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In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule era, the more than argument has been replaced by various aspects of the General Rules of Interpretation.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

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