Jvc Co. of America, Div. Of U.S. Jvc Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 99-76.

• Citation: 62 F.Supp.2d 1132
• Decision Date: 06 August 1999
• Docket Number: Court No. 93-09-00643.,Slip Op. 99-76.
• Parties: JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA, DIVISION OF U.S. JVC CORP., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

62 F.Supp.2d 1132

JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA, DIVISION OF U.S. JVC CORP., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 99-76.

Court No. 93-09-00643.

United States Court of International Trade.

August 6, 1999.

Galvin & Mlawski (Jack D. Mlawski and John J. Galvin), New York, New York, for plaintiff.

David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Amy M. Rubin); Beth C. Brotman, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service, of counsel, Washington, DC, for defendant.

OPINION

CARMAN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, JVC Company of America, moves for summary judgment pursuant to U.S. CIT R. 56(a), contending it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the United States Customs Service (Customs) improperly classified the merchandise at issue under subheading 8525.30.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as "television cameras," dutiable at a rate of 4.2% ad valorem.¹ Plaintiff argues the imported merchandise should have been classified under either subheading 8543.80.90, HTSUS, as "electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions ... other machines and apparatus ... other," dutiable at a rate of 3.9% ad valorem,² or subheading 8479.89.90, HTSUS, as "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions ... other machines and mechanical appliances ... other ... other," dutiable at a rate of 3.7% ad valorem.³ Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment pursuant to U.S. CIT R. 56(b), contending it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Customs properly classified the merchandise at issue under 8525.30.00, HTSUS, and plaintiff's proposed classifications are erroneous as a matter of law. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1994).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the importer of the merchandise at issue in this case. The merchandise, which was manufactured in Japan, was imported into the United States through the port of Atlanta on October 7, 1992 and October 21, 1992.

The parties are in substantial agreement as to the characteristics and features of the imported merchandise and agree on the following facts. The imported merchandise consists of "video camera recorders otherwise known as camcorders." (Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (JVC) at 7.) The imported merchandise is an electrical machine or apparatus possessing two independent functions generally used in conjunction with one another; a television camera and a video tape recorder. The merchandise in this case is described in the sales brochures as "camcorders" and in the service manuals as "video movies."⁴ Customs classified the merchandise at issue as "television cameras."

Plaintiff timely protested Custom's classification of the merchandise, and, after having paid all liquidated duties due, timely commenced this action.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

Plaintiff, JVC Company of America, contends no genuine issues of material fact exist, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff argues Customs improperly classified the merchandise under heading 8525, HTSUS, as "television cameras." Plaintiff asserts this classification is improper because the merchandise at issue is not prima facie classifiable as a "television camera[ ]," as it is "more than" a "television camera[ ]" due to its dual function. Plaintiff claims the "more than" doctrine is a fundamental rule of customs classification holding that when "goods constitute more than a particular article because they possess additional significant features or perform additional nonsubordinate functions[,] they are not classifiable" under the heading for that article. (JVC at 19 (quoting Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 11 F.Supp.2d 719, 726 (CIT 1998), aff'd, 178 F.3d 1241 (Fed.Cir.1999)).)

Plaintiff argues that the merchandise at issue is like that considered by the Federal Circuit in Sears Roebuck & Co. v. United States, 22 F.3d 1082 (Fed.Cir.1994).⁵ In Sears, the court held that "camcorders" are combination articles having the features of cameras and tape recorders and thus are properly classified as combination articles, rather than solely as tape recorders. See id. Similarly, plaintiff claims, in this case the merchandise at issue is more than a "television camera[ ]" and therefore cannot be classified under heading 8525, HTSUS, as "television cameras." Also, plaintiff contends that defendant's argument under Rule 3(c) of the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI),⁶ HTSUS, which states when an item is prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, the proper classification is that last in numerical order, is not applicable in this case because the merchandise does not fit into two or more headings under the "more than" doctrine.

Plaintiff asserts that the imported merchandise should be classified under subheading 8543.80.90, HTSUS, as "electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions ... other machines and apparatus ... other," dutiable at a rate of 3.9% ad valorem. As an alternative, plaintiff suggests classifying the imported merchandise under subheading 8479.89.90, HTSUS, as "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions ... other machines and mechanical appliances ... other ... other," dutiable at a rate of 3.7% ad valorem, Plaintiff requests that this Court order defendant to reliquidate the subject entries under either of the two proposed subheadings with refund and interest as provided by law.

B. Defendant

Defendant, United States, contending there are no genuine issues of material fact, argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Customs properly classified the merchandise at issue as "television cameras" under subheading 8525.30.00, HTSUS. Defendant argues that the legal meaning, as derived from the common meaning,⁷ of the tariff term "television cameras" includes the merchandise at issue despite its dual function. Additionally, the merchandise at issue is included under the heading for "television cameras" because, as an eo nomine⁸ provision, the heading includes all forms of the article. Furthermore, the Customs Co-Operation Council's Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (Explanatory Notes)⁹ support classifying the merchandise at issue as "television cameras." Since no other heading describes the merchandise at issue, defendant claims that it is properly classified under "television cameras." Furthermore, defendant asserts both the Sears case and the "more than" doctrine relate to the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) and therefore are not applicable to this case which involves classification under HTSUS.

Defendant claims plaintiff's suggestion that the merchandise at issue be classified under heading 8543, HTSUS, as "electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter," is improper because the merchandise at issue is classifiable elsewhere in chapter 85, under heading 8525, HTSUS, as "television cameras." Furthermore, even if the imported merchandise were prima facie classifiable under heading 8543, HTSUS, the heading 8525, HTSUS, for "television cameras" is correct because, following GRI 3(a),¹⁰ it is more specific.

Defendant argues that plaintiff's alternative suggestion that camcorders be classified under heading 8479, HTSUS, as "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions," is improper for two reasons. First, while conceding that the merchandise at issue is described by heading 8479, defendant, again, claims that heading 8525 for "television cameras" is still the correct classification because, under GRI 3(a), it is the more specific heading. Second, defendant claims Note 7 to Chapter 84, which states that items should not be classified under heading 8479, HTSUS, if the "context otherwise requires," precludes the merchandise at issue from being classified under heading 8479 where, as here, the context requires that the merchandise falls within heading 8525.

Finally, defendant contends that the only other heading which might encompass the merchandise at issue is heading 8521, HTSUS, "video recording or reproducing apparatus."¹¹ Defendant claims, however, even if the merchandise at issue is prima facie classifiable under heading 8521, heading 8525, HTSUS, "television cameras," is still the correct classification because, following GRI 3(c),¹² it is last in numerical order under the HTSUS.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This case is before the Court on plaintiff's motion and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the papers before the Court, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." U.S. CIT R. 56(d). "The Court will deny summary judgment if the parties present `a dispute about a fact such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict against the movant.'" Ugg Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 79, 83, 813 F.Supp. 848, 852 (1993) (citation omitted). "While the statute provides Customs decisions are entitled to a presumption of correctness, see 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (1994), where, as here, a question of law is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment, the statutory presumption of correctness is irrelevant." Blakley Corp. v. United States, 15 F.Supp.2d 865, 868-69 (CIT 1998) (citing Universal Electronics Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 488, 492 (Fed.Cir.1997)).

DISCUSSION

Both parties in this case argue that summary judgment is appropriate because there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. This Court agrees. Therefore, the sole issue remaining in this case is the proper classification of the merchandise at...