Friends Don't Let Friends Classify

I have been in a single ballroom containing a very large segment of the lawyers working in the customs law field. Basically, we all know or know of each other. I bring this up, because I might be about the piss off some friends and former colleagues. So be it. I am also about to potentially annoy the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The source of all this potential annoyance is Outer Circle Products v. United States, which the Federal Circuit decided today. I discussed this case previously. It involves the classification of zippered bottle wraps, kind of like can kozies but bigger. The Court of International Trade classified them in 4202 as "bottle cases," which are specifically listed in the heading. In doing so, the CIT had to distinguish a prior decision of the Federal Circuit in which that court held that 4202 (as it then existed) does not cover "containers that organize, store, protect, or carry food or beverages." The CIT's decision held that as imported without a bottle, the wraps could not contain anything. Ergo, the prior decision did not control and the wraps were to be classified eo nomine as bottle cases.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit stuck to its prior decision and reversed the CIT. The CAFC reasoned that the coolers at issue in the earlier case were not designed to store or protect loose food without further containment. Rather, the coolers would contain numerous containers of food. Similarly, the bottle cases are designed to contain a bottle containing a beverage. Hence, the no-food-or-beverage rule applies.

That seems straightforward and advances the law by affirming a bright-line rule. Everyone should now know that food and beverage containers stay out of 4202, as it then existed.

Here's my question: So what does 4202 mean when it specifically mentions bottle cases? I think I understand the CAFC to be saying that "bottle cases" are for protecting, carrying, and storing empty bottles or bottles filled with other non-food or beverage items. This is because no other items listed in 4202 are intended to contain food or beverages. So, the analysis makes legal and practical sense.

But, look at this wine bottle case. It is leather-ish, has a cover with a clasp, and a shoulder strap. For all intents and purposes, it is a suitcase for wine bottles. Guess what goes in 4202: suitcases. But, under this decision, that bottle case belongs somewhere else in the tariff schedule. I'm not sure that advances the law in a predictable way. It seems to me that the classification of a bottle case should not depend on either what the bottle contains or whether it is empty.

So, "nice work" to the folks who did a good job and won the case on appeal. You should be happy that I was not on the panel. To the panel, when next we meet, please keep in mind that reasonable minds can differ and I clearly have no idea what I am talking about.

Comments

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