How Do You Classify a Diaper Machine? Depends.

The question in National Presto Industries v. United States, is whether an adult diaper-making machine is classified in 8441 as other machinery for making up paper pulp, paper, or paperboard or in 8479 as other machinery having an individual function, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84. Typically, one would assume that 8441 will apply because it is more specific than 8479, which is a basket provision. But, that analysis skips past General Rule of Interpretation 1. If the goods fit in 8441, they go there.

Presto, the plaintiff in this case, reasoned that because Customs classifies diapers as articles of paper pulp, the machine that makes a diaper must fall within 8441. Presto backs this up with Customs and Border Protection rulings saying that paper pulp provides the essential character to diapers. In addition, the Explanatory Notes to 8441 broadly state that 8441 covers machinery for producing made up articles of paper pulp.

The government, argues that because paper pulp makes up only a portion of the diaper, 8441 does not fully describe the operation of the machine.

Relying entirely on GRI 1, the Court of International Trade rejected the government's argument. First, it found that the heading specifically requires an inquiry into the type of product produced by the machinery. That is a diaper. Second, diapers are products of paper pulp. Thus, the machine produces articles of paper pulp and, therefore, goes in 8441. Plato could not have said it better.

[Note to self: Best. Headline. Ever.]

Comments

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