Ruling of the Week: Is That Crude?

The difference between crude or roughly trimmed stone and polished stone may seem pretty obvious in the colloquial sense. But, in the world of tariff classification, it is always possible for facts to complicate matters. 

Such is the case in HQ H306644 (Feb. 3, 2020), our Ruling of the Week.

The imported merchandise was identified as Blue Pearl, India (or Jet) Black and India Red in roughly five to seven foot lengths and three to four foot widths. The importer originally classified the merchandise in Heading 2516 as crude or roughly trimmed granite. CBP's lab looked at the merchandise and determined that it was polished on two opposite faces or on one face. The importer disputed that the surfaces were polished and CBP looked again. The lab came back with a determination that the top surface is highly reflective of light and smooth to the touch. According to the lab, that is sufficient grounds to find it is polished.

As an aside, it also turns out that the stones are not granite, but that will not matter much.

The two competing headings are 2516 and 6802. The former covers monumental and building stone whether or not roughly trimmed or merely cut, by sawing or otherwise, into blocks or slabs of a rectangular (including square) shape. The latter covers other monumental or building stones.

So, at the heading level, this is all about what constitutes roughly cut versus other.

There are several relevant legal notes in the HTS and corresponding Explanatory Notes, the gist of which is exactly what you would expect. Chapter 25 and Heading 2516 cover mineral products in a crude state, crushed, ground, etc. including those that are "roughly trimmed or merely cut." On the other hand, the Explanatory Notes to Heading 6802 state that the heading covers monumental or building stone that has been worked beyond the stage of normal quarry products of Chapter 25.

If you are wondering why this is even a question, the importer's point is that the smooth surfaces result from not from polishing but from wire saw cutting. 




How does that get resolved? Not on the actual facts, but on a legal presumption.

CBP's laboratory methods are presumed correct unless conclusively shown to be in error. CBP, in the course of deciding the protest on Further Review, makes the initial decision on whether the importer has proven the lab to be incorrect. That is a high burden for an importer. Here, the importer could not point to any flaws in the laboratory analysis and did not submit any independent laboratory analysis to the contrary. As a result, CBP held that the importer had failed to adequately explain the surface appearance and overcome the lab's determination. 

Customs, therefore, denied the protest and determined that the stops is classifiable in 6802.99.00 as worked monumental or building stone. This case, if the importer is correct, is well suited to being resolved in court. In fact, I hope it is and that we are treated to the spectacle of a fresh from the quarry slab of rock being wire cut in open court. That should resolve the matter pretty quickly.


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