Better Home Plastics Corp. v. U.S., 96-1322
| Decision Date | 16 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1322,96-1322 |
| Citation | 119 F.3d 969 |
| Parties | BETTER HOME PLASTICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Peter J. Fitch, Fitch, King and Caffentzis, Monmouth Beach, NJ, argued, for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel was James Caffentzis.
Saul Davis, Attorney, Civil Division, Department of Justice, International Trade Field Office, New York City, argued, for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, DC, and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Karen P. Binder, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service, New York City.
Before RICH, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a decision entered 9 February 1996 by the United States Court of International Trade on a stipulation of agreed facts in a customs classification case, No. 93-01-00065, involving inexpensive imported shower curtain sets. The court ordered Customs to set aside its classification of the sets and reclassify the sets as requested by the plaintiff. We affirm.
The shower curtain sets in question comprise an outer textile curtain, an inner plastic magnetic liner, and plastic hooks. The outer textile curtain typically has a decorative pattern, and being semi-transparent, it permits the color of the plastic liner to show through. The inner plastic liner prevents water from escaping the shower and prevents the fabric curtain from being soiled with mildew or soap. The liner is opaque, and thereby also contributes to the decorative and privacy-maintaining functions of the set. The hooks attach the liner and the curtain to the overhead curtain rod found at the entrance to most domestic showers. The sets are at the low end of the shower curtain market: plaintiff, Better Home Plastics, sells the sets to discount stores for $5--$6 per set; they are resold to consumers for $9--$12 per set.
The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) help determine which subheading should govern the duty to be assessed on imports of these sets. According to GRI 3(a), when "goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings," the court must choose the heading providing the most specific description. This is the so-called relative specificity test. GRI 3(a) provides an exception to the applicability of this test, however, when "two or more headings each refer ... to only part of the items in a set." Pursuant to GRI 3(b), goods not classifiable under GRI 3(a) are classified Two subheadings of the HTSUS are in issue. The sets might be classified on the basis of the textile curtain, pursuant to subheading 6303.92.000 of the HTSUS, resulting in a duty of 12.8%. Alternatively, they might be classified on the basis of the plastic liner, pursuant to subheading 3924.90.1010 of the HTSUS, resulting in a duty of 3.36%. Customs classified the sets under subheading 6303.92.000 because Customs applied the default rule of GRI 3(c) after determining that neither the relative specificity test nor the essential character test was applicable.
by the "component which gives them their essential character." This is the so-called essential character test. GRI 3(c) provides a default rule for goods not classifiable after resort to either GRI 3(a) or (b). GRI 3(c) directs that such goods be classified "under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration."
Plaintiff brought suit before the Court of International Trade contending that the sets should be classified under the other subheading. Beginning with the relative specificity test, the court concluded that the test was inapplicable because the two competing headings each refer only to part of the items in the set. The court then concluded that the essential character test was applicable and that under the test the essential character of the sets is derived from the plastic liner.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, there is extensive argument about presumptions and deference that can be quickly addressed. The United States argues that Customs' determinations are entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. U.S.
...States, 464 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2006). We review the court's factual determinations for clear error. Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States, 119 F.3d 969, 971 (Fed.Cir.1997). "A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on th......
-
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
...n.15 (2002) (citing Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 221, 224-25, 916 F. Supp. 1265, 1267-68 (1996), aff'd, 119 F.3d 969 (Fed.Cir. 1997) ). One component can impart the article's essential character even if two components are both indispensable to the use of the articl......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. U.S.
...1320, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2001). Following a trial, we review the court's findings of fact for clear error. See Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States, 119 F.3d 969, 971 (Fed.Cir.1997); Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095, 1097 (Fed.Cir.1996). The clear error standard requires us to a......
-
Amcor Flexibles Singen GMBH v. United States
...of the facts" and conducted a "reasoned balancing of all the facts" to determine essential character. Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States , 119 F.3d 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 1997)."Essential character conclusions may well differ from imported product to imported product, and prior ruling......