Is the Court of International Trade in a Bind(er)?

Sorry, I feel like I am on a stupid-title roll.

Here is another classification decision form the CIT.  It's one of those cases where there is a lot of history that makes the decision more complicated than it really should have been.  The case is Global Sourcing Group v. United States and it involves the classification of ring binders.  These were somewhat unusual binders in that they had six or seven rings, pen loops, slots for business card, and pockets.  They are composed of stiff paperboard covered with either plastic or textile. Customs classified the binders based on their outer material as either articles of plastic or of textile. Showing a complete lack of creativity, the importer argued that the binder should be classified in heading 4820 as "binders."

The plaintiff had an initial problem with the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the issue on certain entries.  The bottom line is that importers wishing to take a classification up to the Court of International Trade have to protest the classification decision and the denied protest must be included on the summons either by entry number or by protest number (but both is better). Someday, I am going to write a law review article about the concept of notice pleading in federal courts and how it applies to cases brought to challenge a denied protest.  For now, I'll just say that is the state of the law and the plaintiff here lost the opportunity to recover on a few protests.

On the classification issue, the Cour concluded that a "binder" is, among other things, "a notebook cover with rings or clamps for holding paper."  That describes the merchandise here.   Customs, on the other hand, properly noted that Heading 4820 is limited to articles of paper or paperboard.  Based on that, Customs has long considered binders to composite goods and looked to the outer material as the material imparting the essential character. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit previously looked at similar binders, which also had paperboard stiffeners and concluded that 4820 was the applicable heading.  So, the Court of International Trade followed suit and found for the importer.

This case is interesting on a number of levels.  First, it is a good example of how the General Rules of Interpretation work in numerical order.  If GRI 1 resolves the issue, as the Court of International Trade decided it did here, there is no reason to get to GRI 3 and due and essential character analysis as the Justice Department wanted.

Second, the Court seems to have basically decided the issue and then turned to the Explanatory Notes for confirmation.  I understand that approach and see the analytical value.  But, it does raise the prospect of cases where the issue is decided on the face of the HTS and the ENs prove to be contradictory.  We know from Airflow and Archer Daniels Midland that the EN gets no weight in those cases.  But, I wonder whether the better approach is, when the statute is clear, to keep the Explanatory Notes on the shelf. I don't see any harm from that.


Comments

ilya said…
Nice write-up, Larry. I have always wanted to write that same law review note--it still doesn't seem right to this day to me!
May 15, 2009, 12:01:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more