WWRD U.S., LLC v. United States

• Decision Date: 01 March 2017
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 17–21,Court No. 11–00238
• Citation: 211 F.Supp.3d 1365
• Parties: WWRD U.S., LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

211 F.Supp.3d 1365

WWRD U.S., LLC, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 17–21

Court No. 11–00238

United States Court of International Trade.

March 1, 2017

Daniel J. Gluck, Christopher M. Kane, and Mariana del Rio Kostenwein, Simon Gluck & Kane LLP, of New York, NY, for plaintiff.

Beverly A. Farrell, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, for defendant. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director.

OPINION

Mark A. Barnett, Judge

Barnett, Judge: Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 33–7; Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mem."), ECF No. 33; Def.'s Cross–Mot. for Summ. J. and Def.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and in Supp. of Def.'s Cross–Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mem."), ECF No. 43. Plaintiff WWRD U.S., LLC, ("Plaintiff" or "WWRD") contests the denial of several protests¹ challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's ("Customs") classification of the subject imports² according to their constituent materials and dutiable at rates ranging from three to six percent ad valorem . See generally Summons, ECF No. 1; Compl., ECF No. 15; see also Pl.'s Mem. at 3–5.³ Plaintiff contends that the subject imports qualified for duty free treatment pursuant to subheading 9817.95.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS")⁴ as "Utilitarian articles of a kind used in the home in the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations for religious or cultural holidays, or religious festive occasions, such as Seder plates, blessing cups, menorahs or kinaras." See generally Compl.; see also Pl.'s Mem. at 4, 6–7. Defendant United States ("Defendant" or "the Government") contends that Customs correctly classified the subject imports. See Def.'s Mem. at 1, 3–4.

There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the properties of the subject imports that would preclude summary judgment. The sole issue before the court is whether, as a matter of law, the subject imports are properly classified under subheading 9817.95.01 in addition to the tariff provisions corresponding to their constituent materials. For the following reasons, the court finds that Customs properly classified the subject imports according to their constituent materials and not under HTSUS 9817.95.01.

BACKGROUND

I. Material Facts Not in Dispute

The party moving for summary judgment must show "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." United States Court of International Trade ("USCIT") Rule 56(a). Movants should present material facts as short and concise statements, in numbered paragraphs, and cite to "particular parts of materials in the record" as support. USCIT Rule 56(c)(1)(A) ; see also USCIT Rule 56.3(a) ( "factual positions described in Rule 56(c)(1)(A) must be annexed to the motion in a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs"). In responsive papers, the nonmovant "must include correspondingly numbered paragraphs responding to the numbered paragraphs in the statement of the movant." USCIT Rule 56.3(b). Parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and submitted separate statements of undisputed material facts with their respective motions and responses to the opposing party's statements. See Pl.'s SOF; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s SOF; Def.'s Statement of Facts as to Which There Are No Genuine Issues to be Tried ("Def.'s SOF"), ECF No. 43–2; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists ("Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF"), ECF No. 44–2. Upon review of the parties' facts (and supporting exhibits), the court finds the following undisputed and material facts.⁵

Plaintiff WWRD is the importer of record. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 2; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s SOF ¶ 2. The subject imports comprise decorative ceramic plates and mugs from WWRD's "Old Britain Castles" dinnerware collections; decorative ceramic plates and gravy boats from WWRD's "His Majesty" dinnerware collection; and crystal flutes, punch bowls, and footed hurricane lamps from WWRD's "12 Days of Christmas" collection.⁶ Def.'s SOF ¶ 1; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶ 1; see also Pl.'s Mem., Ex.'s A–E (physical samples of plates from Plaintiff's "Old Britain Castles" and "His Majesty" lines of dinnerware, and flutes from Plaintiff's "12 Days of Christmas" line of crystalware); Gluck Decl. ¶¶ 2–6 (verification of manual filing of exhibits). The "Old Britain Castles" Christmas plates and mugs and the "12 Days of Christmas" crystal flutes and punch bowls are "designed to be used to serve food and beverages at Christmas ... dinner." Pl.'s SOF ¶ 14; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s SOF ¶ 14.⁷

The "Old Britain Castles Pink Christmas" plates and mugs feature a Christmas tree motif. Aff. of Michael Craig ("Craig Aff.") ¶¶ 5–8, ECF No. 33–3;⁸ Craig Aff., Ex's. 1–4, ECF No. 33–4; Pl.'s Mem., Ex.'s A, B. The plates measure 22cm and 27cm in diameter. Craig Aff. ¶¶ 5–6; Gluck Decl., Ex. G (summary of subject merchandise). Mugs in the "Old Britain Castles Christmas" collection feature a Christmas tree and Santa Claus motif. Craig Aff. ¶ 9, Ex. 5.

The plates and gravy boat in Plaintiff's "His Majesty" collection feature a "regal tom turkey" surrounded by "nuts, fruits, berries, and vegetables." Craig Aff. ¶¶ 10–14, Ex.'s 6–10; Pl.'s Mem., Ex. C. The plates measure 20cm in diameter. Craig Aff. ¶¶ 10–13; Gluck Decl., Ex. G.

The "Eileen" flute in WWRD's "12 Days of Christmas" collection features "the figure of a lady surrounded by hollies and berries symbolizing the 'Nine Ladies Dancing' portion of the 'Twelve Days of Christmas' song lyrics." Craig Aff. ¶ 15, Ex. 11; Pl.'s Mem., Ex. D. The "Glenmore" flute features "the figure of a lord surrounded by hollies and berries symbolizing the 'Ten Lords A–Leaping' portion of the 'Twelve Days of Christmas' song lyrics." Craig Aff. ¶ 16, Ex. 12; Pl.'s Mem., Ex. E. The footed hurricane lamp and punchbowl depict various figures from the "Twelve Days of Christmas" song. Craig Aff. ¶¶ 17, 18, Ex.'s 13, 14.

II. Procedural History

As noted above, this case involves seven entries of merchandise. Summons at 4; Compl., Ex. 1. The subject imports entered at the Ports of Newark, New Jersey, and New York, New York, on several dates in 2009 and 2010, and Customs liquidated the entries between August 20, 2010, and January 3, 2011. Summons at 4; Compl., Ex. 1; see also Entry Documents in Court File.⁹ The following table summarizes the subject imports and their respective tariff provisions assigned by Customs based upon the items' constituent materials:

Subject Import	Customs' Classification	Dutiable Rate (percentage ad valorem)
Old Britain Castles - Pink Christmas (Pink and	6912.00.391010	4.5
Green) plates and mugs
Old Britain Castles - Pink Christmas (Pink)	6912.00.3910	4.5
plates and mugs
Old Britain Castles - Christmas coffee mugs	6912.00.3910	4.5
His Majesty dinnerware plates	6912.00.3910	4.5
His Majesty gravy boats	6912.00.3950	4.5
12 Days of Christmas crystal flutes	7013.22.500011	3.0
12 Days of Christmas punch bowls	7013.41.500012	6.0
12 Days of Christmas footed hurricane lamps	9405.50.400013	6.0

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the references for footnotes^{10 ,11 ,12 ,13} ].

See Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 19–23; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 19–23; Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 6(b)–10; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 6(b)–10.¹⁴ WWRD timely and properly protested, which protests Customs denied. Summons at 1; Compl. ¶ 4; Answer ¶ 4, ECF No. 19; Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 3–4; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 3–4. WWRD challenges the denial of its protests. Parties have fully briefed the issues. The court now rules on the cross-motions for summary judgment.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Jurisdiction is uncontroverted in this case. Compl. ¶ 2; Answer ¶ 2; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 1; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s SOF ¶ 1.

The Court may grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," and "the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; USCIT Rule 56(a).¹⁵ The court's review of a classification decision involves two steps. First, it must determine the meaning of the relevant tariff provisions, which is a question of law. See Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States , 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Second, it must determine whether the merchandise at issue falls within a particular tariff provision, as construed, which is a question of fact. Id. (citation omitted). When no factual dispute exists regarding the merchandise, resolution of the classification turns solely on the first step. See id. at 1365–66 ; see also Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States , 195 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

The court reviews classification cases de novo . See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a). While the court accords deference to Customs classification rulings relative to their "power to persuade," United States v. Mead Corp. , 533 U.S. 218, 235, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) ), it has "an independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the proper meaning and scope of HTSUS terms," Jedwards Int'l, Inc. v. United States , 40 CIT ––––, ––––, 161 F.Supp.3d 1354, 1357 (2016) (quoting Warner–Lambert Co. v. United States , 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ).¹⁶ It is "the court's duty to find the correct result, by whatever procedure is best suited to the case at hand." Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States , 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Framework

The General Rules of Interpretation ("GRIs") provide the analytical framework for the court's classification of...