Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01969/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01969-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyco Fire Products, Limited Partnership
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1968, 2015-1969

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:08-cv-00190-JAR, 1:08-cv-00194-JAR, 

Senior Judge Jane A. Restani.

______________________ 

Decided: November 18, 2016

______________________ 

MICHAEL EDWARD ROLL, Pisani & Roll PLLC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant.

AMY RUBIN, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, JEANNE E.

DAVIDSON; CHI S. CHOY, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, 

United States Customs and Border Protection, United 

States Department of Homeland Security, New York, NY. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/18/2016
2 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Tyco Fire Products L.P. (“Tyco”) appeals a decision of 

the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), which 

granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. 

The CIT held that Tyco’s imported goods were properly 

classified under subheading 7020.00.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 

Tyco Fire Prods. L.P. v. United States, 82 F. Supp. 3d 

1340, 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (“Summary Judgment

Op.”). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The issue in this case is the proper classification of

certain liquid-filled glass bulbs according to the HTSUS. 

Each bulb consists of a sealed, hollow glass tube that is 

filled with colored liquid and an air bubble. A bulb of this 

type is commonly used as a temperature-dependent 

trigger component of fire sprinkler heads. Used in this 

context, the bulb is installed into a sprinkler head, which 

acts as a valve, such that the bulb is positioned to hold 

the valve closed and prevent water from being released. 

When the sprinkler head is exposed to fire, the bulb is 

heated and the liquid inside the bulb expands until the 

bulb ultimately shatters. When the bulb breaks, the 

valve of the sprinkler system opens and releases a shower 

of water intended to extinguish the fire.

Tyco’s bulbs can also be used in water heaters. As 

used in that context, the bulb is positioned to hold open a 

door to a water heater combustion chamber, which allows 

air to flow into the chamber. When the temperature rises 

to a particular threshold, the bulb shatters, forcing the 

door shut and thereby cutting off the air supply to the 

combustion chamber, extinguishing the flame. 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 3

Tyco purchased the bulbs from two German manufacturers, Job GmbH (“Job”) and Geissler Glasinstrumente 

GmbH (“Geissler”). Between 2004 and 2006, Tyco imported 42 different models of bulbs into the United States. 

Of these models, Tyco used 39 in fire sprinkler systems. 

Tyco used the other 3 models as thermal release devices 

in water heaters. 

The temperature threshold, or activation temperature, at which the bulb breaks corresponds to the temperature rating for that model of bulb. Different models of 

bulbs are designed to break at different temperatures, 

and the temperature rating of each bulb is indicated by a 

colored dye in the liquid. The liquid inside the Geissler 

bulbs is triethylene glycol. The composition of the liquid 

inside the Job bulbs is proprietary to Job. Other relevant 

qualities of the bulb models include their response time 

index, which relates to the amount of time required for 

the bulb to reach its activation temperature; structural 

strength; and compatibility with environmental conditions. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the bulbs as “other articles of glass” under HTSUS 

subheading 7020.00.60 (“Heading 7020”), which has a 5% 

rate of duty. Tyco protested Customs’ ruling and requested further review, asserting that the bulbs are more 

properly classified under subheading 8424.90.90, which 

includes “Other” “Parts” of goods classified under heading 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/18/2016
4 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

8424 and is duty-free.1 Customs denied Tyco’s protest, 

and Tyco appealed to the CIT.2 

On summary judgment, the CIT agreed with Customs 

and held that the bulbs are properly classified as articles 

of glass under Heading 7020. The court recognized that 

Chapter Note 1(c) to Chapter 84 excludes from that 

chapter “other articles for technical uses or parts thereof, 

of glass (heading 7019 or 7020).” Consulting the Explanatory Notes (“EN”) to Chapter 84 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (“HS”), of which 

the HTSUS is an embodiment, see Pima W., Inc. v. United 

States, 915 F. Supp. 399, 402 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996), the 

court determined that the bulbs are “of glass” within the 

meaning of the exclusion and, therefore, they are not 

classifiable under that chapter. 

The court rejected Tyco’s assertion that the bulbs fall 

within exceptions to the exclusion as set forth in the EN 

to Chapter 84. Specifically, the EN provides: 

[T]he following are, as a rule, to be taken to have 

lost the character . . . of glass:

 

1 Heading 8424 includes “[m]echanical appliances . . . for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or 

powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; 

spray guns and similar appliances; . . . parts thereof.” 

HTSUS, 84-30 (2004). 

2 At the CIT and on appeal, Tyco asserts that the 

three bulb models used in water heaters should be classified under a different subheading of HTSUS Chapter 84, 

subheading 8419.90.10, as “[p]arts: [o]f instantaneous or 

storage water heaters.” HTSUS, 84-24 (2004). Because

we affirm CIT’s holding that all of the bulbs are properly 

excluded from Chapter 84 and have the essential character of glass, our analysis is the same with respect to both 

of Tyco’s proposed subheadings. 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 5

(i) Combinations of . . . glass components with a 

high proportion of components of other materials 

(e.g., of metal); also articles consisting of a high 

proportion of . . . glass components incorporated or 

permanently mounted in frames, cases or the like, 

of other materials.

(ii) Combinations of static components of . . . glass 

with mechanical components such as motors, 

pumps, etc., of other materials (e.g., of metal).

EN Ch. 84 at 1393 (EN/AS 5, Feb. 2004). The court 

determined that the bulbs do not contain a “high proportion” of non-glass material and that the bulbs do not

comprise both a static and a mechanical component. The 

court also consulted the ENs to Chapter 70 and Heading 

7020 and determined that the bulbs have the essential 

character of glass, and therefore they are properly classified under Heading 7020. Tyco appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

We review the CIT’s grant of summary judgment in a 

customs classification case de novo. Rubie’s Costume Co. 

v. United States, 337 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

The classification of an item under the headings of the 

HTSUS involves a two-step process. Alcan Food Packaging (Shelbyville) v. United States, 771 F.3d 1364, 1366 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). First, the court determines the meaning 

of the heading terms, and we review this issue of law 

without deference. Id. Second, the court determines 

whether the item falls within the scope of the heading 

terms, and we review this finding of fact for clear error. 

Id.

“The HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) 

and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (U.S. GRI) 

govern the proper classification of all merchandise and 

are applied in numerical order.” Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/18/2016
6 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). According to 

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 Corp. v. United States, 

140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Chapter Notes are 

legally binding. Arko Foods Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 

654 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Absent contrary 

legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed 

according to their common and commercial meanings, 

which are presumed to be the same. A court may rely 

upon its own understanding of the terms used and may 

consult lexicographic and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other reliable information sources.” Carl Zeiss, 

195 F.3d at 1379.

I 

Tyco first asserts that the CIT erred in holding that 

Chapter Note 1(c) excludes the bulbs from Chapter 84. 

Note 1(c) to Chapter 84 provides: “1. This chapter does not 

cover: . . . (c) Laboratory glassware (heading 7017); machinery, appliances or other articles for technical uses or 

parts thereof, of glass (heading 7019 or 7020); . . . .” 

HTSUS, 84-1 (2004). 

As an initial matter, we agree with the CIT that the 

bulbs are “of glass” for purposes of Note 1(c). As we 

discuss below, the bulbs have the essential character of 

glass and are properly classifiable under Heading 7020. 

This determination is sufficient to establish that each 

bulb has the “the character of an article . . . of glass” for 

purposes of Note 1(c) unless the bulb has “lost the character . . . of glass” by virtue of one of the exceptions described in the EN. EN Ch. 84 at 1393 (EN/AS 5, Feb. 

2004). While the ENs are not controlling, “they do offer 

guidance in interpreting [HTSUS] subheadings.” Lonza, 

Inc. v. United States, 46 F.3d 1098, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Both parties agree that we should look to the ENs in this 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 7

case. Tyco and the government focus their dispute regarding Note 1(c) on whether the bulbs are encompassed 

by either the “high proportion” or the static and mechanical component exceptions identified in the EN. Tyco 

argues that the bulbs fall within the EN exceptions because the bulbs include a high proportion of non-glass 

material and are each a combination of static and mechanical components. Tyco argues that they are, therefore, outside the exclusion for “articles of technical uses or 

parts thereof, of glass” and are classifiable under Chapter 

84. 

A 

As the CIT held, the bulbs do not fall under the EN 

exception to Chapter 84 Note 1(c) for “[c]ombinations of 

static components of . . . glass with mechanical components” because they do not contain any mechanical components within the meaning of the EN. EN Ch. 84 at 

1393. Tyco asserts that the liquid inside the bulbs performs a physically mechanical function when the liquid 

expands in response to heat and exerts pressure on the 

glass, causing the glass to shatter. Tyco cites to the 

online Oxford Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.

com/definition/us/mechanical, for the proposition that 

“mechanical” means “[r]elating to physical forces or 

motion.” However, this source also defines the term to 

mean “[w]orking or produced by machines or machinery” 

and “[r]elating to machines or machinery.” Id.; see also

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) 1400 (1981) (“1 a : of, relating to, or concerned 

with machinery or tools”). 

Importantly, Tyco’s interpretation of “mechanical” is 

inconsistent with the examples of mechanical components 

listed in the EN, “such as motors, pumps, etc., of other 

materials (e.g., of metal),” EN Ch. 84 at 1393, which, by 

the interpretive canon of ejusdem generis, indicate that 

“mechanical components” means machinery. See Archer 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/18/2016
8 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 561 F.3d 1308, 

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is well settled that when a list 

of items is followed by a general word or phrase, the rule 

of ejusdem generis is used to determine the scope of the 

general word or phrase.” (citation omitted)).

B 

The other exception is for articles of glass that have “a 

high proportion of components of other materials” relative 

to the glass component. EN Ch. 84 at 1393. The parties 

both address “high proportion” in terms of relative 

weight.3 It is undisputed that, depending on the bulb 

model, the liquid component comprises 16–31% of the 

total weight of the bulb, with the glass component comprising the remainder. Accordingly, we must determine 

the meaning of the term, “high proportion.”

As the CIT noted, neither the EN nor the HTSUS defines “high proportion.” The CIT looked for guidance in 

the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature (“BTN”), and the government urges that we do so as 

well. The BTN was an international tariff classification 

system that preceded the HS. The CIT pointed out that 

Chapter 84 to the BTN had an exclusionary Note 1(c), 

excluding “machinery and appliances and parts thereof, of 

glass,” that was similar to the current Note 1(c) of Chapter 84 of the HTSUS. J.A. 758; see Summary Judgment

Op. at 1347. In 1970, the Nomenclature Committee 

amended the Explanatory Note to BTN Chapter 84 to 

include language that is, in relevant part, identical to the 

language of the current EN to Chapter 84 as reproduced 

 

3 To the extent that Tyco also argues that the liquid 

component plays a critical role in the function of the 

bulbs, we see no basis for such a qualitative analysis in 

determining whether the bulbs contain a high proportion 

of liquid. 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 9

above. It appears that a motivation for the 1970 amendment was to provide that “the distinguishing criteria laid 

down in [BTN] Explanatory Note 90.25 should also apply 

to the machines and appliances of” BTN Chapter 84.4 J.A. 

764. The Explanatory Note to BTN Chapter 90.25, in 

turn, provided that “instruments normally cease to have 

the essential character of glassware when they consist 

partly of glass but are mainly of other materials.” J.A. 

777. 

The CIT concluded from this “history behind the EN” 

that the “high proportion” language of the current EN to 

Chapter 84 should be interpreted to mean “mainly.” 

Summary Judgment Op. at 1347. The court held that 

Tyco’s bulbs, which consist of up to 31% of liquid by 

weight, did not consist “mainly of liquid rather than of 

glass,” and therefore, they did not have a high proportion 

of liquid. Id. 

The government urges that this analysis is correct, 

but provides no explanation as to why the BTN Explanatory Notes—and any amendments thereto—should be 

treated as a form of legislative history to the current 

HTSUS. Certainly, prior to 1989, when the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) was in effect, see

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub L. 

No. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1148, 1163 (1988), the BTN 

was viewed as a source of legislative history to aid in 

interpreting the TSUS. See, e.g., W. Bend Co. v. United 

States, 892 F.2d 69, 71–72 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he Brussels Nomenclature . . . may be treated as legislative histo-

 

4 The Nomenclature Committee originally intended 

that the new language would be inserted in the Explanatory Notes to BTN Section XVI, which encompassed 

Chapter 84, see J.A. 764, but ultimately decided to insert 

the language into the Explanatory Note to Chapter 84 

specifically, see J.A. 765–70.

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/18/2016
10 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

ry to the [TSUS] provisions where the language of the 

tariff provision and a Brussels section is very similar.”). 

But the TSUS is no longer in effect, and therefore, the 

extent to which the BTN remains a relevant source of 

interpretive guidance is not clear. Shortly after the 

HTSUS was implemented, in 1989, the U.S. Customs 

Service issued a “Guidance for Interpretation of Harmonized System,” (“Guidance”) which set forth its views on 

the weight to be afforded the Explanatory Notes of the 

BTN. 54 Fed. Reg. 35,127 (Aug. 23, 1989). The Guidance, 

to which the government did not call to our attention,

explained that the HS replaced the Customs Cooperation 

Council Nomenclature (“CCCN”), which was “first known 

as the” BTN. Id. at 35,128. The Guidance stated that 

“[t]he CCCN ENs have no value in interpreting the HS. 

They are the ENs to a different system; one which is now 

virtually nonexistent since most nations have adopted the 

HS.” Id. The Guidance further explained, 

[w]hen the HS was drafted it was decided to prepare an entirely new convention to implement it. 

It was the intention of the [Harmonized System 

Committee] to start anew; to have a new convention unencumbered by the many years of action by 

the Nomenclature Committee. Although the HS 

is primarily based on the CCCN, it is a new and 

different nomenclature with a convention that 

provides for substantial difference in its voting 

membership.

Id. at 35,129. 

We need not decide, however, whether the BTN provides relevant guidance as to the meaning of the HTSUS, 

for we conclude that a different—and governing—

interpretative methodology ultimately leads to the same 

result. Dictionary definitions of the word “proportion,” 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 11

previous to 1989 when the HTSUS was adopted, generally 

defined that term to mean “ratio.”5 See McGraw-Hill 

Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1507 (4th ed. 

1989) (“The proportion of two quantities is their ratio.”); 

Webster’s New World Dictionary: Third College Edition

1079 (1988) (“proportion 1 the comparative relation 

between parts, things, or elements with respect to size, 

amount, degree, etc.; ratio”); 2 Webster’s Third New 

International Dictionary 1819 (1986) (“proportion: 1 a :

the relation of one part to another or to the whole with 

respect to magnitude, quantity, or degree : relative size : 

ratio”). These definitions suggest that, absent clarifying 

context, a “high proportion” of one component of a greater 

whole means that there exists a high ratio of that component compared to the other components. Where, as here, 

there are only two components, (i.e., the liquid component 

and the glass component), a high proportion or ratio of 

one component generally means that the component 

accounts for more than 50% of the whole. 

We do not suggest that “high proportion” means 

greater than 50% in all situations. This would not be the 

case where there are more than two components. There 

are also situations where comparison to past or common 

practice would support an interpretation of “high proportion” meaning something less than 50% for a twocomponent whole. For instance, Tyco points to the EN to 

heading 4017, where the EN to that heading provides that 

“[h]ard rubber . . . is obtained by vulcanising rubber with 

a high proportion (more than 15 parts per hundred parts 

of rubber) of combined sulfur.” EN Heading 4017 at 775

(EN/AS 2, Aug. 2002). This appears to be a situation in 

 

5 We appropriately may take notice of dictionary 

definitions when construing terms of the HTSUS and its 

notes. See Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 

1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/18/2016
12 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

which in practice the proportion of sulfur is always less 

than the proportion of rubber and “high proportion” is 

used apparently to refer to the high end of what is normal. But this case is not a situation where there is additional context suggesting that we should ascribe a 

different meaning to “high proportion.” Here, 31% by 

weight of the liquid component does not constitute a “high 

proportion” as set forth in the EN to Chapter 84. 

Accordingly, because the bulbs are “of glass” within 

the meaning of Chapter Note 1(c) and they do not fall 

within either exception identified in the EN, they are not 

properly classifiable under Chapter 84.

II

Having concluded that the bulbs are not classifiable 

under Chapter 84, we now determine whether Customs 

properly classified the bulbs under Heading 7020. The 

EN to Heading 7020 explains, “[t]his heading covers glass 

articles (including glass parts of articles) not covered by 

other headings of this Chapter or of other Chapters of the 

Nomenclature. These articles remain here even if combined with materials other than glass, provided they 

retain the essential character of glass articles.” EN Heading 7020 at 1178 (2002) (italicization added). Because the 

bulbs each have a glass component that is combined with

a liquid component, we must determine whether the glass 

component or the liquid component imparts the bulbs’ 

essential character. We agree with the CIT that the bulbs 

have the essential character of glass.

The parties agree that the essential character test set 

forth in the EN to Heading 7020 is analogous to the 

essential character test typically performed pursuant to 

GRI 3(b).6 Although “essential character” is not defined 

 

6 GRI 3 provides: 

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 13

in the GRIs, the EN to GRI 3(b) provides, “[t]he factor 

which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be 

determined by the nature of the material or component, 

its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a 

constituent material in relation to the use of the goods.” 

EN GRI at 4 (2002); see also Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. 

United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1293 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2006) (identifying “other possible considerations” such as 

“ordinary common sense” and the article’s recognized 

names, invoice and catalogue descriptions, size, primary 

function, and uses), aff’d, 491 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

One component can impart the article’s essential character even if two components are both indispensable to the 

use of the article. See Alcan, 771 F.3d at 1367.

While we recognize Tyco’s engineer’s testimony that 

the liquid component is “the brains behind the operation” 

of the triggers, Tyco Br. at 8 (internal quotation marks 

omitted), we agree with the CIT’s determination that both 

the glass and the liquid components “play critical roles in 

the proper functioning of the filled bulb,” in view of “primary considerations . . . includ[ing] 1) the response time 

required, 2) the load the filled bulb will have to bear, 3) 

the environmental conditions the bulb will be placed into, 

and 4) the temperature rating.” Summary Judgment Op. 

 

When . . . goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be 

effected as follows: . . . (b) Mixtures, composite 

goods consisting of different materials or made up 

of different components . . . shall be classified as if 

they consisted of the material or component which 

gives them their essential character, insofar as 

this criterion is applicable.

HTSUS, GN-1 (2004) (emphasis added).

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/18/2016
14 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US

at 1349. Turning to other factors for determining essential character, the evidence shows that for each bulb 

model the glass weighs more than the liquid. Tyco concedes that the relative weight factor favors the government. The glass is also the more expensive component in

all of the imported bulbs except the smallest models and 

the water heater models. Furthermore, as Tyco admits, 

the bulbs are sometimes referred to as “glass bulbs,” and 

much of the packaging and marketing materials in the 

record use similar terminology. See La Crosse Tech., Ltd. 

v. United States, 723 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(considering the name of the devices in determining their 

essential character); United China & Glass Co. v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 734, 737 (Cust. Ct. 1968) (“[I]t is not 

uncommon that an article is called by the name denoted 

by its essential character . . . .”). Finally, as the CIT 

noted, Congress amended the HTSUS in 2006 to create a 

temporary duty-free subheading specifically encompassing the types of bulbs at issue. See Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109–432, § 1331, 120 Stat. 

2922, 3124. The temporary subheading also referred to 

the items as “[l]iquid-filled glass bulbs.” See id.

(“9902.24.26: Liquid-filled glass bulbs designed for sprinkler systems and other release devices (provided for in 

subheading 7020.00.60)”).7 

In light of this evidence, we see no error in the CIT’s 

conclusion that the bulbs have the essential character of 

glass and are properly classified under Heading 7020.

 

7 The subheading, which was later increased to a 

0.9% rate of duty, expired entirely in 2012. See United 

States Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010, Pub. L. 

No. 111–227, § 3001(b)(10), 124 Stat. 2409, 2476.

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/18/2016
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P. v. US 15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the bulbs 

are excluded from Chapter 84 and are properly classifiable under Heading 7020 of the HTSUS.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to the United States.

Case: 15-1969 Document: 18-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/18/2016