Airflow Technology, Inc. v. U.S.

Decision Date28 April 2008
Docket NumberNo. 2007-1384.,2007-1384.
Citation524 F.3d 1287
PartiesAIRFLOW TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Jessica Rifkin, Rodriguez O'Donnell Ross Gonzalez & Williams, P.C., of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Thomas J. O'Donnell and Lara A. Austrins. Of counsel was R. Kevin Williams.

Mikki Graves Walser, Senior Trial Counsel, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief was Barbara S. Williams, Attorney in Charge. Also on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was Michael W. Heydrich, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Customs and Border Protection, of New York, NY.

Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

This customs case concerns the proper classification of Sperifilt filter media ("Sperifilt"), a product used to filter dirt and other particles from circulating air. Airflow Technology, Inc. ("Airflow") appeals the grant of summary judgment by the United States Court of International Trade, holding that the merchandise at issue was properly classified under subheading 5911.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"). Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 483 F.Supp.2d 1337 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007). Because we disagree with the Court of International Trade's interpretation of subheading 5911.40.00, and, under the correct interpretation, Sperifilt falls outside the scope of 5911.40.00, we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Sperifilt is manufactured by Speritex S.P.A. in Brusnengo, Italy, and imported into the United States by Airflow. Sperifilt is used in air filtration mechanisms to filter dust and other particles out of the air supply circulated within industrial paint spray booths. Air filtration ensures a high-quality paint finish, and is used primarily in connection with paint spray booths for painting automobiles, aircraft, and commercial furniture and equipment.

Sperifilt is made up of several layers of uniform sheets of polyester fibers, which are thermally bonded together and impregnated with an adhesive-type tackifying substance. In operation, Sperifilt captures large dust particles within circulated air in its entry layers of polyester fibers, and, as the air further streams through the filter, captures progressively smaller dust particles in its increasingly dense web of fibers made up of the subsequent layers. Particles small enough to pass entirely through Sperifilt's layers of fiber sheets are eventually trapped in the filter's tackifying substance, which acts as a final safeguard. The finished product is manufactured and packaged in rolls that are approximately 66 feet long and between 22 and 81 inches wide.

In 1998 and 1999, Airflow imported twenty-one distinct entries of Sperifilt through the Port of Chicago. The U.S. Customs Service ("Customs") liquidated these twenty-one entries under subheading 5911.40.00 of the HTSUS, which is directed to "[s]training cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like," at a duty rate of 11% ad valorem in 1998 and 10.5% ad valorem in 1999. Airflow filed a protest with Customs. Customs denied that protest, and Airflow timely challenged Customs' classification in the Court of International Trade.

Before the Court of International Trade, Airflow maintained that Sperifilt was not properly classifiable under subheading 5911.40.00. Airflow's main contention was that subheading 5911.40.00 applies only to products that are used to separate solids from liquids, and not to products that are used to separate solids from gases, such as air. Airflow reasoned that the term "straining cloth" was limited by the phrase "of a kind used in oil presses or the like," which it argued must be read to include only types of presses that separate solids from liquids using a pressure differential — the essential characteristic of an oil press. It also set forth uncontroverted evidence that Sperifilt can only be used for purposes of air filtration, and cannot be used for purposes of liquid filtration (to separate solids from liquids) without being damaged beyond repair.

Airflow contended that Sperifilt should be classified instead under heading 5603, directed to "[n]onwovens, whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated," and specifically under the language "other" in subheading 5603.94.90 — a duty-free provision. To support its position, Airflow relied on the Explanatory Note to heading 5603, which provides:

This heading covers nonwovens in the piece, cut to length or simply cut to rectangular (including square) shape except where they are covered more specifically by other headings in the Nomenclature. They include: ... sheets for filtering liquids or air ....

J.A. at 219 (emphasis added).

The government did not dispute that Sperifilt is prima facie classifiable under heading 5603. Instead, it argued that Sperifilt was also prima facie classifiable under the more specific subheading 5911.40.00. The government relied primarily on the Explanatory Note to heading 5911, which states that "[s]training cloth ... [used] for gas cleaning or similar technical applications in industrial dust collecting systems" is included. J.A. at 354. Since the Explanatory Note to heading 5603 provides that merchandise is excluded from that heading if it is "covered more specifically by other headings," J.A. at 219, the government argued that Sperifilt belonged in the more specific subheading 5611.40.00.

The Court of International Trade held that the term "straining cloth" in subheading 5911.40.00 was not limited to filters used to separate solids from liquids. In doing so, it relied on its earlier decision in GKD-USA, Inc. v. United States, 931 F.Supp. 875 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996), for a definition of the term "straining cloth." In the earlier GKD opinion, the court determined that the term "straining cloth" was not defined in the statute or in the legislative history, and therefore looked to the common meaning of the term. Id. at 879-80. Looking to the common usage of the term, the court found that "straining cloth" was generally referred to as "filter cloth," and that the ordinary meaning of the latter term applied equally to the former term. Id. at 880.

The court also held that the phrase "oil presses and the like" did not limit "straining cloth" to types of products that are used to separate solids from liquids, but that instead the phrase was properly construed broadly as "oil presses and other filtering mechanisms," including filtering mechanisms that filtered solids from gases. Airflow Tech., 483 F.Supp.2d at 1345. The court held that under its interpretation of subheading 5911.40.00, Customs correctly classified Sperifilt under that subheading.

Airflow timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

We review the grant of summary judgment by the Court of International Trade without deference. Structural Indus., Inc. v. United States, 356 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2004); Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.2001). The interpretation of the headings and subheadings of the HTSUS is a question of law, which we review without deference. MetChem, Inc. v. United States, 513 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2008).

The sole issue on appeal is the proper interpretation of "straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like" — the language of subheading 5911.40.00. The HTSUS provides:

5911 Textile products and articles, for technical uses, specified in note 7 to this chapter:

....

5911.40.00 Straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like, including that of human hair.

HTSUS, § XI, ch. 59, at 59-9-59-10.1

"The first step in properly construing a tariff classification term is to determine whether Congress clearly defined that term in either the HTSUS or its legislative history." Russell Stadelman, 242 F.3d at 1048. When, as here, "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." Id. We have explained that, to determine the common meaning of a tariff term, "[a] court may rely upon its own understanding of terms used, and may consult standard lexicographic and scientific authorities." Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079, 1082 (Fed.Cir. 1994).

The Court of International Trade found that, since the term "straining cloth" is not statutorily defined, it should be construed in its normal sense, according to its usage as reflected in ordinary and commercial dictionaries. However, the court adopted the definition of "straining cloth" that it had applied in one of its prior opinions, GKD, and determined that the term "straining cloth" could "apply to any fabric used as a medium of filtration." Airflow Tech., 483 F.Supp.2d at 1343. Both parties focus their arguments before this court on parsing the language of GKD to support their interpretation of the statute. We are not bound by that decision. In any event, GKD did not cite any dictionary or encyclopedic definition supporting its interpretation of the term "straining cloth" as carrying the exact same meaning as "filter cloth," nor has the government cited any such dictionaries or encyclopedias. See 931 F.Supp. at 880.

In fact, the plain meaning of the term "straining cloth" suggests that it refers only to products that separate solids from liquids. The term "straining" is defined as the present participle of the verb "to strain." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2255 (1986).2 The dictionary defines the verb "strain" in relevant part as: "to cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Cormorant Shipholding Corp. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 12, 2009
    ...correct meaning is its common or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary.'" (quoting Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2008))); Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2001) (in determining the comm......
  • Heartland by-Products, Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • June 10, 2009
    ...We review the grant of summary judgment by the Court of International Trade without deference. Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287, 1290 (Fed.Cir.2008); Structural Indus., Inc. v. United States, 356 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed. We first address the issue of whether our decision in ......
  • Deckers Corp. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • July 9, 2014
    ...is that the controverted merchandise possess the essential characteristics of the named article”); see also Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2008) (using ejusdem generis to determine the essential characteristics of a phrase that itself limited an eo nomine......
  • Nielson v. Shinseki
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • June 7, 2010
    ...term follows one expressly set forth specific term,” as here, application of the rule is appropriate. Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2008). Congress's use of “combat wounds or other service trauma” suggests that it intended to include only injuries sustai......
  • 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