Sometimes, it's Just a Screw

I started my career in as a customs lawyer under the old Tariff Schedule of the United States, before anything was Harmonized. Under the TSUS, it was a common and legally sound argument that merchandise could not be classified in a heading if it was "more than" what that heading describes. So, a screw that had been hollowed out and had holes drilled in it to allow oil to flow through it would probably not be a screw, because it was "more than" a screw.

In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule era, the more than argument has been replaced by various aspects of the General Rules of Interpretation. Rather than say that this merchandise is more than a screw, today we would say that "screw" only partly describes the article so we need to look to whether it has the essential character of a screw.

And that is the situation Honda of America found itself in at the Court of International Trade. The merchandise involved was oil bolts, which are essentially the merchandise I described above. The competing provisions were in Heading 7318 as screws or bolts and in Chapter 87 as auto parts.

The Court's analysis started with Section XV, Note 2(a) which defines screws, bolts, and similar articles of iron or steel as "parts of general use." Further, Section XVII includes a note saying that "parts" as used in that section does not apply to parts of general use. So, if the oil bolt is classifiable in 7318, it is excluded from Chapter 87.

The Court looked to the Explanatory Notes, the relevant Customs and Border Protection Ruling, and an Informed Compliance Publication to reach a definition of screw as meaning (essentially) an externally threaded fastener that must be torqued by its head. Apparently, the oil bolts at issue fit that description and are, therefore, screws of 7318.

Honda had a good argument based on a number of prior rulings that appeared to be inconsistent with this classification. Most important was a ruling on a brake cable that was cut to size and had end fittings making it apparently ready for use in assembly. Those cables, were classified in 8709 as parts despite being parts of general use of 7312. The reason for that, according to Customs, was an amendment to the Explanatory Notes that specified, based on a decision of the World Customs Organization, that such cables were auto parts. There being no corresponding amendment for oil bolts, the Court found the prior ruling to be unpersuasive.

Thus, because the screws--despite being specialized--are still externally threaded fasteners that need to be torqued from the head, they are screws and nothing more.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It seems that the Court got this one right.
Jun 11, 2009, 9:19:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more