For Wilton, Classification is Not a Piece of Cake

OK, I admit that is a strained pun.

This particular Wilton case apparently has nothing to do with cake decorating paraphernalia. Rather, it has to do with hand operated decorative paper punches. These are items used by people who understand the term "scrapbook" to be a verb.

I gather the punches are similar to this item, although Wilton describes it as for making edible shapes for cake decoration and not for the production of scrapbooks and similar crafty pastimes. For a brief time, my mother was a freelance cake decorator. As a result, I ate far too many practice and rejected butter-cream roses in my youth. Thus, this die-punch system seems like cheating to me.



The tariff provisions at issue were Heading 8203, which covers, among other things, "perforating punches and similar hand tools" and 8441, which covers "Other machinery for making up paper pulp, paper or paperboard, including cutting machines of all kinds, and parts thereof . . . ."

Plaintiff sought to have the goods classified in 8441 as cutting machines. The problem for the plaintiff was the language "other machinery for making up paper pulp, paper or paperboard, including" implies that the cutting machines of Heading 8441 must be of a kind used for making up paper pulp, paper or paperboard. Consequently, the Court found that 8441 does not cover cutting machines. Rather, it covers paper production machines. While some paper production machines are cutters, not all cutters are paper producing machines. Because these punches are not paper making machines, they do not fall under Heading 8441.

Heading 8203, on the other hand, is an eo nomine description of perforating punches and similar hand tools. Relying on dictionary definitions, the Court of International Trade found that the punches are hand tools and that they are perforating punches. Thus, they are properly classified in 8203. Also, given that they are properly classified in Heading 8203, they are excluded from Chapter 84 by virtue of Section XVI, Note 1(k).

Comments

Lowell DeFrance said…
I think the interesting part of this case was that the punches that customs settled the classification issue in favor of the plaintiff appear to be overturned as well. They definitely should have thought more about the likelihood of prevailing. Maybe the 3.3% duty will make these commercially unviable?

I have ofter wondered where the line of hand operated goes to. This case is an easy distinction as all the energy used it from physical exertion. But power drills where the energy could be electric gas or steam is also classified in chapter 82. So if just pressing a button to turn the machine is considered hand-operated, then could that not be said for most machines of chapter 84 and 85 as well?

Until telekinesis is invented there will be some physical hand operation required for most machines.
Oct 9, 2012, 12:09:00 PM
Lowell DeFrance said…
I think the interesting part of this case was that the punches that customs settled the classification issue in favor of the plaintiff appear to be overturned as well. They definitely should have thought more about the likelihood of prevailing. Maybe the 3.3% duty will make these commercially unviable?

I have ofter wondered where the line of hand operated goes to. This case is an easy distinction as all the energy used it from physical exertion. But power drills where the energy could be electric gas or steam is also classified in chapter 82. So if just pressing a button to turn the machine is considered hand-operated, then could that not be said for most machines of chapter 84 and 85 as well?

Until telekinesis is invented there will be some physical hand operation required for most machines.
Oct 9, 2012, 12:11:00 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