYPHAN capillary membrane from Akzo Nobel Faser AG.

The merchandise at issue is produced using a thermally induced phase separation process. During this process, a polymer (polypropylene) is melted and mixed with two natural seed oils (soy and castor oil), and the mixture is extruded through a spinneret. During the cooling phase, the oils are separated and removed from the polymer, creating pores in the membrane. Once the cooling phase is complete, the membrane is dried and wound on spools. Baxter purchased the merchandise on spools that contained approximately ten kilometers of finished membrane. The merchandise at issue was always sold to Baxter by the length of the capillary membrane contained on a spool (in kilometers) and never by decitex.2 The membrane was not subject to a drawing process3 during manufacture. Baxter used the merchandise at issue solely in the production of its UNIVOX oxygenators, which are utilized almost exclusively to oxygenate blood in connection with surgical procedures.

The merchandise at issue was liquidated by Customs under subheading 5404.10.8080, HTSUS, at a duty rate of 7.8% ad valorem as "synthetic monofilament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm".

Plaintiff protested Customs' classification of the merchandise within the time provided by law. Customs subsequently denied plaintiff's protest on December 3, 1991, in Headquarters Ruling ("HQ") 950047. In HQ 950047, Customs concluded "[a]ll the specifications of the subject merchandise meet the prerequisites of Heading 5404, HTSUS[], and classification is therefore proper within this provision of the Nomenclature." HQ 950047 (December 3, 1991). After having paid all liquidated duties, plaintiff timely commenced this action.

B. Statutory Provisions at Issue

The parties rely on the following provisions of the HTSUS:

                    (1) Plaintiff's Proposed Subheading
                    9019          Mechano-therapy appliances; massage apparatus; psychological aptitudetesting
                                  apparatus; ozone therapy, oxygen therapy, aerosol therapy, artificial
                5respiration or other therapeutic respiration apparatus; parts and
                                  accessories thereof
                                      
                    9019.20.000       Ozone therapy, oxygen therapy, aerosol therapy, artificial respiration
                                      or other therapeutic respiration apparatus; parts and
                                      accessories thereof .........................................3.7%
                (emphasis added)
                    (2) Plaintiff's Alternative Subheading
                    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
                                          
                    9018.90.70                 Other:
                
                                      ....
                    9018.90.7080      Electro-medical instruments and appliances and parts and
                                      accessories thereof:
                                           ....
                                           Other
                                               ....
                                               Other ......................................4.2%
                (emphasis added).
                    (3) Subheading Used by Customs in Classifying and Liquidating the Merchandise at
                    Issue
                    5404          Synthetic monofilament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross-sectional
                                  dimension exceeds 1 mm; strip and the like (for example, artificial
                                  straw) of synthetic textile materials of an apparent width not exceeding 5
                                  mm:
                    5404.10          Monofilament:
                                        ....
                                        Other:
                                            ....
                                                 Other ..............................7.8%
                (emphasis added).
                    (4) Defendant's Proposed Alternative Subheading
                    9018.90.60     Electro-surgical instruments and appliances, other than extracorporeal
                                   shock wave lithotripters; all the foregoing and parts and
                                   accessories thereof .............................................7.9%
                

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff argues Customs erred in classifying the merchandise at issue as a synthetic monofilament in subheading 5404.10.8080, HTSUS, "because the OXYPHAN® capillary membrane does not meet the definition of a `synthetic monofilament.' It is neither synthetic, nor is it a `monofilament.'" (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Br.") at 7-8.) Plaintiff argues the merchandise is a part of a blood oxygenator which is classified properly as an "artificial respiration apparatus" in subheading 9019.20.0000, HTSUS, or alternatively, as an "eletromedical apparatus" in subheading 9018.90.7080, HTSUS. Based on these arguments, plaintiff requests this Court order Customs to reliquidate the entries of the merchandise at issue under subheading 9019.20.0000, HTSUS, dutiable at 4.2% ad valorem, with interest as provided for by law, or alternatively under subheading 9018.90.7080, HTSUS, dutiable at 3.8% ad valorem, with interest as provided for by law.

Defendant argues the merchandise at issue fits the definition of a synthetic monofilament set forth in the HTSUS, the Explanatory Notes and all lexicographic sources and thus was properly classified under subheading 5404.10.8080, HTSUS, as a "synthetic monofilament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm". Defendant maintains that according to the HTSUS, Explanatory Notes, and lexicographic authorities, the merchandise at issue is not part of another article but "is simply a material." (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Br.") at 5.) Defendant further argues even if the merchandise at issue were classifiable as part of an oxygenator, it is not classifiable under subheading 9019, HTSUS, as an artificial respiration apparatus because "[t]he imported monofilament does not perform the same functions as articles ejusdem generis with artificial respiration apparatus." (Id.) Defendant additionally contends because the imported monofilament meets the description for electro-surgical apparatus, "it would not be classified[, as plaintiff contends,] in the basket provision for electro-medical apparatus, heading 9018.90.70", but would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • The Pomeroy Collection, Ltd. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 27, 2008
    ...the incomplete candle lamps here had the "essential character" of complete candle lamps. See, e.g., Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. United States, 22 CIT 82, 97, 998 F.Supp. 1133, 1145 (1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 1333 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (noting that, in conducting GRI 2(a) "essential character" analysi......
  • Bauer Nike Hockey Usa, Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 27, 2003
    ...constitute the World Customs Organization's official interpretation of the HTSUS. See Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Puerto Rico v. United States, 22 CIT 82, 89 n. 4, 998 F.Supp. 1133, 1140 n. 4 (1998). Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally binding, they are useful in ascertaining the ......
  • Ludvig Svensson (U.S.) Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 17, 1999
    ...is classified as a material or as an unfinished part is determined on a case by case basis. Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, ___ CIT ___, 998 F.Supp. 1133, 1147 (1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 1333 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing Harding Co. v. United States, 23 C.C.P.A. 250, 1936 WL 2945 (......
  • Boen Hardwood Flooring, Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • February 25, 2002
    ...constitute the World Customs Organization's official interpretation of the HTSUS. See Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Puerto Rico v. United States, 22 CIT 82, 89 n. 4, 998 F.Supp. 1133, 1140 n. 4 (1998). Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally binding, they are useful in ascertaining the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT