United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GRK CANADA, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-2623

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:09-cv-00390, Judge Claire R. Kelly.

______________________ 

Decided: March 20, 2018 

______________________ 

 CRAIG E. ZIEGLER, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker 

& Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffappellee. 

 STEPHEN ANDREW JOSEY, International Trade Field 

Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, New York, NY, 

argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by 

JASON M. KENNER, BENJAMIN C. MIZER, JEANNE E.

DAVIDSON, AMY M. RUBIN. 

______________________ 
2 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

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

Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

The United States appeals from a final judgment of 

the United States Court of International Trade granting 

GRK Canada, Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment that 

various screws imported by GRK were properly classified 

as “self-tapping screws” under subheading 7318.14.10 of 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. 

Because the Court of International Trade properly classified GRK’s imported screws, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

This matter returns to the court following remand to 

the Court of International Trade. GRK Can., Ltd. v. 

United States (“GRK IV”), 180 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 2016); see also GRK Can., Ltd. v. United States

(“GRK I”), 884 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) 

vacated and remanded, 761 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(“GRK II”), reh’g denied, 773 F.3d 1282 (Fed Cir. 2014) 

(per curiam) (“GRK III”). 

Between January 2008 and August 2008, GRK imported three types of screw fasteners into the United 

States. GRK IV, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 1263. The three 

types of screws at issue are GRK’s Model R4 Screws 

(“R4”), RT Composite Trim Head Screws (“RT”), and 

Fin/Trim Head Screws (“Fin/Trim”).1 Id.. GRK’s screws 

are used to mate dissimilar materials, for example, to 

mate plastics or dense composite materials to wood. Id. at 

 

1 The RT and Fin/Trim Head Screws are both varieties of GRK’s Trim Head screws, and are collectively 

referred to as Trim Head screws in the Court of International Trade’s decision. 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 3

1264. To that effect, all three GRK screws are made with 

corrosion-resistant, case-hardened steel and “can be used 

to penetrate materials such as sheet metal, plastics, 

medium-density fiberboard, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

board, cement fiberboard, melamine, arborite, and other 

man-made composite materials.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Upon GRK’s importation of the subject screws, United 

States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the screws as “other wood screws” under subheading 

7318.12.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (“HTSUS”),2 subject to an import duty of 

12.5% ad valorem. Id. at 1263. GRK protested, claiming 

that the screws should have been classified under subheading 7318.14.10 as “self-tapping screws,” a classification that carries a 6.2% ad valorem duty. Customs denied 

GRK’s protest. Id. at 1272.3 

GRK appealed Customs’ decision to the Court of International Trade, which granted summary judgment in 

GRK’s favor. The court determined, as eo nomine provisions that describe all forms of an article by a specific 

name, the subheadings for “other wood screws” and “selftapping screws” cannot be interpreted based on use 

 

2 All references to the HTSUS refer to the governing provision determined by the date of importation, here 

the 2008 version. See LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 

F.3d 1311, 1314 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

3 The parties do not contest the eight-digit level 

classification of whether GRK’s “self-tapping screws” fall 

under subheading 7318.14.10 for “self-tapping screws 

having shanks or threads with a diameter of less than 6 

mm,” and not under subheading 7318.14.50 for “selftapping screws having shanks or threads with a diameter 

of 6 mm or more.” 
4 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

“[a]bsent limiting language or contrary legislative intent.” 

GRK I, 884 F. Supp. 2d at 1345. Applying the General 

Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”), the Court of International Trade defined the classification scope of “other wood 

screws” and “self-tapping screws” without accounting for 

use. Id. at 1348, 1351–52. The court found, based on 

their design characteristics, that all three of GRK’s imported screws are properly classified as “self-tapping 

screws” under subheading 7318.14.10. GRK I, 884 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1356. The Government appealed.

On appeal, we held that the Court of International 

Trade erred in “refus[ing] to consider the use of the 

screws at any step of determining the classification of the 

subject articles at issue.” GRK II, 761 F.3d at 1355. We

instructed the Court of International Trade to consider 

use in interpreting the common and commercial meaning 

of HTSUS terms (1) where the name of the tariff provision

itself inherently suggests a type of use, or (2) “once the 

tariff terms have been defined . . . the use of subject 

articles defines an article[’s] identity when determining 

whether it fits within the classification’s scope.” Id. at 

1359 (first citing CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 

649 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011); then citing Carl 

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

1999)). Accordingly, we vacated the judgment of the 

Court of International Trade and remanded for the court 

to consider use in both “defining the legal meaning of the 

tariff terms at issue” and in “determining the proper 

classification of the subject articles.” Id. at 1361. 

On remand, the Court of International Trade ordered 

pretrial discovery limited to the issues of “intended use,” 

“principal use,” and “actual use” of GRK’s imported 

screws. GRK IV, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 1262. Based on this 

additional discovery, the court recognized that the R4 

screw is used in “wood, particle board, plastic, sheet 

metal, cement fiberboard and wood decking, pressure 

treated lumber decking, cedar and redwood decking,” and 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 5

“can be used in woodworking and other applications and 

is designed to affix thin metal to wood.” Id. at 1265. With 

respect to the RT and Fin/Trim screws, the court noted 

that these screws are “used for most fine carpentry applications and trim applications,” and can also be used “to 

anchor composite decking to wood beams.” Id. 

The Court of International Trade undertook a new 

classification analysis. As a threshold determination on 

whether to apply the GRIs or the U.S. Additional Rules of 

Interpretation (“ARIs”),4 the court determined that neither tariff term “other wood screws” nor “self-tapping 

 

4 The ARIs provide the interpretative framework 

for tariff provisions defined by use. See, e.g., Aromont 

USA, Inc. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). We noted in GRK II that where the name of a 

tariff provision inherently suggests a type of use, the ARIs 

may need to be applied for the Court of International 

Trade to properly construe the tariff provision. 761 F.3d

at 1359 n.2 (citing Primal Lite, Inc. v. United States, 182 

F.3d 1362, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, we did not 

instruct the Court of International Trade on exactly how 

use, either principal or intended, should be considered in 

determining the meaning and scope of eo nomine provisions. Id at 1360–61. Nor did we abrogate the general 

rule that the ARIs do not apply to the construction of eo 

nomine tariff terms. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. 

United States, 845 F.3d 1158, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (declining to apply the ARIs despite the tariff provision 

disclosing certain uses because the interpretation “centered on terms describing an article by a specific name”). 

Here, the parties do not dispute that the GRIs control the 

interpretation of the eo nomine provisions at issue. We 

therefore need not decide whether the ARIs should have 

been consulted in this case.
6 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

screws” were so controlled by use such that the court 

would be required to consult the ARIs. Id. at 1271. The

court found that the terms’ physical characteristics “coincide to such an extent that the court must consider the 

intended use or design implicated by the tariff terms in 

addition to the physical characteristics” to distinguish 

between the terms’ common and commercial meanings. 

Id. Therefore, the court applied the GRIs, as it had in 

GRK I, and additionally considered the subject screws’ 

intended use. Specifically, the Court of International 

Trade considered “how a typical user would use the product, and its impact on defining the tariff term.” Id. at 

1277. It found that the Explanatory Notes suggest “that 

self-tapping screws are meant to be used to fasten a nonfibrous material (i.e., ‘sheets of metal, marble, slate, 

plastics’) to some other material.” Id. In contrast, the 

court found that “[n]early all dictionary definitions suggest that wood screws are intended to be used to affix 

wood to wood or to other fibrous materials.” Id.; see id. at 

1278 (first citing McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and 

Technical Terms 2302 (6th ed. 2003); then citing Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology 2378 (Christopher Morris ed., 1992)). The court rejected any notion 

that self-tapping screws are somehow limited to fastening 

non-fibrous material to other non-fibrous material. Id. 

Rather it found that “industry standards and dictionary 

definitions support the conclusion that the tariff term selftapping screw includes screws that are intended to fasten 

non-fibrous materials to fibrous materials as well as to 

non-fibrous materials.” Id. at 1277–78 (citing Academic 

Press Dictionary of Science and Technology 1951 (Christopher Morris ed. 1992); ANSI/ASME Standard 18.6.4 

¶¶ 1.3.1, 1.3.2). 

Based on the HTSUS headings, the section and chapter notes, the explanatory notes, the available lexicographic sources, and its review of intended use, the court 

concluded that (1) the common and commercial meaning 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 7

of “other wood screw” is “a screw that forms its own 

thread by compressing surrounding material designed to 

fasten wood to wood or other fibrous material,” and (2) the 

common and commercial meaning of “self-tapping screw” 

is a “specially hardened screw, that meets minimum 

torsional strength requirements, that can cut away material to form a mating thread in non-fibrous material, and 

is designed to fasten non-fibrous materials, such as metal, 

to either fibrous or non-fibrous materials.” Id. at 1278

(internal quotation marks omitted). The court confirmed 

its conclusion by reviewing the parties’ experts’ testimonies, finding the testimonies to be consistent with its 

constructions. Id.

The court then turned to whether GRK’s imported 

screws are properly classified as “other wood screws” or as 

“self-tapping screws” under the court’s constructions. Id. 

at 1280. Based on the undisputed facts, it found that the 

R4, RT, and Fit/Trim screws are “self-tapping screws” 

because they are capable of cutting a mating thread in 

non-fibrous materials, are made of case-hardened carbon 

steel or stainless steel, and meet minimal torsional 

strength requirements. Id. at 1280–81. The Court of 

International Trade further found that the intended use 

of GRK’s screws supports their classification as selftapping screws because they are “intended for fastening 

non-fibrous materials to other materials.” Id. at 1281. 

The court relied on the fact that GRK’s screws have a 

“Climatek coating” for its case-hardened carbon steel 

screws which allow the screws “to be driven into even 

very, very dense materials.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). It also found that the design 

of the R4 and RT screws support classifying them as selftapping because they have countersinking heads that 

allow for the screws to penetrate “hard, brittle, or thin 

plasticized surfaces veneered onto lumber or composite 

wood without causing mushrooming.” Id. at 1282. 

“Mushrooming” occurs when “non-fibrous material that 
8 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

the screw cuts and removes as it is driven would rise and 

create mushroom on the surface,” a concern that is not 

relevant for fastening wood or other fibrous materials. Id. 

(citations omitted). The RT screw also has a secondary 

reverse threading to avoid mushrooming altogether. Id. 

Lastly, the court found that the “special points and 

threading patterns” on the screws “better enable the 

screws at issue to be used in materials such as ‘sheet 

metal, plastics, medium-density fiberboard, polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) board, cement fiberboard, melamine, 

arborite, and other man-made composite materials.’” Id. 

After accounting for these design features and the screws’ 

intended use, the court found that GRK’s imported screws

fall under the HTSUS tariff classification subheading 

7318.14.10 for “self-tapping screws.” Id. The Court of 

International Trade thus entered summary judgment in 

favor of GRK. 

The Government appeals. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment by 

the Court of International Trade. Drygel, Inc. v. United 

States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The classification of goods under the HTSUS involves two steps. 

First, we ascertain the proper meaning of the tariff provision, which is a question of law that we review without 

deference. Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640, 

644 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Second, we determine whether the 

goods come within the description of those terms. Id. 

This second step is a factual question that we review for 

clear error. Id.

We accord deference to Customs’ classification rulings 

relative to the rulings’ “power to persuade.” United States 

v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 235 (2001). We, like the 

Court of International Trade, have an independent responsibility to decide the proper meaning and scope of 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 9

HTSUS terms. Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 

F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

DISCUSSION

The Government raises two issues on appeal. First, it 

argues that Court of International Trade erred in defining 

the HTSUS tariff terms “other wood screws” and “selftapping screws” by failing to consider physical characteristics that make them suitable for inserting and anchoring into wood or non-resilient materials, respectively. 

Second, should we find the Court of International Trade

erred in its construction of the tariff terms, the Government contends that this error caused the court to misclassify GRK’s screws as “self-tapping screws” instead of 

“other wood screws.” Because we agree with the Court of 

International Trade’s constructions of the common and 

commercial meanings for “other wood screws” and “selftapping screws,” we affirm. 

A. HTSUS CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK

To construe a tariff provision, we apply the GRIs, 

which are part of the HTSUS, in numerical order. Kahrs, 

713 F.3d at 644. If we find that a GRI is dispositive, we 

go no further. Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1163; Mita 

Copystar Am. v United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998). We construe HTSUS terms according to their 

common and commercial meanings, “which are presumed 

to be the same.” Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379. Under GRI 

1, we first look at the language of a classification heading, 

and any section or chapter notes, to determine if the 

subject product is classifiable under that heading. 

Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1163 (citing Orlando Food 

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

1998)). We may consult reliable sources of information to 

discern the common meaning of a tariff term, including 

dictionaries and scientific authorities. Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 

644. Although not binding, we may also consult the 

explanatory notes of the relevant chapters for guidance, 
10 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

as they generally indicate the proper construction of the 

various HTSUS provisions. Id. at 645 (citing JVC Co. of 

Am. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 

2000)). 

Here, where there is no factual dispute over the structure, design, or use of GRK’s imported screws, we need 

only determine the proper meaning and scope of the 

relevant HTSUS provisions. Id.

B. GRK’S SCREWS ARE SELF-TAPPING SCREWS

The Government argues that the common and commercial meaning of “other wood screw” is “a screw that is 

designed to be inserted and/or anchored into wood and 

other resilient materials.” Appellant’s Br. 24–25. Conversely, the Government contends that the common and 

commercial meaning of “self-tapping screws” are screws

exclusively “designed for use in non-wood applications 

such as fastening concrete, marble, or metal to metal.” Id. 

at 28–29. The Government thus avers that because 

GRK’s screws are designed for use in wood and resilient 

materials, they should be classified as “other wood 

screws” under HTSUS 7318.12, not as “self-tapping 

screws” under HTSUS 7318.14. Id. at 29. 

We note that the parties do not dispute that the 

HTSUS tariff terms at issue are eo nomine provisions. An 

eo nomine provision is one that names a specific product 

or describes by name the subject merchandise. See Clarendon Mktg., Inc. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1464, 1467 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). An eo nomine provision includes all 

forms of the named article, including improved forms. 

CamelBak, 649 F.3d at 1364–65. 

Despite the Government’s recognition that the disputed terms are eo nomine provisions, it asks the court to 

define the common and commercial meaning of “wood 

screw” and “self-tapping screw” based on what material 

the screw is intended to be anchored into. Thus, the 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 11

Government argues that the use of GRK’s screws controls

our interpretation of the tariff provisions. In GRK II, we 

instructed the Court of International Trade to consider 

use of the screws in interpreting the HTSUS tariff provisions, but the Government now seeks to elevate use as the 

sole consideration. We decline to do so. Adopting the 

Government’s position would all but abrogate the foundational tenet of tariff classification that eo nomine provisions are distinct from use provisions and do not depend 

on either principal or actual use of the imported merchandise. See Aromont, 671 F.3d at 1312. 

We also conclude that the Government’s proposed interpretation of “other wood screws” to mean “a screw that 

is designed to be inserted or anchored into wood and other 

resilient materials” is not borne out by the record. The

Government conceded during oral argument that “there is 

not an explicit reference to the term anchoring” in any of 

the record material aside from one dictionary definition 

that uses the term “insertion” and the Government’s 

proffered expert testimony. Oral Arg. at 3:01–

5:10, http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?f

l=2016-2623.mp3. As explained below, the Government’s 

proposed interpretations of the disputed tariff terms are 

unsupported by the record. 

The Government supports its argument by first looking to the Glossary of Terms published by the American 

National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”). We have 

recognized ANSI’s and ASME’s expertise in the field of

fasteners. Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 118 F. 

Supp. 2d 1238, 1244 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000) (collecting 

cases), aff’d, 267 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Specifically, 

the Government relies on ANSI/ASME Standard B18.12-

2001, which provides, in relevant part, the following 

definitions of wood screws and tapping screws: 
12 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

3.1.2.30 wood screw: a thread forming screw having a slotted or recessed head, gimlet point, and a 

sharp crested, coarse pitch thread, and generally 

available with flat, oval and round head styles. It 

is designed to produce a mating thread when assembled into wood or other resilient materials. 

3.1.2.22 tapping screw: has a slotted, recessed, or 

wrenching head and is designed to form or cut a 

mating thread in one or more of the parts to be 

assembled. 

J.A. 770, 772. According to the Government, the screws’ 

intended purpose is the distinguishing feature because 

“wood screws are those tapping screws that are designed 

to be used and anchored in wood and other resilient 

materials.” Appellant’s Br. 22. But the Government does 

not establish what design characteristics of tapping 

screws or wood screws would result in the different applications. The Government conceded at oral argument that

a self-tapping screw may be used in wood in some limited 

circumstances, but such use would not be “ideal.” Oral 

Arg. 6:04–6:17. 

The subheadings’ explanatory notes also do not lend

strong support to the Government’s position that selftapping screws are limited to use in non-resilient materials. The explanatory notes for fasteners under heading 

7318 do not consider “insertion” or “anchoring” as the 

distinguishing feature between self-tapping and wood 

screws, but provide the following clarification: 

Screws for wood differ from bolts and screws for 

metal in that they are tapered and pointed, and 

they have a steeper cutting thread since they have 

to bite their own way into the material. Further, 

wood screws almost always have slotted or recessed heads and they are never used with nuts. 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 13

[S]elf-tapping (Parker) screws . . . resemble 

wood screws in that they have a slotted head and 

a cutting thread and are pointed or tapered at the 

end. They can therefore cut their own passage into thin sheets of metal, marble, slate, plastics, etc. 

J.A. 812. As with the ANSI/ASME Standard, nothing in 

the explanatory notes limits the material that selftapping screws can be anchored into. Rather, the explanatory notes define self-tapping screws based on the physical features that permit the screws to cut mating threads 

into certain materials like metal, marble, slate, and 

plastics. Id. This definition is consistent with the Court 

of International Trade’s construction that allows for a 

self-tapping screw to fasten non-fibrous materials to 

either fibrous or non-fibrous materials. GRK IV, 180 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1278. 

The Government’s reliance on various dictionary definitions is unavailing, as these definitions do not conclusively identify the anchoring material as the key

distinction between wood screws and self-tapping screws. 

To advance its argument that the anchoring material 

controls our interpretation of the tariff terms, the Government selects a definition of “wood screw,” which defines the screw as a “pointed metal screw formed with a 

sharp thread of comparatively co[a]rse pitch for insertion 

in wood.” GRK IV, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 1274 n.23 (quoting 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2631 (Philip Babcock Gove, Ph.D. and Merriam-Webster Editorial 

Staff eds. 1993)). However, a wide variety of other dictionary definitions note that self-tapping screws can be 

anchored into wood as well as other materials. Id. at 

1274 n.26. For example, the Academic Press Dictionary of 

Science and Technology defines a self-tapping screw as “a 

specially hardened screw used in wood and soft metals

that self-cuts its own threads into the material being 

worked on.” Id. (emphasis added). Other dictionaries do 
14 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

not specify the anchoring material as relevant to the 

definition of self-tapping screws, but focus on the hardened nature of such screws. Id. at 1277–78. The 

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 

provides that a self-tapping screw has a “specially hardened thread that makes it possible for the screws to form 

their own internal thread in sheet metal and soft materials when driven into a hole.” Id. at 1274 n.26. Similarly, 

the Encyclopedia of Building and Construction Terms 

defines a self-tapping screw as a “hardened steel screw 

with a special, partially slotted shank which, as it is 

screwed into a plain hole, will cut or form its own 

threads.” Id. Again, these definitions do not require selftapping screws to be anchored in any specific kind of 

material. The dictionary definitions of record do not 

strongly weigh in favor of the Government’s interpretation that self-tapping screws can only be anchored in nonresilient material. 

The Government also relies on a Court of Customs 

and Patent Appeals case, Trans-Atlantic Co. v. United 

States, 68 Cust. Ct. 105 (1972), for the proposition that

this court should adopt a use-based definition of “wood 

screws” similar to that determined under the old Tariff 

Schedule of the United States provisions (“TSUS”). 

Appellant’s Br. 23. In Trans-Atlantic, the Customs Court

considered the TSUS tariff term “wood screws” to be those 

screws “primarily used in wood.” 68 Cust. Ct. at 108. But 

cases resolved under the TSUS are not binding on this 

court as the TSUS operated under an entirely different 

set of interpretative rules, known as the General Headnotes and Rules of Interpretation. JVC, 234 F.3d at 1355. 

In any event, Trans-Atlantic has little bearing on our 

interpretation of “other wood screws” under the HTSUS. 

We noted in JVC Co. of America v. United States that the 

prior TSUS cases may be considered instructive in interpreting HTSUS headings when the nomenclature at issue 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 15

has not changed. Id. Here, the TSUS did not contain an 

eo nomine or use provision for self-tapping screws. The 

addition of the self-tapping screw subheading in the 

HTSUS represents a significant change in nomenclature, 

one that highlights the applicability of the eo nomine

provisions while rendering less probative prior interpretations of the TSUS. We thus decline to extend the holding 

in Trans-Atlantic to our interpretation here of the disputed eo nomine HTSUS subheadings.

Lastly, we see no error in and decline to depart from

the Court of International Trade’s interpretation of the 

common and commercial meanings of “other wood screws” 

under HTSUS 7318.12 and “self-tapping screws” under 

HTSUS 7318.14. The court properly applied the GRIs

and consulted the explanatory notes, dictionary definitions, and expert testimony before reaching its constructions. GRK IV, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 1271–80.5 We conclude

 

5 The Government argues that the subheading for 

another type of screw, “coach screws” under subheading 

7318.11, indicates that the anchoring material is the 

critical distinction between wood screws and self-tapping 

screws. The Government does not argue that GRK’s 

screws fall within subheading 7318.11. Rather, the 

Government asks us to apply GRI 6, which provides that 

“the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those 

subheadings and any related subheading notes and, 

mutatis mutandis, to the above rules on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable.” As we find that the Court of International Trade’s 

application of GRI 1 is sufficient to define the eo nomine

provisions at issue at the sixth-digit level, we need not 

reach GRI 6. Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1163 (“The GRI 

apply in numerical order, meaning that subsequent rules 
16 GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES

that the Court of International Trade appropriately 

looked to design characteristics that distinguish wood 

screws from self-tapping screws. Id. at 1278. For the 

reasons set forth in the Court of International Trade’s 

opinion, we find these common and commercial meanings

of “other wood screws” and “self-tapping screws” to be 

amply supported by the source material of record without 

further elaboration. We thus hold that (1) the common 

and commercial meaning of “other wood screw” under 

HTSUS 7318.12 is “a screw that forms its own thread by 

compressing surrounding material designed to fasten 

wood to wood or other fibrous material,” and (2) the 

common and commercial meaning of “self-tapping screw” 

under HTSUS 7318.14 is a “specially hardened screw, 

that meets minimum torsional strength requirements, 

that can cut away material to form a mating thread in 

non-fibrous material, and is designed to fasten nonfibrous materials, such as metal, to either fibrous or nonfibrous materials.”

CONCLUSION

We decline to accept the Government’s invitation to

elevate the role of use in our interpretation of the eo 

nomine provisions at issue here. On remand, the Court of 

International Trade complied with this court’s command 

in GRK II that it consider “use” in its review of the scope 

of the disputed HTSUS terms. Because the Court of 

 

are inapplicable if a preceding rule provides proper classification.” (citing Mita Copystar, 160 F.3d at 712)). In any 

event, we agree with the Court of International Trade’s 

conclusion that the specific identification of “coach 

screws” as a type of “wood screws,” only serves to reinforce the fact that the subheadings of “other wood screws” 

and “self-tapping screws” are distinct and mutually 

exclusive. GRK IV, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 1273 n.22. 
GRK CANADA, LTD. v. UNITED STATES 17

International Trade properly applied the GRIs and appropriately considered the screws’ intended use in crafting its interpretations of the eo nomine provisions of 

“other wood screws” and “self-tapping screws,” we affirm

the judgment of the Court of International Trade that 

GRK’s three imported screws are properly classified as 

“self-tapping screws” under HTSUS 7318.14.10. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.