Agfa Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 07-80.,Court No. 05-00352. |
| Parties | AGFA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Alston & Bird, LLP (Paul F. Brinkman, Jonathan M. Fee, Kenneth G. Weigel, and Michelle L. Turner) for the plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara S. Williams, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Mikki G. Walser and Jack S. Rockafellow); Michael W. Heydrich, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of counsel, for the defendant.
Plaintiff Agfa Corp. ("Agfa") challenges a determination by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), classifying certain "plates" used in photolithography under subheading 3701.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 2003 ("HTSUS") as photographic plates. Agfa contends that the merchandise cannot be classified under heading 3701, HTSUS, which covers photographic and cinematographic goods, and instead should be classified under heading 8442, HTSUS, which covers printing type, blocks, plates, and cylinders. Based on the text of the HTSUS, the definitions provided in the Chapter Notes, and the guidance provided in the Explanatory Notes, the court concludes that the merchandise is classified properly under subheading 3701.30.00, HTSUS, as photographic plates.
Agfa is listed as the owner of record of twenty-six entries of the merchandise at issue, certain "plates," which arrived through the Port of Philadelphia between September 29, 2003, and November 2, 2003.1 The parties agree that the plates are used in a photomechanical printing process. (Parties' Uncontested Facts, ¶ 23, Schedule C to the Pretrial Order.) The plates are composed of two functional layers: the first is a grained and anodized aluminum substrate, and the second is a photosensitive "polymer or emulsion layer." (Id. at ¶ 10.) Specifically, the parties agree that the plates here are sensitive to specific wavelengths of light. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-22.) As imported, all of the plates are "unexposed" and have at least two sides exceeding 255mm. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)
At trial, Agfa described the photomechanical printing process, specifically photolithography, for which its plates are used. The plates here are used by printers to create copies based on a "proof," usually a digital file on a computer. (Trial Tr. 61:16-62:21, Dec. 11, 2006.) To prepare a plate for use in a printing press, a laser is used to place images from the proof onto the plate. (Id. at 71:5-24). The light from the laser softens the undesired portions of the emulsion while avoiding the areas which compose the desired image.2 (Id.) The plate is then washed, removing the softened emulsion layer and exposing the aluminum below. (Id. at 75:1-5.) Once a plate has been exposed, it is bent around a "plate cylinder" and inserted into a printing press. (Id. at 82:11-12, 89:12-24.) As the plate cylinder turns, its surface is exposed to a neighboring cylinder carrying water, and to another carrying ink. (Id. at 145:11-146:5.) The ink adheres only to the portions of the plate that are still covered by the polymer or emulsion layer. (Id.) As the plate cylinder continues to turn, it comes into contact with a "blanket cylinder" which picks up the ink. (Id.) The blanket cylinder then rolls the ink onto paper as it is fed through the press. (Id.) When a printing run is completed, the plate is usually discarded. (Id. at 92:2-6.)
Upon entry, Customs classified the product under subheading 3701.30.00, HTSUS, as 3 Agfa filed a protest challenging this classification, claiming that the merchandise should have been classified under subheading 8442.50.10, HTSUS, as "blocks, plates, cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes ... [p]lates ... [p]laned, grained, polished or otherwise prepared for engraving or impressing."4
Customs denied the protest after determining that photosensitive plates used in lithography were classifiable as "photographic plates" under heading 3701, HTSUS, and not as "printing plates" under heading 8442, HTSUS. (Def.'s Post-Trial Br., Addendum C.) Customs based its denial on a prior classification decision that it had issued to Agfa on March 2, 2004. HQ 967087 (May 25, 2004). In that decision, Customs concluded that Agfa's printing press plates, called Thermostar plates,5 were classifiable under heading 3701, HTSUS, in large part due to Note 2 to Chapter 37, which stated that:
In this chapter the word "photographic" relates to the process by which visible images are formed, directly or indirectly, by the action of light or other forms of radiation on photosensitive surfaces.
Note 2 to Chapter 37, HTSUS.
Customs determined that the laser process used for Thermostar plates constituted "action of light or other forms of radiation" on a surface "sensitized to react to laser light/radiation." HQ 967087 at 4. Because the exposed layer was used to print images, Customs concluded that the plates used light, indirectly, to form visible images. Id. Applying this logic, Customs determined that Agfa's plates, like the Thermostar plates, were "photographic" and classifiable under heading 3701, HTSUS. Id.
Customs also found that such plates were not classifiable under heading 8442, HTSUS, based on an exclusion contained in an Explanatory Note to heading 8442, HTSUS, which provides that "[s]ensitised plates" are classified under heading 3701, HTSUS. World Customs Organization, Harmonized Commodity Description & Coding System Explanatory Notes, Explanatory Note 84.42, 1503 (3d ed. 2002) ("Explanatory Note(s)"). Thus, Customs concluded that the merchandise in question was not classifiable under heading 8442, HTSUS. Agfa timely commenced this action challenging Customs's decision, according to the proper procedures.
Agfa filed a protest with Customs pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515 within 90 days of the liquidation of the entries in question. The protest was denied. Consequently, the underlying administrative prerequisites to judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) are complete.
The meaning and scope of a tariff term is a question of law decided by the court. Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed.Cir.2003). Whether a particular article falls within the scope of that tariff term is a question of fact. H.I.M./Fathom, Inc. v. United States, 21 CIT 776, 778, 981 F.Supp. 610, 613 (1997). Where the "review of the classification of the goods collapses into a determination of the proper meaning and scope of the HTSUS terms," as in this case, the court reviews the classification decision de novo. Len-Ron, 334 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Aves. in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 317 F.3d 1399, 1402 (Fed. Cir.2003)).
The classification of merchandise entered into the customs territory of the United States is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation ("GRIs") of the HTSUS. Under GRI 1, the classification analysis begins with the language of potentially applicable headings. Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed.Cir.1998). After determining the proper heading, the court looks to the subheadings to find the correct classification for the merchandise. Id. Here, the parties have advanced two HTSUS headings, 3701 and 8442. Thus, the court first determines whether the goods are prima facie classifiable under either of these two headings before examining the proper subheading for the subject merchandise.
GRI 1 states that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes." Subsequent GRIs are to be consulted only if the headings "do not otherwise require" a particular classification. Thus, "`a court first construes the language of the heading, and any section or chapter notes in question, to determine whether the product at issue is classifiable under the heading." N. Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed.Cir.1999)); see also Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.2001) . "When a tariff term is not defined in either the HTSUS or its legislative history, the term's correct meaning is its common or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Russell Stadelman, 242 F.3d at 1048. To determine the common meaning of a term, the court may utilize dictionaries and scientific authorities, as well as its own understanding of the term. Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed.Cir.1992); Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2002) () (quoting C.J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 128, 673 F.2d 1268, 1271 (1982)).
In addition to relying on its "own understanding of terms used," and "standard lexicographic and scientific authorities," a court may also look to the Explanatory Notes for guidance. Mita Copystar, 21 F.3d at 1082. "Although not legally binding on the United States, the Explanatory Notes generally indicate the'proper interpretation' of provisions within the HTSUS." H.I.M./Fathom, 21 CIT at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monahan-Pacific Constr. Corp. v. Comm. Creditors (In re MC2 Capital Partners, LLC)
...F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012); Miller v. Barberton Municipal Ct., 935 F.2d 775, 778 (6th Cir. 1991); AGFA Corp. v. United States, 491 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007), aff'd, 520 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). MPCC spends much of its appellate briefing arguing about how broad the......