Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-02076/USCOURTS-ca13-15-02076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Schlumberger Technology Corporation
Appellee
United States
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-2076

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:11-cv-00266-TCS, Chief Judge Timothy C. 

Stanceu.

______________________ 

Decided: January 9, 2017

______________________ 

ALEXANDER SCHAEFER, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by JOHN BOWERS BREW, DAVID COOPER WOLFF;

FRANCES PIERSON HADFIELD, New York, NY.

AIMEE LEE, Appellate Section, International Trade 

Litigation, United States Department of Justice, New 

York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by AMY M. RUBIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New 

York, NY; JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, BENJAMIN C. MIZER, 

Washington, DC; MICHAEL W. HEYDRICH, EDWARD N.

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/09/2017
2 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

MAURER, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United States 

Customs and Border Protection, New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

The instant appeal concerns the proper classification 

of bauxite proppants imported by Appellee Schlumberger 

Technology Corporation (“Schlumberger”) in 2010. U.S. 

Customs & Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the 

subject merchandise under Subheading 6909.19.50 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(“HTSUS”).1 Schlumberger appealed Customs’s classification to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). 

The CIT rejected Customs’s classification and, instead, 

entered summary judgment that the subject merchandise 

should enter under HTSUS 2606.00.00. Schlumberger 

Tech. Corp. v. United States, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1324 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2015).

Appellant, the United States (“Government”), appeals. 

We possess subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (2012). We affirm the CIT. 

BACKGROUND

The parties do not dispute the facts material to the 

resolution of the classification question before us. We 

discuss in turn the facts relevant to the subject merchandise, Customs’s classification, and the CIT’s decision 

before turning to the merits.

 

1 “All citations to the HTSUS refer to the 20[10] 

version, as determined by the date of importation of the 

merchandise.” LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 

1311, 1314 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 3

I. The Subject Merchandise

Schlumberger, an oil well services provider, J.A. 119, 

imported the subject bauxite proppants from the People’s 

Republic of China, J.A. 1729. Schlumberger used the 

subject merchandise in hydraulic fracturing services that 

it provided to customers in the United States. J.A. 126. 

The subject merchandise, when combined with other 

materials after importation, increased oil well productivity by preventing fractures in rock formations from closing. 

J.A. 126, 129, 281. 

The subject bauxite proppants consisted of two models: “S580-2040 Ceramic Proppant[s]” (“2040 Proppants”) 

and “S580-4070 Ceramic Proppant[s]” (“4070 Proppants”). 

J.A. 119–20. “S580” referred to the designation used by 

Schlumberger for bauxite proppants produced by a specific third-party supplier, J.A. 125, and “2040” and “4070” 

referred to the “size of sieves through which the proppants can fit,” J.A. 123. Each model primarily consisted 

of “non-metallurgical bauxite,”2 but the precise chemical 

composition of the merchandise is unknown because 

neither party retained a sample of the merchandise. 

J.A. 1729; see J.A. 498–510. Each model measured less 

than a millimeter in diameter and possessed specific 

physical characteristics with associated values for crush 

resistance (i.e., strength), specific density, roundness, and 

sphericity. J.A. 122–23. 

 

2 “Bauxite” refers to “an impure mixture of earthy 

hydrous aluminum oxides and hydroxides that commonly 

contains similar compounds of iron and occas[ionally] of 

manganese . . . and is the principal source of aluminum 

used in commerce and industry.” Bauxite, Webster’s 

Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1986) (“Webster’s”); J.A. 467 (similar).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/09/2017
4 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

The production of the subject merchandise involved 

the following steps. First, “[t]he raw materials of the 

subject proppants were milled or ground to a fine powder.” J.A. 126. Second, the resulting powder underwent a 

granulation process in a pan granulator, which resulted in 

“larger sized particles from the milled particles.” 

J.A. 124. Third, “the particles [were] sorted” to determine 

whether they met the required size specifications and, if 

so, the particles were dried. J.A. 124–25. Fourth, the 

particles that fell within the required size specifications 

were kiln fired. J.A. 125. Fifth, after firing, the particles

were sorted anew to ensure that ninety percent of them 

fell within the required size specifications. J.A. 125. 

Finally, the particles that met the previous steps were 

packed in bulk in 3,200 pound bags and exported to the 

United States as the subject bauxite proppants. J.A. 125.

II. Procedural History

Customs classified the subject bauxite proppants under HTSUS 6909.19.50 at a duty rate of four percent ad 

valorem. J.A. 120–21. The subheading selected by Customs covers “Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical, or 

other technical uses; ceramic troughs, tubs and similar 

receptacles of a kind used in agriculture; ceramic pots, 

jars and similar articles of a kind used for the conveyance 

or packing of goods: Other: Other.” HTSUS 6909.19.50. 

Schlumberger contested the classification in separate 

protests,3 arguing that the subject merchandise should 

enter duty free under HTSUS 2606.00.0060 as “Aluminum ores and concentrates: Bauxite, calcined: Other.” 

J.A. 109–10; see J.A. 162, 194. Customs denied the pro-

 

3 A party may protest Customs’s classification of 

merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) (2006). The 

party may appeal Customs’s denial of the protest to the 

CIT. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 5

tests, and Schlumberger appealed to the CIT. J.A. 107–

12.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the 

CIT rejected Customs’s classification and entered summary judgment that the subject bauxite proppants should 

enter under HTSUS 2606.00.00. See Schlumberger, 91 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1323–24. In relevant part, the CIT reasoned 

that the applicable interpretive rules “preclude[d]” classifying the subject merchandise under HTSUS 6909.19.50 

“because the proppants are not ‘ceramic wares’ within the 

intended meaning of that term as used in [H]eading 

6909.” Id. at 1323. The CIT also found that the Government’s “alternate classification” under Subheading 

6914.90.80 “is incorrect because [H]eading 6914 . . . is 

confined to ‘ceramic articles’ rather than substances such 

as the proppants at issue.” Id. at 1323−24; see HTSUS 

6914.90.80 (covering “Other ceramic articles: Other: 

Other”). Having found these provisions inapplicable, the 

CIT concluded that the subject merchandise should enter 

under HTSUS 2606.00.00 based on Heading 2606’s terms, 

guidance provided in the notes accompanying HTSUS 

Chapter 26 and in other sources, and the undisputed 

material facts. See Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 

1316–22.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

We review de novo the CIT’s decision to grant summary judgment and apply anew the standard used by the 

CIT to assess the subject Customs classification. See 

Otter Prods., LLC v. United States, 834 F.3d 1369, 1374–

75 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Although we review the decision[] of 

the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed 

opinion of the CIT . . . and it is nearly always the starting 

point of our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United 

States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal 

quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). The 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/09/2017
6 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

CIT “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” U.S. CIT R. 56(a) (2015).

The classification of merchandise involves a two-step 

inquiry. See LeMans, 660 F.3d at 1315. We first ascertain the meaning of the terms within the relevant tariff 

provision and then determine whether the subject merchandise fits within those terms. See Sigma-Tau 

HealthSci., Inc. v. United States, 838 F.3d 1272, 1276 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). The first step presents a question of law

that we review de novo, whereas the second involves an 

issue of fact that we review for clear error. Id. When, as 

here, no genuine dispute exists as to the nature of the

subject merchandise, the two-step inquiry “collapses into 

a question of law [that] we review de novo.” LeMans, 660 

F.3d at 1315 (citation omitted).

II. The CIT Properly Classified the Subject Merchandise

The Government contests the CIT’s decision to classify the subject bauxite proppants under HTSUS 

2606.00.00, arguing that the merchandise instead falls 

within the terms of HTSUS 6909.19.50 or, alternatively, 

HTSUS 6914.90.80. See Appellant’s Br. 17–35. The 

Government also contends that the subject merchandise 

does not meet the terms of HTSUS 2606.00.00. Id. at 35–

43. After discussing the applicable legal framework, we 

address these arguments in turn.

A. Legal Framework

The HTSUS governs the classification of merchandise 

imported into the United States. See Wilton Indus., Inc. 

v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

The HTSUS “shall be considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes.” 19 U.S.C. 

§ 3004(c)(1).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 7

“The HTSUS scheme is organized by headings, each of 

which has one or more subheadings; the headings set 

forth general categories of merchandise, and the subheadings provide a more particularized segregation of the 

goods within each category.”4 Wilton Indus., 741 F.3d at 

1266. “[T]he headings and subheadings . . . are enumerated in chapters 1 through 99 of the HTSUS (each of 

which has its own section and chapter notes) . . . .” R.T. 

Foods, Inc. v. United States, 757 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) (footnote and citation omitted). The HTSUS 

“also contains the ‘General Notes,’ the ‘General Rules of 

Interpretation’ (‘GRI’), the ‘Additional [U.S.] Rules of 

Interpretation’ (‘ARI’),[5] and various appendices for 

particular categories of goods.” Id. (footnote and citation 

omitted).

The GRI and the ARI govern the classification of 

goods within the HTSUS. See Otter Prods., 834 F.3d at 

1375. The GRI apply in numerical order, meaning that 

subsequent rules are inapplicable if a preceding rule 

provides proper classification. See Mita Copystar Am. v. 

United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712 (Fed. Cir. 1998). GRI 1

provides, in relevant part, that “classification shall be 

determined according to the terms of the [HTSUS] headings and any relative section or chapter notes . . . .” GRI 1 

(emphasis added). Under GRI 1, “a court first construes 

the language of the heading, and any section or chapter 

notes in question, to determine whether the product at 

issue is classifiable under the heading.” Orlando Food 

 

4 The first four digits of an HTSUS provision constitute the heading, whereas the remaining digits reflect 

subheadings.

5 The ARI contain specific rules for use and textile 

provisions in the HTSUS. See ARI 1(a)–(d). Because the 

appeal involves eo nomine provisions, we find the ARI 

inapplicable. See infra Section II.B.

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/09/2017
8 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 

1998). “[T]he possible headings are to be evaluated 

without reference to their subheadings, which cannot be 

used to expand the scope of their respective headings.” 

R.T. Foods, 757 F.3d at 1353 (citations omitted). “Absent 

contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed according to their common and commercial meanings, which are presumed to be the same.” Carl Zeiss, 

Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(citation omitted). “To discern the common meaning of a 

tariff term, we may consult dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources.” Kahrs Int’l, 

Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(citation omitted). 

“After consulting the headings and relevant section or 

chapter notes” consistent with GRI 1, we may consider the 

Explanatory Notes (“EN”) attendant to the relevant 

HTSUS headings.6 Fuji Am. Corp. v. United States, 519 

F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The 

EN provide persuasive guidance and “are generally indicative of the proper interpretation,” though they do not 

constitute binding authority. Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 645 

(citations omitted).

B. The Subject Merchandise Does Not Fall Within the 

Terms of Heading 6909 or 6914

According to the Government, the subject merchandise constitutes “ceramic wares” under Heading 6909 or, 

 

6 The World Customs Organization publishes the 

EN as its “official interpretation of the Harmonized 

Commodity Description and Coding System,” the “global 

system of trade nomenclature on which the HTSUS is 

based.” Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 644 n.2; Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 33 Ct. Int’l Trade 1003, 1004–

05 (2009) (discussing the HTSUS’s historical backdrop).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 9

alternatively, “other ceramic articles” under Heading

6914. See Appellant’s Br. 21–35. The CIT disagreed. See 

Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1310–16. We agree with 

the CIT. 

We first must assess whether the subject Headings

constitute eo nomine or use provisions because different 

rules and analysis will apply depending upon the heading 

type. Compare Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 645–46 (eo nomine

analysis), with Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States, 671 

F.3d 1310, 1312−16 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (principal use analysis). An eo nomine provision “describes an article by a 

specific name,” whereas a use provision describes articles 

according to their principal or actual use. Aromont, 671 

F.3d at 1312 (citation omitted); see id. at 1313. Heading

6909 covers “Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical, or 

other technical uses; ceramic troughs, tubs and similar 

receptacles of a kind used in agriculture; ceramic pots, 

jars and similar articles of a kind used for the conveyance 

or packing of goods.” Although Heading 6909 recites the 

use of ceramic products for certain purposes, the operative 

question here asks whether the subject merchandise 

constitutes a “ceramic ware” under the Heading’s terms. 

As a result, we treat the Heading as eo nomine. See 

Sigma-Tau, 838 F.3d at 1278 (treating an HTSUS provision as eo nomine, despite the provision disclosing certain 

uses, when the interpretation centered on the terms

describing an article by a specific name). Heading 6914, 

which recites “Other ceramic articles,” is unquestionably 

eo nomine because it describes the articles it covers by 

name. See Aromont, 671 F.3d at 1312. Because the 

subject Headings are eo nomine, our analysis starts with 

their terms. See R.T. Foods, 757 F.3d at 1354. 

Neither the HTSUS nor the applicable legislative history defines “ceramic wares” under Heading 6909 or 

“other ceramic articles” under Heading 6914. However, 

the notes accompanying HTSUS Chapter 69 inform our 

construction of the subject Headings. Note 1 to HTSUS 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/09/2017
10 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

Chapter 69 explains that the Chapter’s provisions, including Heading 6909 and Heading 6914, “appl[y] only to 

ceramic products which have been fired after shaping.” 

HTSUS 69, Note 1. The Note does not define “shaping,” 

so we look to the dictionary to understand its common 

meaning. See Sigma-Tau, 838 F.3d at 1279. The infinitive form of the verb “shape” means “to give a particular

or proper form to by or as if by molding or modeling from 

an undifferentiated mass” or “to give definite or finished 

shape to . . . .” Shape, Webster’s (emphases added).7

The Government contends that the granulation process provides the requisite shape to the subject merchandise. Appellant’s Br. 23−25. The undisputed facts show

that it does not. As the CIT observed, 

[w]hen the granules emerge from th[e] granulation process, they range so substantially in size 

that sieving is necessary to eliminate granules 

that do not fall within the desired size range. 

Even after the proppants are sieved so that 90% of 

the proppants fall within the desired size range, 

each of the two ranges characterizing the subject 

merchandise still permits 100% variation in size.

Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1313 (citing J.A. 123–25) 

(internal citations omitted). The Government does not 

contest the CIT’s observations. See generally Appellant’s 

Br. Indeed, an industry authority submitted by the 

Government corroborates the CIT’s observations. 

J.A. 480 (listing “Granulation” as a step that occurs prior 

 

7 The EN to Chapter 69 provide substantively similar guidance, explaining in relevant part that “[t]he 

manufacturing process of the ceramic products” classifiable under Chapter 69 include a “[s]haping” step whereby 

the material “is . . . shaped as nearly as possible to the 

desired form.” EN 69, General (emphasis added).

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 11

to “Forming”). Thus, because the subject merchandise’s 

size varied to such a significant degree after the granulation process, the undisputed facts counsel against finding 

that the merchandise possessed the requisite definite 

shape following the granulation process. Possessing some

shape does not equate to the definite shape required to 

enter under HTSUS Chapter 69, and a “desired form” 

cannot be any form at all since it would be impossible to 

shape something “as nearly as possible” to an indefinite 

standard.

The principle of noscitur a sociis confirms our conclusion that the subject bauxite proppants do not fall within 

the terms of either Heading 6909 or Heading 6914. That 

principle teaches “a word is known by the company it 

keeps,” which “avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning 

so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying 

words.” Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1085 

(2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010) (“[A]n ambiguous term may be given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Jewelpak 

Corp. v. United States, 297 F.3d 1326, 1331, 1337 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002) (affirming the use of noscitur a sociis to interpret an HTSUS provision).8 Heading 6909 covers “Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical, or other technical 

 

8 A canon related to noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis, instructs that “where general words follow an enumeration of specific items, the general words are read as 

applying only to other items akin to those specifically 

enumerated.” Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 

588 (1980). We also have relied upon the principle of

ejusdem generis when interpreting HTSUS provisions. 

See, e.g., Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 

769 F.3d 1102, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/09/2017
12 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

uses; ceramic troughs, tubs and similar receptacles of a 

kind used in agriculture; ceramic pots, jars and similar 

articles of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of 

goods.” The EN provide that Heading 6909 “covers a 

range of very varied articles,” such as “crucibles and 

crucible lids,” “mortars and pestles,” “beakers,” “containers with single or double walls,” “[c]ontainers of the kinds 

used for the commercial transport or packing of goods,” 

and “[t]roughs, tubs and similar containers of the type 

used in agriculture.” EN 69.09. The listed “wares” and 

“articles” concern individual products with definite forms. 

See id.; see also EN 69, General (requiring products 

imported under HTSUS Chapter 69 to be “shaped as 

nearly as possible to the desired form”). As explained 

above, the subject merchandise does not possess a definite 

form. J.A. 125–26. Because the subject merchandise does 

not have a definite form, it cannot fall within that Heading’s terms. See Yates, 135 S. Ct. at 1085. 

The inclusion of “grinding apparatus and balls, etc., 

for grinding mills” in the EN accompanying Heading 6909 

does not require a different conclusion. But see Appellant’s Br. 30–31. The Government has not provided any 

evidence demonstrating that the subject bauxite proppants and “grinding apparatus and balls” vary in shape to 

a similar degree, such that the subject proppants similarly should fall within Heading 6909. The Government’s 

speculation cannot prevent the entry of summary judgment against it. See First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities 

Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968) (finding entry of 

summary judgment appropriate because of “the absence of 

any significant probative evidence” in support of a claim).

Finally, an examination of the EN accompanying 

Heading 6914 yields the conclusion that the subject 

bauxite proppants do not fall within that Heading’s terms. 

Heading 6914 covers “Other ceramic articles.” The EN 

explain that Heading 6914 covers, inter alia, “[s]toves and 

other heating apparatus,” “non-decorative flower pots,” 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 13

“fittings for doors, windows, etc.,” “[l]etters, numbers, 

sign-plates and similar motifs for shop signs and shop 

windows,” ceramic “[s]pring lever stoppers,” “jars and 

containers for laboratories,” and “other articles such as 

knife handles, school inkwells, humidifiers for radiators[,] 

and bird cage accessories.” EN 69.14. The listed examples concern individual products shaped into definite 

forms. See id.; see also EN 69, General (requiring products imported under HTSUS Chapter 69 to be “shaped as 

nearly as possible to the desired form”). Unlike the 

examples provided in the EN, the subject proppants are 

bulk substances that lack a definite form. J.A. 125–26. 

Because the subject proppants do not possess the requisite definite form like the products listed in Heading 

6914, they cannot fall within that Heading’s terms. See 

Yates, 135 S. Ct. at 1085. 

C. The Subject Merchandise Falls Within the Terms of 

Heading 2606

Having found the subject bauxite proppants outside 

the terms of Heading 6909 and Heading 6914, we next 

examine Heading 2606. The Government argues that the 

CIT erred by finding the subject merchandise classifiable 

under that Heading. Appellant’s Br. 35–43. We disagree.

Heading 2606 covers “Aluminum ores and concentrates.” The provision is eo nomine because it describes 

the merchandise it covers by name. See Aromont, 671 

F.3d at 1312. Neither the HTSUS nor the applicable 

legislative history defines “aluminum ore” under Heading

2606. The notes accompanying HTSUS Chapter 26

inform our construction of the subject Heading, providing 

two criteria. First, Note 2 to HTSUS Chapter 26 explains 

that “the term ‘ores’ means minerals of mineralogical 

species actually used in the metallurgical industry for the 

extraction of” certain metals, “even if they are intended 

for nonmetallurgical purposes.” HTSUS 26, Note 2. 

Second, the Note states that HTSUS 2606 does not “inCase: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/09/2017
14 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

clude minerals which have been submitted to processes 

not normal to the metallurgical industry.” Id. 

The subject bauxite proppants meet each criterion. 

With respect to the first, the subject merchandise contains 

a mineral of a mineralogical species used in the metallurgical industry for the extraction of a particular metal. EN 

26.06 provides that Heading 2606 “covers bauxite (hydrated aluminum oxide containing variable proportions of 

iron oxide, silica, etc.).” The parties agree that “[t]he 

subject proppants are produced from non-metallurgical 

grade bauxite,” meaning that the subject proppants 

contain the requisite mineral of a mineralogical species. 

J.A. 1729. Moreover, the undisputed facts demonstrate 

that the industry uses bauxite in the extraction of aluminum. J.A. 121 (“Metallurgical grade bauxite is used in 

the metallurgical industry for the extraction of aluminum.”), 1729 (discussing the “commercial extraction of 

aluminum metal from bauxite”). 

The Government counters that the subject merchandise cannot meet the first criterion because Schlumberger 

used the subject merchandise “only for hydraulic fracturing” and not the extraction of a particular metal. Appellant’s Br. 37. However, the Government overlooks a 

relevant passage of Note 2 to HTSUS Chapter 26, which 

explains that the Chapter covers ores “even if they are 

intended for non-metallurgical purposes,” so long as the 

industry uses the ores for the extraction of metal. HTSUS 

26, Note 2. As stated above, it is undisputed that the 

industry uses bauxite to extract aluminum. J.A. 121, 

1729.

Because the subject bauxite proppants satisfy the first 

criterion articulated in Note 2 to HTSUS Chapter 26, we 

turn to the second to determine whether the subject 

merchandise underwent processes not normal to the 

metallurgical industry. Neither the HTSUS nor the 

applicable section and chapter notes provide guidance as 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 15

to what constitutes a “normal” process in the metallurgical industry. However, the EN to Chapter 26 state that 

aluminum ore classifiable under Heading 2606 may 

undergo, inter alia, “crushing,” “grinding,” “screening,” 

“agglomeration of powders . . . into grains, balls or briquettes,” and “drying.” EN 26, General. As stated above, 

the subject bauxite proppants underwent these very steps 

during the production process. J.A. 124–25. Thus, the 

CIT properly concluded that these processes “must be 

considered normal to the metallurgical industry and not 

the sort of processing that would cause exclusion from 

[C]hapter 26 by operation of [N]ote 2 to [C]hapter 26, 

HTSUS.” Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1318.

The Government contends that the CIT improperly 

found the processes normal to the metallurgical industry 

despite the fact that the processes were “not for the purpose of preparing the proppants for the extraction of 

metal.” Appellant’s Br. 42. Note 2 to HTSUS Chapter 26 

provides only that the minerals may not be submitted to 

processes other than those normal to the metallurgical 

industry; it does not require that any processing be undertaken “for the purpose” of extracting metal. HTSUS 

26, Note 2. Indeed, the Note expressly contemplates that 

a product imported under the Chapter can be “intended 

for non-metallurgical purposes.” Id.

The Government contends further that dopants were 

added to the bauxite powder during the proppant manufacturing process and that the addition of dopants is not 

normal to the metallurgical industry.9 Appellant’s Br. 

37–40. As a result, the Government contends that the 

 

9 The noun “dopant” means “an impurity added 

usually in minute amounts to a pure substance to alter its 

properties.” J.A. 79. The identity of the dopants remains 

proprietary. Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1318 n.18.

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/09/2017
16 SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES

subject merchandise cannot meet the second element in 

Note 2 of HTSUS Chapter 26. See id.

The addition of dopants to the bauxite powder does 

not necessitate a different conclusion. The EN to Chapter 

26 explain that a process may remain normal to the 

industry so long as it does “not alter the chemical composition of the basic compound which furnishes the desired 

metal.” EN 26, General. The Government has not offered

any evidence demonstrating the extent to which the 

dopants changed the chemical composition of the bauxite 

powder; indeed, the Government was unable to state that 

the dopants’ underlying chemicals at the exact levels 

found in the subject merchandise would not themselves 

exist naturally in bauxite ore. Oral Argument at 12:07–

14:24, http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx

?fl=2015-2076.mp3. Thus, the Government did not 

demonstrate that the basic bauxite compound changed 

from consisting primarily of aluminum oxide so as to 

offend EN 26, and its speculation may not foreclose the 

entry of summary judgment. See First Nat’l Bank of 

Ariz., 391 U.S. at 290. 

Finally, the Government avers that the subject bauxite proppants do not fall within Heading 2606 because 

they are “finished manufactured products immediately 

usable upon importation” and “not a ‘material’ or naturally occurring ‘substance.’” Appellant’s Br. 35. According to 

the Government, Heading 2606 is limited to “primary 

materials which will be further processed after importation.” Id. at 1; see also id. at 17 (arguing that the CIT 

failed to consider the subject merchandise in its “condition 

as imported” (capitalization omitted)). 

The terms of Heading 2606 do not support the Government’s argument. Under GRI 1, we must look to “the 

terms of the [HTSUS] headings and any relative section 

or chapter notes.” As the CIT observed, “[n]othing in the 

terms of the heading, the section or chapter notes, or the 

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 16 Filed: 01/09/2017
SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. v. UNITED STATES 17

relevant [EN] supports a conclusion that a product ready 

for the intended use in the condition as imported is outside the scope of the heading.” Schlumberger, 91 F. Supp. 

3d at 1320. That conclusion comports with the principle 

that “an eo nomine provision” like Heading 2606 “includes 

all forms of the named article.” Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 646 

(citation omitted). Thus, we decline the Government’s 

invitation to imbue Heading 2606 with a meaning not 

supported by the Heading’s text or the accompanying 

section and chapter notes.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the Government’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the 

final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade is

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-2076 Document: 51-2 Page: 17 Filed: 01/09/2017