Amity Leather Co. v. US
| Decision Date | 20 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 96-140. Court No. 95-01-00036. |
| Citation | 939 F. Supp. 891,20 CIT 1049 |
| Parties | AMITY LEATHER COMPANY and Luggage and Leather Goods Manufacturers of America, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Colony One Trading Corp., Consignee, Party in Interest. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, Miami, FL (Leonard L. Rosenberg, Paul G. Giguere), counsel for Plaintiffs.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office; Barbara M. Epstein, Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch; Karen P. Binder, Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service, Of counsel, for Defendant.
Serko & Simon, New York City (Joel K. Simon, Daniel J. Gluck, Barbara Y. Wierbicki), counsel for Consignee, Party in Interest.
Siegel Mandell & Davidson, New York City (Brian S. Goldstein, Steven S. Weiser, Paul A. Horowitz), counsel for amici curiae Liz Claiborne Accessories, Inc., Louis Vuitton Hawaii, Inc., and Louis Vuitton N.A., Inc.
Rode & Qualey, New York City (William J. Maloney) counsel for amicus curiae Cartref, Ltd. d/b/a MCM.
Plaintiffs, domestic parties in interest, have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(b), challenging a decision of the United States Customs Service1 which denied plaintiffs' petition filed pursuant to section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516 (1994). The action involves the proper classification of nonrigid plastic flat goods within subheading 4202.32 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"). The provisions under consideration are as follows:
4202 Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases
binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar
containers; traveling bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping
bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags
bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather
or of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber
or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper
* * *
Articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag:
* * *
4202.32 With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials:
With outer surface of sheeting of plastic:
4202.32.10 Of reinforced or laminated plastics ............................. 12.1¢/kg+4.6%
4202.32.20 Other ........................................................... 20%
Customs' classification is before the Court for de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a) (1994) on the summary judgment motions of the plaintiffs and defendant. The consignee in interest, Colony One Trading Corporation, submitted a brief in support of defendant's motion. The Court also received several briefs amici curiae in support of defendant's motion.2 The issue in the case is the meaning of the phrase "of reinforced or laminated plastics" in HTSUS subheading 4202.32.10.
The merchandise at issue consists of a change purse made of non-rigid plastic with an outer surface of plastic sheeting backed by a textile material that provides support. The textile fabric has been joined to the plastic sheeting by heat and pressure. There is no dispute that the merchandise in question is classifiable under the six-digit subheading 4202.32 HTSUS.3
Prior to the conversion to the HTSUS in 1989, the tariff term "Of reinforced or laminated plastics" was defined in the predecessor TSUS to include a requirement of rigidity:
Schedule 7, Part 12, Subpart A, Headnote 2, TSUS (emphasis added).4 The definition set forth in the TSUS was not included in the HTSUS. The HTSUS has no parallel or like definition of the tariff term "of reinforced or laminated plastics."
When first considering classification under subheading 4202.32 HTSUS, Customs applied the TSUS definition requiring rigidity to the term "of reinforced or laminated plastics;" Customs classified non-rigid plastic "flat goods" under subheading 4202.32.20 HTSUS ("other") which carries a 20% ad valorem rate. See Headquarters Ruling Letters HQ 083415 (May 18, 1989), HQ 084929 (Aug. 22, 1989), HQ 087210 (May 10, 1991). In 1991 Customs reconsidered its classification of non-rigid plastic flat goods under the HTSUS and began classifying those items under the lower tariff rate provision 4202.32.10 HTSUS covering "reinforced or laminated" plastic flat goods. See Liz Claiborne v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 89-10-00562, (CIT April 11, 1991) ().5 In so doing Customs abandoned the old TSUS definition requiring rigidity. Plaintiffs, domestic manufacturers of non-rigid flat goods, commenced this action to challenge the lower tariff rate classification and consequent weakening of protection for the domestic industry. Plaintiffs argue that the term "of reinforced or laminated plastics" should be narrowly defined and require rigidity like its statutory definition in the predecessor TSUS. The defendant and the party in interest argue for a construction of the phrase "reinforced or laminated plastics" in accord with its clear and unambiguous common meaning which encompasses the goods in question.
Rule 56 of this court permits summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact...." USCIT R. 56(d). Customs' classification is before this court for de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(2) (1994). The court makes "its determinations upon the basis of the record made before the court." Id. In addition, the legislative mandate specifically directs the court to determine the correct classification for the merchandise involved. 28 U.S.C. § 2643(b) (1994). In establishing the classification, the court must consider "whether the government's classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with the importer's alternative." Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 2 Fed.Cir. (T) 70, 75, 733 F.2d 873, reh'g denied, 2 Fed.Cir. (T) 97, 739 F.2d 628 (1984).
"The ultimate issue as to whether particular imported merchandise has been classified under an appropriate tariff provision ... entails a two step process: (1) ascertaining the proper meaning of specific terms in the tariff provision; and (2) determining whether the merchandise at issue comes within the description of such terms as properly construed." Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1391 (1994). The first step is a question of law; the second, a question of fact. E.M. Chem. v. United States, 9 Fed.Cir. (T) 33, 35, 920 F.2d 910 (1990); see also, Medline Indus., Inc. v. United States, 62 F.3d 1407, 1409 (Fed.Cir. 1995). In the present case, the only issue in controversy is the meaning and scope of the tariff term "of reinforced or laminated plastics" — a question of law. See United States v. Florea & Co., Inc., 25 CCPA 292, 296, 1938 WL 4027 (1938). Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate.6
Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provides that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes." Gen.R.Interp. 1, HTSUS. When a tariff term is not specifically defined in the HTSUS and its intended meaning is not indicated in its legislative history, the term is to be construed in accordance with its common and popular meaning. E.M. Chemicals v. United States, 9 Fed.Cir. (T) 33, 37, 920 F.2d 910 (1990). In ascertaining common meaning, the court may rely on its own understanding of the term used, and may consult dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable sources of information. Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United States, 6 Fed.Cir. (T) 121, 125, 847 F.2d 786, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 943, 109 S.Ct. 369, 102 L.Ed.2d 358 (1988).
The HTSUS does not define the terms "reinforced," "laminated," "reinforced plastic," or "laminated plastic." These terms are, however, defined in various dictionaries, and "rigidity" is not included among the definitions. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1915 (1993) defines "reinforce" as "to strengthen with additional force, assistance, material or support: make stronger or more pronounced." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1522 (3d ed. 1992) defines it as "to strengthen by adding extra support or material." THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) defines "reinforced plastic" as "plastic strengthened by the inclusion of a layer of fibre (esp. glass)." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1267 (1993) defines "laminated plastic" as "a plastic made of superposed layers of paper, wood, or fabric bonded or impregnated with resin and compressed under heat." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1010 (3d ed. 1992) defines "laminated" as "composed of layers bonded together." See also American Hardboard Ass'n v. United States, 12 CIT 714, 719, 1988 WL 84132 (1988); Richard Crittall Radiant Heating Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.
...F.3d at 924 (de novo review of challenge to Customs classification, which falls under § 2640(a)(1)); Amity Leather Co. v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 1049, 939 F.Supp. 891, 892-93 (1996) (de novo review of challenge to denied 19 U.S.C. § 1516 petition, which falls under § 2640(a)(2)); Daido Co......
-
Rubie's Costume Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 02-14.
...courts, resort to the TSUS is not necessary where the statutory language of the HTSUS is clear. Amity Leather Company v. United States, 20 CIT 1049, 1054, 939 F.Supp. 891, 896 (1996) (citing Pima Western, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 110, 915 F.Supp. 399 (1996)). Proper classification ther......
-
Faus Group, Inc. v. U.S.
......Alworth-Stephens Co., 294 F. 190 (8th Cir.1923), Campbell v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 27 F.3d 1560, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1994), Amity . Page 1251 . Leather Co. v. United States, 20 CIT 1049, 1053-54, 939 F.Supp. 891, 895 (1996)); cf. Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379 (a party must ......
-
American Bayridge Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-166.
...intended to limit the scope of heading 44.07 to the enumerated processes. Moreover, Bayridge relies upon Amity Leather Co. v. United States, ___ CIT ___, 939 F.Supp. 891 (1996), to support its proposition that Congress intended the limited scope of heading 44.07. Id. at Bayridge further arg......