Sharp Microelectronics Technology, Inc. v. US, Slip Op. 96-104. Court No. 93-09-00536.
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
| Writing for the Court | WALLACH |
| Citation | 20 CIT 793,932 F. Supp. 1499 |
| Parties | SHARP MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 96-104. Court No. 93-09-00536. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1996 |
932 F. Supp. 1499
20 CIT 793
SHARP MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Slip Op. 96-104. Court No. 93-09-00536.
United States Court of International Trade.
July 1, 1996.
Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine, New York City, (Peter J. Gartland, Christopher P. Johnson, David B. Pitofsky, David S. Versfelt, and Fusae Nara), 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, United States Department of Justice (Amy M. Rubin); United States Customs Service (Chi S. Choy), of counsel, New York City, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WALLACH, Judge:
I
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Sharp Microelectronics Technology, Inc. ("Sharp"), challenges the classification of imported glass cells consisting of two pieces of processed glass with a layer of liquid crystal material injected between them ("display glass") by the United States Customs Service ("Customs"). Customs classified the merchandise as "liquid crystal devices not constituting articles provided for more specifically in other headings ... Other devices ... Other" under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") subheading 9013.80.60 and assessed duty at a rate of 9 percent ad valorem. The entries at issue in this action were imported through the port of Portland, Oregon from November, 1991 through March, 1993.
Sharp asserts that the display glass is properly classified under either HTSUS subheading 8471.92.30, as "Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; Input or output units ... Display unit", duty rate is free, or, in the alternative, HTSUS subheading 8473.30.40 as "Parts and accessories of machines of Heading 8471 ... Not incorporating a cathode ray tube", duty rate is free.
Sharp has submitted a motion for partial summary judgment.1 Defendant has submitted a cross motion for summary judgment to uphold Customs' classification and dismiss this action.
This Court exercises its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1994).
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The imported merchandise at issue is referred to as "display glass".2 The display glass displays text and graphics as the result of coded signals received from the central processing unit of an automatic data processing ("ADP") machine. Stip. 31-32. As imported, the display glass does not have standalone capacity to function as a display of an ADP machine, Stip. 3, and it does not store, process or accept data. Stip. 4.
The display glass consists of two rectangular shaped, ultra flat glass substrates, approximately 1.1 millimeters in thickness. Stip. 8. The inner surfaces of the glass substrates have been coated with indium tin oxide transparent electrodes and etched, creating 640 columns and, depending on the model, either 480 or 400 rows. Stip. 9. The interior of each glass substrate is covered with a processed alignment layer causing the liquid crystal molecules to align in a fixed direction. Stip. 12.
When the glass substrates are joined, the electrodes are perpendicular to each other, creating a matrix. Stip. 14. The interior space between the glass substrates is filled with liquid crystals, and the glass substrates are hermetically sealed together. Stip. 15. An electric field can be applied across the liquid crystals to form picture elements, known as a pixels. Stip. 16.
Display glass operates through polarization of light, and liquid crystals are a means to alter that polarization. Stip. 22. Through selective application of voltage, pixels may be made to appear light or dark. Stip. 23-26. Through a combination of light and dark pixels, visible images of text and graphics can be created that are visible from the front of the display glass. Stip. 27.
Large-scale integrated flexible circuits are attached to the display glass at the indium tin oxide electrodes which protrude from top, bottom and left edges of the display glass. Supp.Stip. 5. Two printed wiring boards
The display glass is connected to an ADP machine by means of a fifteen-pin connector mounted on the printed wiring board at the left of the display glass together with the common driver electronics. Supp.Stip. 10. The segment and common driver electronics receive signals from the CPU through the graphic chip. Supp.Stip. 11.
Both the CPU and the graphic chip are mounted on the main processor board of the ADP, and are connected to each other by means of 16-bit bus. Supp.Stip. 12. The digital command signals received from the CPU is processed by the graphic chip, which executes the commands and "writes" the displayable image into dynamic memory. Supp. Stip. 13. The signals are then transferred from the dynamic memory to the driver electronics by the graphic chip and are displayed as text and graphics on the display glass. Supp.Stip. 14.
III
DISCUSSION
A
Summary Judgment May Be Granted When There Are No Genuine Issues Of Material Fact In Dispute And The Moving Party Is Entitled To Summary Judgment As A Matter Of Law
Summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." USCIT Rule 56(d). The Court may grant summary judgment only if the Court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988). No genuine issues of material fact exist here, and summary judgment may be granted as a matter of law.
B
Customs Properly Classified The Imported Merchandise Under HTSUS 9013.80.60
1
Customs Is Not Entitled To A Presumption Of Correctness In A Summary Judgment Motion Where There Are No Material Facts In Dispute
The presumption of correctness which is statutorily mandated in 28 U.S.C. § 2639 is not relevant when there is no factual dispute between the parties. Anval Nyby Powder AB v. United States, 20 CIT ___, 927 F.Supp. 463, 468-69 (1996) (citing Goodman Mfg., L.P. v. United States, 69 F.3d 505, 508 (Fed.Cir.1995)). Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a presumption of correctness in this summary judgment action.3 Instead, the Court must "reach the correct decision" as prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2643. See Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 2 Fed.Cir. (T) 70, 75, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (1984) (The "Court's duty is to find the correct result, by whatever procedure is best suited to the case at hand."). As will be discussed below, the Court finds that Defendant has established that Customs' classification of the imported merchandise is correct.
2
Heading 9013, HTSUS, More Specifically Describes The Subject Merchandise Than Heading 8471 or Heading 8473
Customs classified the display glass at issue under HTSUS 9013.80.60 which reads, in part:
9013 Liquid crystal devices not constituting articles provided for more specifically in other headings; lasers, other than laser diodes; other optical appliances and instruments, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts and accessories thereof:
.80 Other devices, appliances and instruments:
.60 Other.
General Rule of Interpretation ("GRI") 1 of the HTSUS states that ". . . for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes." As an aid to determining the meaning of a particular tariff term, the Court may look to the Explanatory Notes which, although not legally binding on the Court, generally are indicative of the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. Pima Western, Inc. v. United States, 915 F.Supp. 399, 400-01 (CIT 1996). The Explanatory Notes were published by the Customs Cooperation Council ("CCC") which was established in 1950 and was responsible for drafting a system to handle commodity descriptions and coding for the trading nations of the world. Interim Report on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, USITC Pub. No. 1106 at 3-8, 12 (1980).
When Congress adopted the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System under the International Convention as the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) through the enactment of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, see Pub.L. 100-418, sec. 1201 & 1204, 102 Stat. 1107, 1147-48 (1988), Congress did not comment on the scope of Heading 9013. Prior to the adoption of the Convention by Congress, however, documents were prepared by the Nomenclature Committee and the Harmonized System Committee of the CCC. These documents chronicle the work of the committees as they developed the Harmonized System and may provide insight.
The earliest drafts of Heading 9013 did not contain the term "liquid crystal device." In 1979, the discussion of liquid crystal displays originated with a concern over how to classify liquid crystal displays used with electronic clocks and watches, which, as electro-optical devices, were potentially classifiable in both Chapter 85 and Chapter 90. The Committee contemplated whether liquid crystal displays should be classified as finished articles or as devices of indeterminate or general use. The Committee thought that while it seemed "desirable to classify these devices as far as possible in a single heading," ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Pomeroy Collection, Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-57. Court No. 05-00103.
...the ability to strain salt from water," and thus cannot be classified as straining cloth); Sharp Microelecs. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 793, 800-01, 932 F.Supp. 1499, 1504-05 (1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 1446 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (holding that, for purposes of GRI 2(a) "essential character"......
-
Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. v. US, Slip Op. 96-135. Court No. 94-01-00071.
...Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp. 868, ___ (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, 117......
-
U.S. v. Optrex America, Inc., Slip Op. 08-63. Court No. 02-00646.
...under HTSUS heading 9013. See Sharp Microelecs. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1446, 1452 (Fed.Cir.1997) ("Sharp"), aff'g 20 CIT 793, 932 F.Supp. 1499 (1996). After the issuance of Sharp, counsel for Optrex, Sonnenberg & Anderson ("Sonnenberg"), advised the company to seek a binding......
-
Adc Telecomms., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 17 - 144
...is no "comparison" involved, because Note 1(m) renders GRI 3 inapplicable. Cf. Sharp Microelectronics Tech., Inc. v. Page 13United States, 20 CIT 793, 802, 932 F. Supp. 1499, 1506 (1996) ("Note 1(m) to Section XVI is controlling under GRI 1"), aff'd 122 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997); E.T. Horn......
-
The Pomeroy Collection, Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-57. Court No. 05-00103.
...the ability to strain salt from water," and thus cannot be classified as straining cloth); Sharp Microelecs. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 793, 800-01, 932 F.Supp. 1499, 1504-05 (1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 1446 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (holding that, for purposes of GRI 2(a) "essential character"......
-
Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. v. US, Slip Op. 96-135. Court No. 94-01-00071.
...Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp. 868, ___ (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, 117......
-
U.S. v. Optrex America, Inc., Slip Op. 08-63. Court No. 02-00646.
...under HTSUS heading 9013. See Sharp Microelecs. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1446, 1452 (Fed.Cir.1997) ("Sharp"), aff'g 20 CIT 793, 932 F.Supp. 1499 (1996). After the issuance of Sharp, counsel for Optrex, Sonnenberg & Anderson ("Sonnenberg"), advised the company to seek a binding......
-
Adc Telecomms., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 17 - 144
...is no "comparison" involved, because Note 1(m) renders GRI 3 inapplicable. Cf. Sharp Microelectronics Tech., Inc. v. Page 13United States, 20 CIT 793, 802, 932 F. Supp. 1499, 1506 (1996) ("Note 1(m) to Section XVI is controlling under GRI 1"), aff'd 122 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997); E.T. Horn......