Bauerhin Technologies Ltd. v. US

• Decision Date: 26 December 1995
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 95-206. Court No. 94-05-00294.
• Citation: 914 F. Supp. 554
• Parties: BAUERHIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and John V. Carr & Son Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

914 F. Supp. 554

BAUERHIN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and John V. Carr & Son Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 95-206. Court No. 94-05-00294.

United States Court of International Trade.

December 26, 1995.

Sonnenberg & Anderson, Jerry P. Wiskin and Philip Yale Simons, counsel, New York City, for Plaintiffs.

Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office; Mikki Graves-Walser, Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, New York City, for Defendant.

DECISION

WALLACH, Judge:

I

INTRODUCTION

In this action, Bauerhin Technologies Limited and John V. Carr & Son, Inc., (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Bauerhin") challenge classification by Customs of imported¹ padded inserts for infant car seats or swings as items of bedding under subheading 9404.90.20 HTSUS², and of cloth canopies for those seats and swings as other made up textile articles under subheading 6307.90.94 HTSUS.

Bauerhin argues that Customs erred and that both types of imports should be classified as parts of automobile seats under subheading 9401.90.10, or parts of other seats under 9401.90.50.

Bauerhin bases its insert arguments on its central proposition that the seat inserts at issue could not possibly be, and are not in the trade, viewed as items of bedding under Heading 9404 HTSUS. Accordingly, says Bauerhin, the doctrine of ejusdem generis dictates that, based upon an examination of the characteristics of items included in Chapter 9404, the seat inserts must be classified as parts of auto seats.

Bauerhin's argument on seat inserts is not well taken.

Customs is correct in its assertion that the seat inserts are cushions described in Heading 9404, and that Note 3(b) to Chapter 94 HTSUS prohibits classification in Heading 9401 or as parts of such goods. While analysis needs not go past that point, it is also appropriate to note that the promotional material submitted as evidence by Bauerhin demonstrates that the baby seats and swings for which the inserts are imported shows they are used as bedding, even under the legal analysis propounded by the Plaintiffs.

Thus, given Customs' presumption of correct classification, the Defendant is entitled to a Summary Judgment on seat inserts.

Customs clearly erred in its initial classification in Heading 9404 of the canopies here at issue. Since those items contain no padding, as Customs conceded in its Ruling on Bauerhin's protest, inclusion in Heading 9404 was erroneous. Customs instead reclassified the canopies under HTSUS item 6307.90.94 as other made-up textile articles.

Bauerhin argues that the canopies are not accurately described as made up textile items, and that they (and the inserts) are, in fact, more accurately described as parts of seats. HTSUS 9401. There are two relevant lines of cases. The Willoughby Camera³ line relied upon by the Government holds that to be classified as a part an item must be "necessary to the article," without which it "could not function." The canopies at issue simply do not meet that standard.

The other line of cases, represented by Bauerhin's citation to Sumitomo⁴, holds that where an item is "dedicated for use" in an article, and can not apply to any other purpose, it is a part of that article. The canopies do meet that second standard. While it is true the seats may be used without them, the canopies do satisfy a specific and integral need for infant comfort and protection, and are themselves useless except as parts of seats.

The court is convinced that while Willoughby Camera may often be cited for the Government's proposition, it does not in fact squarely stand for it, and to the extent that it does, while it has not been directly overruled, it has either been supplanted or represents an outmoded doctrine. Accordingly, Bauerhin is correct in its assertion that Customs erred in its classification of the canopies and they must be reclassified as parts of seats under HTSUS 9401.

II

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT AT ISSUE

1. Bauerhin Technologies Limited and John V. Carr & Son, Inc., are the importer of record or the consignee of the merchandise which is the subject of this action. Plaintiffs' Statement Of Material Facts As To Which There Exists No Triable Issue Of Fact ("Plaintiffs' Statement") ¶ 1 and Defendant's Response ¶ 1.

2. Protests were timely filed and denied. Ibid ¶ 2.

3. All liquidated duties were timely paid and this action was timely commenced. Ibid ¶ 3.

4. The merchandise at issue consists of seat inserts and canopies for infant car seats, infant carrier seats or swing seats, described on the commercial invoices as "Baby Pads," or "Upholstery for Baby Car Seats," or as "canopies," with or without other words of description. Ibid ¶ 4.

5. Upon liquidation, Customs classified the merchandise under HTSUS subheading CA9404.90.20 or 9404.90.20, as articles of bedding and similar articles, other, other, with duty assessed thereunder at the rates of 6%, 4.2%, 3.6% or 3% ad valorem. In entry no. 744-3087464-9 of September 24, 1992, the inserts for swing seats were classified under HTSUS 5512.29.00 at 17% ad valorem duty. Ibid ¶ 5.

6. In Headquarters Ruling Letter 953673, October 6, 1993, Customs held the inserts for infant automobile, rocker and swing seats (the seats) were classifiable under HTSUS 9404.90.20, and that the canopies were classifiable under HTSUS 6307.90.94 (now 6307.90.99, as other made up textile articles. Ibid ¶ 6.

7. The seat inserts for the seats are all form fitted or shaped to fit the seats with which they are designed to be used. Ibid ¶ 7.

8. The inserts for the seats have sewn openings to allow insertion of a restraining or safety belt. Ibid ¶ 8.

9. The inserts for the automobile and infant carrier seats are secured to the molded seat with plastic clips. Ibid ¶ 9.

10. The canopies are designed to fit over and enclose a portion of the infant auto⁵ seats and can be pulled over the top of the seats to cover the infant's head. Ibid ¶ 10.

11. The seat inserts and canopies, though imported separately, are packaged for retail sale together with the seats with which they are used as a single unit. Ibid ¶ 11.

12. The seat inserts and canopies are specifically designed to be used with infant automobile, carrier or swing seats. Ibid ¶ 15.

13. The seats are not intended for use or used without the inserts. Ibid ¶ 16.

14. The seat inserts and canopies provide protection to the infant using the seat equipped with those articles. Ibid ¶ 17.

15. The seat insert and canopies are not used as bedclothes or mattresses. Ibid ¶ 18.

16. The only use for the canopies is for attachment to an automobile infant seat. Ibid ¶ 19.

17. The imported seat inserts and canopies are not mattresses, Ibid ¶ 20, eiderdowns, Ibid ¶ 21, quilts, Ibid ¶ 22, pouffes, Ibid ¶ 23, nor pillows, Ibid ¶ 24.

18. The seat inserts and canopies are not designed for nor intended for use in conjunction with a bed. Ibid ¶ 26.

19. The seat inserts are stuffed with polyester fiberfill with an outer covering of 50% cotton and 50% polyester fabric. Defendant's Statement Of Material Facts Not In Issue (Defendant's Statement") ¶ 4 and Plaintiffs' Response ¶ 4.

20. The seat inserts and canopies are sold separately from seats, but only as replacement parts for the seats with which they are intended to be used. Ibid ¶ s 5 and 28.

21. The canopies are made of a 50% cotton and 50% polyester fabric. Ibid ¶ 6.⁶

III

DISCUSSION

A This Case Is Ripe For Summary Judgment

Because there are no disputed material facts, this case may be determined on summary judgment⁷. CIT Rule 56 standards show summary judgment will be denied if the parties present "a dispute about a fact such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict against the movant." Semperit Indus. Prod. v. United States, 855 F.Supp. 1292, 1297 (CIT, 1994) quoting Ugg Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 79, 83, 813 F.Supp. 848 (CIT, 1993), (quotation and citation omitted). Only disputes over facts that are material, that is, facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. See, United States v. Ziegler Bolt And Parts Co., 883 F.Supp. 740 (CIT, 1995). C.f. Everflora Miami v. United States, 885 F.Supp. 243, 247 (CIT, 1995).

Determination of the proper scope of a tariff provision is a question of law which may be resolved by summary judgment. Semperit, 855 F.Supp. at 1297 (citations omitted). Here, since there are no material issues of disputed fact, and since the only remaining question is the proper scope of HTSUS subheadings 6307.90.94 (now 6307.90.99), 9401.90.10, 9401.90.50. and 9404.90.20⁸, summary judgment is appropriate.

B Seat Inserts, Separately Imported, Fall Under HTSUS 9404

The seat inserts here at issue are made of cloth of "simple child-like patterns . . . intended to appeal to children," Motion For Summary Judgment at page 21, stuffed with polyester fiberfill. Samples were provided to the Court, (Exhibits A through D to Willms Affidavit attached to Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment) and their use is shown in catalogues and magazines attached as Exhibits A, B, C, D and E to the Affidavit of Philip Simons and Exhibit 1 to the Carolyn Pochatek Affidavit. The inserts are used, the parties agree, in infant car seats, infant carrier seats or swing seats.

Much of Bauerhin's argument is devoted to an argument that the doctrine of ejusdem generis mandates classification of the seat inserts as parts of automobile seats HTSUS 9401.90.10, or parts of other seats, HTSUS 9401.90. That argument, however, is not germane to disposition of this case⁹, because Heading 9404 is unambiguous,¹⁰ and since Customs' classification is correct it must prevail.

Two factors control classification of the inserts.

...