GKD-USA, INC. v. US, Slip Op. 96-98. Court No. 94-02-00137.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 96-98. Court No. 94-02-00137. |
| Citation | 20 CIT 749,931 F. Supp. 875 |
| Parties | GKD-USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., Miami, FL (Leonard L. Rosenberg and Paul Giguere) for plaintiff.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, New York City (Bruce N. Stratvert); of counsel: Laura R. Siegel, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service, for defendant.
Plaintiff, GKD-USA, Inc. ("GKD"), moves pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of this Court for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment seeking an order dismissing this case.
GKD challenges the denial of Protest No. 1801-92-100023 by the United States Customs Service ("Customs"). The issue presently before the Court is whether Customs properly classified the merchandise, polyester filter belting in material lengths, as straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like pursuant to subheading 5911.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"). The entry numbers at issue are XXX-XXXXXXXX and XXX-XXXXXXXX.
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1994).
GKD imported polyester filter belting through the port of Tampa, Florida on the dates of November 5, 1991, and December 26, 1991. Customs classified the imported merchandise under subheading 5911.40.00, HTSUS, subject to a duty rate of 17% ad valorem. On March 19, 1992, Customs issued Headquarters Ruling Letter ("HRL") 950284, holding that sludge filtering belts imported in material lengths are classifiable under subheading 5911.40.00, HTSUS. Pl.'s Mem.Supp.Mot.Summ.J., Exhibit G at 5. In reaching its decision, Customs stated that the subject merchandise is not precluded from classification under subheading 5911.40.00, HTSUS, merely because it is not used in oil presses. Customs stated that the language "or the like" contained in subheading 5911.40.00, HTSUS, indicates that the drafters of the tariff schedule intended the term "straining cloth" to include a broader range of articles than those used in oil presses. Id. at 3-5. Customs further found that the terms "straining cloth" and "filtering" cloth or belt are synonymous "as evidenced by the common usage of the word `strain' and the identical functions of straining cloths and filtering cloths or belts." Id. at 4. Customs concluded that "there is no fundamental difference in the filtering function of the instant merchandise" as compared with oil presses, sugar refineries and breweries. Id. at 5.
On May 19, 1992, GKD timely filed Protest No. 1801-92-100023 claiming that Customs should have classified the subject entries under subheading 5911.90.00, HTSUS, at a duty rate of 7.5%. Customs denied the Protest on September 2, 1993, and this action ensued.
The relevant portion of the HTSUS is as follows:
Customs claims that the subject merchandise was properly classified pursuant to subheading 5911.40.00, HTSUS, subject to a duty rate of 17%. GKD contends that the merchandise should have been classified under subheading 5911.90.00, HTSUS, subject to a duty rate of 7.5%.
The parties agree that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Pl.'s Mem. Supp.Mot.Summ.J. at 1; Def.'s Mem.Supp. Mot.Summ.J. at 7-8. GKD imports polyester filter belting material constructed by weaving monofilament fibers having cross-sectional dimensions of less than 1.0 millimeter into various weave patterns. The merchandise contains one layer of fabric.1 The subject merchandise is imported in rolls or bolts of material commonly known in the trade as piece goods. The merchandise is not imported cut to size or in the piece marked with lines of demarcation for particular sizes. GKD also imports filter belts for rotary drum vacuum filters, horizontal vacuum filters and belt dryers. The merchandise at issue is a textile product for technical uses as specified in note 7 to Chapter 59 of the HTSUS.2 While the principal use of the subject merchandise is in water waste treatment machinery, filter presses are used for filtering or clarifying many liquids.
On a motion for summary judgment, it is the function of the court to determine whether there remain any genuine issues of fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Once the court determines that no genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment is properly granted when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed.Cir.1987). The meaning of a tariff term is a question of law to be decided by the court, whereas the determination of whether a particular article fits within that meaning is a question of fact. Hasbro Indus., Inc. v. United States, 879 F.2d 838, 840 (Fed.Cir.1989). In the case at bar, this Court finds there are no genuine issues of material fact, the dispositive issues to be resolved are legal in nature and, therefore, summary judgment is proper.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a) (1994), Customs' classification is subject to de novo review by this Court. 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, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed.Cir.1984). Customs improperly relies upon the statutory presumption of correctness pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (1994). See Def.'s Mem. Supp.Mot.Summ.J. at 15-16. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently held that when there is "no factual dispute between the parties, the presumption of correctness is not relevant." Goodman Mfg., L.P. v. United States, 69 F.3d 505, 508 (Fed.Cir.1995). In the summary judgment context, where the issues to be resolved are legal in nature, and there are no genuine issues of material facts before the court, Customs' classifications are not presumed to be correct. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Customs correctly classified the merchandise at issue.
When a tariff term is not clearly defined in either the HTSUS or its legislative history, the correct meaning of the term is generally resolved by ascertaining its common and commercial meaning. W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States, 924 F.2d 232, 235 (Fed.Cir.1991). In order to determine the common meaning of a tariff term, the court may rely on its own understanding of the term, as well as consult dictionaries, lexicons and scientific authorities. Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United States, 847 F.2d 786, 789 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 943, 109 S.Ct. 369, 102 L.Ed.2d 358 (1988).
GKD argues that Customs erred by classifying the filter press belting under subheading 5911.40.00 because filter press belting is not like straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses. According to GKD, filter press belting contains significantly different filtering properties than straining cloth used in oil presses. To illustrate its point, GKD states that straining cloth used in oil presses has small mesh openings with a size of an upper limit of 10 microns, whereas filter press belting generally has mesh openings of a size ranging from 140 to 155 microns. Pl.'s Mem. Supp.Mot.Summ.J. at 2. Based on the size of the openings, GKD argues that Customs improperly characterized the product in issue as featuring a "close weave." Id. at 20-21. GKD also points out that straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses is usually manufactured of multifilament yarns while filter press belting is manufactured of monofilament yarns. Id. at 2.
GKD also focuses on the machines upon which the fabrics are used as being the principal distinguishing feature in the tariff provisions. Specifically, GKD insists that papermaking and similar machines (on which the subject merchandise is used) differ from oil presses and similar machines. Id. at 16. According to GKD, heading 5911, HTSUS, separates fabrics, endless or fitted with linking devices, of a kind used in papermaking machines from straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like. Id. (). GKD asserts that by classifying certain fabrics as being "of a kind used in papermaking machines" separately from "straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses," the drafters of the tariff schedule intended the machines on which the fabrics are used to be the principal distinguishing feature. Pl.'s Mem.Supp.Mot.Summ.J. at 16-17. GKD explains...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. v. US, Slip Op. 96-135. Court No. 94-01-00071.
...(CIT July 12, 1996); Sharp Microelecs. Technology, Inc. v. United States, 932 F.Supp. 1499, 1501-02 (CIT 1996); GKD-USA, Inc. v. United States, 931 F.Supp. 875, 878 (CIT 1996); Celestaire, Inc. v. United States, 928 F.Supp. 1174, 1176 (CIT 1996); and Marcor Dev. Corp. v. United States, 926 ......
-
Filmtec Corp. v. U.S.
...7, HTSUS. The meaning of "straining cloth ... used in oil presses or the like" was explored by the Court in GKD-USA, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 749, 931 F.Supp. 875 (1996). In GKD-USA, Inc., the Court found that there is no clearly stated Congressional intent as to the meaning of the phr......
-
Former Employees of Murray Engineering v. Chao, Slip Op. 04-45.
...Trade has recourse to the current common and commercial meanings of the words therein. See GKD-USA, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 749, 754-55, 931 F.Supp. 875, 879-80 (1996) (citation omitted). In identifying the common and commercial meanings of words, the Court looks to dictionaries, ency......
-
Airflow Technology, Inc. v. U.S.
...is presumed to be the same as its common or dictionary meaning"). The meaning and scope of the tariff term "straining cloth" was at issue in GKD-USA, which involved the classification of woven polyester filter belting used in waste water treatment equipment for the de-watering of industrial......