Airflow Technology, Inc. v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 02 April 2007
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 07-52.,Court No. 02-00099.
• Parties: AIRFLOW TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

483 F.Supp.2d 1337

AIRFLOW TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 07-52.

Court No. 02-00099.

United States Court of International Trade.

April 2, 2007.

Rodriguez O'Donnell Ross Fuerst Gonzalez Williams & England, P.C., Chicago, IL, (Thomas J. O'Donnell and Lara A. Austrins), for 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 Graves Walser); Michael W. Heydrich, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, Bureau of

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Of Counsel; for Defendant.

OPINION

RIDGWAY, Judge.

At issue in this action is the tariff classification of twenty-one entries of filter media imported from Italy through the Port of Chicago in 1998 and 1999. The imported merchandise is installed in paint spray booths in automotive body shops, in industrial finishing operations, and in the aerospace industry, to filter air flowing into areas where painting operations take place.

The U.S. Customs Service liquidated the imported merchandise under subheading 5911.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"),¹ which covers "Textile products and articles, for technical uses, specified in note 7 to this chapter: Straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like, including that of human hair," at a duty rate of 11% ad valorem in 1998 and 10.5% ad valorem in 1999.

In the protest that it filed with Customs, plaintiff importer Airflow Technology, Inc. asserted that the merchandise was properly classifiable under heading 5911 — specifically, subheading 5911.90.00, which covers "Textile products and articles, for technical uses, specified in note 7 to this chapter: Other" — dutiable at the rate of 6% ad valorem in 1998, and 5.6% ad valorem in 1999. However, Airflow now claims classification under subheading 5603.94.90, a duty-free provision which covers "Nonwovens, whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated: Of man-made filaments: Weighing more than 150 g/m²: Other: Other." Only in the alternative does Airflow seek classification under subheading 5911.90.00.

Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending. See generally Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Brief"); Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Reply Brief"); Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In Support of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Brief"); Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Reply Brief").

Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Customs' classification decisions are subject to de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640.

For the reasons set forth below, the merchandise at issue is properly classified under HTSUS subheading 5911.40.00, "Textile products and articles, for technical uses, specified in note 7 to this chapter: Straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like, including that of human hair." Airflow's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore denied, and the Government's Cross-Motion is granted.

I. The Merchandise At Issue

The commercial invoices that accompanied the entries describe the merchandise at issue as "media filtration," "Sperifilt 6/65," and/or "Sperifilt 6/50" ("Sperifilt filter media"). Sperifilt filter media is manufactured by Speritex S.P.A. of Brusnengo, Italy. See Joint Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard ("Joint Statement of Facts") ¶¶ 3-4.

Sperifilt filter media is designed for use, manufactured for use, and actually used for air filtration in paint spray booths, to filter dust and other suspended solid particles out of the air flowing into all areas where painting operations take place. Paint spray booths are used in industries where high quality paint finishes are required, such as automotive body shops and industrial finishing companies (where products such as furniture and equipment are painted), as well as in the aerospace industry (where they are used in painting aircraft). A paint spray booth is a totally enclosed structure designed to provide a clean and safe working environment to meet the painting needs of industrial processes. Typically located inside a building, a booth is a sheet metal structure with doors, fans, and elaborate ductwork. See Joint Statement of Facts ¶¶ 16, 18-22.

Together with ductwork and fans, Sperifilt filter media works to filter the air in paint spray booths, to keep articles clean and free of solid particles throughout the painting process. The filter media is installed in a paint spray booth wherever the supply air enters the booth — most commonly, in the ceiling. Fans and ductwork are used to push the supply air (air outside the paint spray booth) into the finishing area of the paint spray booth, and the filter media diffuses and filters the air to create a uniform, clean airflow over the finishing operation. See Joint Statement of Facts ¶¶ 23-25.

Sperifilt filter media is made up of three basic components: a high-loft, nonwoven medium made of polyester thermobonded fibers; a polyester yarn backing net; and a tackifying substance (i.e., an adhesive). Speritex uses the same basic process to manufacture all types of the product. The only variables are the quantities and percentages of components used. See Joint Statement of Facts ¶ 11.

First, polyester staple fibers of different sizes are carded, to form uniform sheets of fibers. Several sheets are then layered, to achieve a specific weight and thickness sufficient to create a filter medium that progressively increases in density in one direction (the direction of the intended airflow), so that air will pass through the filter from the less dense portion through progressively denser portions, thus filtering out progressively smaller particles. After the layers are thermally bonded together, the filter medium is impregnated with a tackifying substance (i.e., an adhesive). The tackified filter medium is then bonded to a backing (a net of polyester yarn) on the side of the finished product where the flow of filtered air will exit. The net backing ensures dimensional stability under high temperature conditions, and helps prevent fibers and particles from escaping. The result is a high-loft, nonwoven filter medium that captures particles of disparate sizes at different depths of the medium. See Joint Statement of Facts ¶¶ 12-15. According to Airflow, the finished product — the imported filter material — is produced in rolls that are approximately 66 feet long and between 22 and 81 inches wide. See Wittert Supp. Aff. ¶¶ 4-5.

Sperifilt filter media filters the air by capturing solid particles in two separate ways. First, the structure of the filter media — which progressively increases in density in the direction of the airflow — permits solid particles of disparate sizes to attach to the fibers at different depths as air is pushed through the filter. In addition, because the filter media is impregnated with a tackifying substance, smaller solid particles that are not captured by the fibers themselves during the first part of the filtering process are later caught by the adhesive component of the filter media (the tackifying substance). Because it incorporates two means of capturing solids, Sperifilt filter media traps solid particles ranging in size from 8 to 100 microns from the air that is drawn or pushed into the booth. See Joint Statement of Facts ¶¶ 26, 28.

According to Airflow, as a practical matter, Sperifilt filter media cannot be used to filter liquids from solids. Wittert Aff. ¶ 28.

II. The Standard of Review

Under USCIT Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to ... judgment as a matter of law." USCIT R. 56(c).

Customs' classification rulings are reviewed through a two-step process: first, construing the relevant tariff headings, which is a question of law; and second, determining whether the merchandise is properly classified under the headings, which is a question of fact. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1998). Thus, in classification cases, "summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to the underlying factual issue of exactly what the merchandise is." Bausch & Lomb, 148 F.3d at 1365 (citations omitted).

Although the parties to this action argue for classification under different provisions, there are no genuine disputes of material fact. The matter is therefore ripe for summary judgment.

III. Analysis

Merchandise imported into the United States is classified for tariff purposes under the HTSUS. Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is governed by the principles set forth in the General Rules of Interpretation ("GRIs") and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation ("ARIs"). See, e.g., Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed.Cir.1998); North Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir.2001). The GRIs and the ARIs are part of the HTSUS,² and are considered to be statutory law for all purposes. See 19 U.S.C. § 1204(a), (c).

The GRIs are applied in sequential order. Most merchandise is classified pursuant to GRI 1, which states that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes and, provided such section or notes do not otherwise require, according to [GRIs 2 through 6]." Also relevant here are GRI 3 and GRI 6. GRI 3 governs the tariff treatment of goods that "are, prima facie, classifiable...