CIT Misunderstood Importer's Argument in Classification Dispute, Importer Says
After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“Plaintiff believes that this Court misunderstood or misapprehended the initial issue presented by Plaintiff,” importer Keystone Automotive Operations said in its brief.
The merchandise at issue is the importer’s vehicle side bars. Keystone claims they are side protective attachments; CBP liquidated them as steps. “Side protective attachments” are excluded from Section 301 duties, whereas step aren’t.
Choe-Groves held the exclusion to be a principal use provision because she saw no evidence that “side protective attachment” is ever used in the industry -- and Keystone itself said in oral arguments that it doesn’t use the term. She also noted the “side protective attachment” is descriptive, as the word “protective” modifies the word “attachments” in a way that “convincingly suggests that the attachments on the side of the vehicle must be used in a protective manner."
But whether the exclusion is a principal use or eo nomine provision wasn’t the question Keystone initially raised, the importer argued. Instead, the first question of the case is whether the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s General Rules of Interpretation or Additional Rules of Interpretation apply to the exclusion at all, it said.
It claimed that the Federal Register notice that implemented the exclusion said that the general and additional interpretation rules apply “unless context otherwise requires.” Then, the side bars must be “simply capable of being described by the exclusion language.”
“Put differently, the standard outlined in the Federal Register notice is completely different from the standard outlined in the GRIs and ARIs and does not require that the exclusion describe the product by a specific name (as an eo nomine provision) or describe its ‘principal use,’” it said.
In this case, context does require discarding the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s general and additional rules of interpretation (GRIs and ARIs), Keystone said, though it didn’t explain further. The importer argued, however, that the argument wasn’t addressed in the opinion.
Choe-Groves also determined in her ruling that a bench trial would be required to resolve the classification dispute, saying the undisputed facts on the case’s record weren’t enough to conduct a principal use analysis. The importer asked her to stay the CIT proceeding should the interlocutory appeal move forward.