Dependable Classification Solutions

Dependable Packaging Solutions v. United States involves the tariff classification of inexpensive open top glass vessles imported from China. As with most classification cases, there was no dispute as to the nature of the merchandise.

The two headings in question here were 7010 and 7013, which cover:

7010
Carboys, bottles, flasks, jars, pots, vials, ampoules and other containers, of glass, of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of goods; preserving jars of glass; stoppers, lids and other closures, of glass . . . .


7013
Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading 7010 or 7018) . . . .
 
 Both of these headings require classification to be based on principal use. Plaintiff claimed that the goods, which were not imported with or designed for use with a secure closure, were "of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of goods." If that were correct, the vases would be classified in Heading 7010. This argument boils down to the clever argument that vases are used for the "wet transportation of flowers." Also relevant is the fact that the Explanatory Notes to 7013 specifically state that the heading covers vases. Of course, the Explanatory Notes are not binding, but are pursuasive interpretations of the scope of the headings.

Examining the products, the Court found no reason to question that they are what is commonly known as bud vases. The entry documents and marketing literature also referred to the merchandise as vases.

Despite the semantic conclusion that these are vases and, therefore, most likely classifiable in 7013, the Court did the right thing and completed the principal use analysis. That analysis requires applying the Carborundum Factors to the merchandise. Those factors are:
  • The physical characteristics of the merchdise
  • Expectations ofthe ultimate purchasers
  • Channels of trade
  • The environment of the sale
  • Use in the same manner which defines the class
  • The economic practicality of the specified use
The Court made a number of key findings regarding these factors. First, the vases are nearly identical to other products identified as "vases" that are used for decorative purposes. Next, consumers pay extra for flowers in the vases, meaning that the vases have value beyond mere transport. Related to this point, the vase can be resued, indicating that they have decorative value. When sold, these vases are often displayed with flowers, again indicating a decorative use. Finally, there was no evidence that the vases were practically and economically used as packing containers.

You may wonder, as I did, why this went to Court. I think it has to do with this last point. According to evidence from the plaintiff, these vases were used in a non-traditional way. Specifically, the flower was placed in the vase and the vase filled with liquid. At that point, the vase, liquid, and flower, was placed in a plastic sleeve and a partitioned box for shipment. In other words, these vases were used for transport and not just to the end customer. That makes for a plausible argument that these are containers for the packing of goods.

Unfortunately for Dependable, this case turns on the principal use of goods of the same class or kind, not on the particular use of these vases. Thus, the Court held the vases to be classified in 7013.

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