United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1605 

FAUS GROUP, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Daniel G. Jarcho, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Brett I. Harris, Pisani & Roll PLLC, of 

Washington, DC. 

Amy M. Rubin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of New York, New York, argued for defendantappellee. With her on the brief were Barbara S. Williams, Attorney in Charge, and 

Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was Yelena 

Slepak, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, 

United States Customs and Border Protection, of New York, New York. 

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade 

Judge Donald C. Pogue
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1605 

FAUS GROUP, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in 

case no. 03-00313, Judge Donald C. Pogue. 

__________________________ 

DECIDED: September 25, 2009 

__________________________ 

Before SCHALL, PLAGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. 

The issue in this classification case is whether laminated flooring panels imported 

by Faus Group, Inc. (Faus) are properly classified as “fiberboard” under heading 4411 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), as the United States 

Customs Service (Customs) classified the goods, or as “builders’ joinery” under heading 

4418, as Faus contends. The United States Court of International Trade sustained 

Customs’s classification. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the proper 

classification is under heading 4418, and more specifically under subheading 
4418.90.40, a residual provision. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of 

International Trade. 

BACKGROUND 

The imported goods at issue in this case are laminated flooring panels made with 

a core of fiberboard that has a density between 0.85 and 0.95 g/cm3

. A color 

photograph overlay on each panel simulates the appearance of a natural wood product. 

The panels are non-structural finished articles designed to be installed by end users 

over a structural subfloor. Each panel has tongue-and-groove joints on its edges to 

facilitate assembly with other like flooring panels. 

Customs classified the flooring panels under HTSUS heading 4411,1 which 

reads: “Fiberboard of wood or other ligneous materials, whether or not bonded with 

resins or other organic substances.” Within heading 4411, Customs classified the 

goods under subheading 4411.19.40, a residual provision that reads: “Fiberboard of a 

density exceeding 0.8 g/cm3: Other: Other: Other.” The duty rate for subheading 

4411.19.40 is 6% ad valorem. 

Faus protested Customs’s classification. After Customs denied the protest, Faus 

filed suit in the Court of International Trade. Faus’s complaint alleged that the 

merchandise is properly classifiable under heading 4418, which reads: “Builders’ joinery 

and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and assembled parquet panels; 

shingles and shakes.” Faus asserted that within heading 4418 the proper subheading is 

4418.30.00 (“Parquet panels”), free of duty. In the alternative, Faus urged that the 

 1

 All HTSUS citations are to the 2001 version. 

2008-1605 2
goods should be classified under subheading 4418.90.40 (“Other: Other”), at the rate of 

3.2% ad valorem. 

In response to the Government’s position, Faus further alleged that if its flooring 

products are to be classified under the Government’s preferred heading of 4411, the 

proper subheading is 4411.19.30, which reads: “Fiberboard of a density exceeding 0.8 

g/cm3: Other: Other: Tileboard which has been continuously worked along any of its 

edges and is dedicated for use in the construction of walls, ceilings or other parts of 

buildings.” Subheading 4411.19.30 is a duty-free provision. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a fifty-three page 

analysis, an analysis that can only be described as Talmudic in its breadth and 

thoroughness, the trial court parsed the verbiage contained in the competing headings, 

explored dictionary definitions, and sorted through a wealth of prior cases on the 

construction of HTSUS headings. Faus Group, Inc. v. United States, 358 F. Supp. 2d 

1244 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004). The trial court determined that the imported goods are 

prima facie classifiable under both heading 4418 and heading 4411. Id. at 1249-65. 

The court then applied General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 3(a), the rule of relative 

specificity, to conclude that the products should be classified under heading 4411 

because it is the more specific of the two headings. Id. at 1266-69. 

The parties had not addressed the question of under which subheading of 4411 

the merchandise would fall if the panels were classifiable under that heading, relying 

instead on arguments presented in a companion case involving similar flooring panels, 

Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004). In that 

case, the trial court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment after 

2008-1605 3
finding the record insufficient to either establish or exclude the possibility of a 

commercial designation for the term “tileboard” in subheading 4411.19.30. Applying its 

reasoning in Witex to this case, the trial court concluded that summary judgment was 

inappropriate and set the case for trial. 

Faus subsequently abandoned its argument that the correct subheading under 

heading 4411 was 4411.19.30 (“tileboard”), and thus there were no triable issues 

remaining. The trial court, however, delayed entry of final judgment until final judgment 

in the Witex case was entered. After trial in Witex, the court found that the flooring 

panels at issue were not “tileboard,” and therefore were properly classified by Customs 

under 4411.19.40, the residual provision for fiberboard. Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United 

States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). The trial court then entered final 

judgment against Faus in this case. Faus Group, Inc. v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 2d 

1388 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). 

Faus filed a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(5). 

DISCUSSION 

The specific issue before us on appeal is whether the laminated flooring panels 

imported by Faus are properly classified under heading 4411, fiberboard, as the 

Government contends, or under heading 4418, builders’ joinery, as Faus contends. The 

trial court ultimately decided this issue in favor of the Government. 

A classification decision involves two steps. The first step addresses the proper 

meaning of the relevant tariff provisions, which is a question of law. Orlando Food 

Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The second step involves 

2008-1605 4
determining whether the merchandise at issue falls within a particular tariff provision as 

construed, which, when disputed, is a question of fact. Id. However, when, as here, 

there is no factual dispute regarding the merchandise, its structure and use, the 

resolution of the classification issue turns on the first step, determining the proper 

meaning and scope of the relevant tariff provisions. See Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United 

States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 

148 F.3d 1363, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1998). While we accord deference to a Customs 

classification ruling relative to its “power to persuade,” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 

U.S. 218, 235 (2001) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)), we 

have “an independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the proper meaning and 

scope of HTSUS terms.” Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1358 

(Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

When determining the correct classification for merchandise, a court first 

construes the language of the headings in question, in light of any related section or 

chapter notes. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440 (citing GRI 1). If goods are prima facie 

classifiable under two or more headings, the court compares the language of the 

headings and classifies the goods under the heading providing the most specific 

description. Id. (citing GRI 3). Only after determining the proper heading does the court 

look to the subheadings to decide the correct classification for the merchandise. Id.

(citing GRI 6). 

As did the trial court, we begin our analysis with heading 4418. Faus argues that 

the trial court correctly determined that the laminated flooring panels at issue are prima 

2008-1605 5
facie classifiable under that heading as “[b]uilders’ joinery.” The Government responds 

that, under a proper interpretation of heading 4418, that classification cannot be applied 

to the merchandise in question. 

We agree with Faus. Based on the definitions of the term’s two key words, 

“builders’” and “joinery,” the trial court defined “builders’ joinery” as “already joined 

pieces of wood or wood products capable of being joined with joints” that “function as 

non-structural elements of a building” and are used as “finishing . . . for the interior of a 

building.” Faus, 358 F. Supp. 2d at 1253. The court also noted that according to Note 3 

to HTSUS Chapter 44, heading 4418 applies to articles of fiberboard just as it applies to 

articles of wood. 

The Government does not challenge the trial court’s definition of “builders’ 

joinery,” a definition we accept for purposes of this case. Nor does the Government 

contend that the flooring panels imported by Faus fail to meet that general description. 

Instead, the Government maintains that heading 4418 includes only the products 

specifically identified in the heading, and to non-structural builders’ products that are 

outside the scope of other headings. The trial court rejected the Government’s position, 

and so do we. 

First, while the plain language of heading 4418 states that builders’ joinery 

“includ[es] cellular wood panels and assembled parquet panels,” that does not indicate 

that the heading is limited only to those exemplars. Furthermore, nothing in heading 

4418 suggests that it applies only to products that are not described by the language of 

other provisions. Indeed, as noted, the HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation 

contemplate that products may be described by multiple headings, and include rules 

2008-1605 6
specifically to address such situations. See GRI 3 (setting forth classification rules 

when “goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings”). 

Much of the argument in this case centers on the meaning of Note 4 to Chapter 

44 (hereafter Note 4), which provides: 

Products of heading 4410, 4411 or 4412 may be worked to form the 

shapes provided for in respect of the articles of heading 4409 [i.e., wood 

continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, etc.) along any of its edges or 

faces], curved, corrugated, perforated, cut or formed to shapes other than 

square or rectangular or submitted to any other operation provided it does 

not give them the character of articles of other headings. (Emphasis 

added.) 

The dispute involves the extent to which raw fiberboard that has been processed to the 

point of having the character of articles of other headings is removed from the scope of 

heading 4411 by the proviso at the end of the note. Contrary to the Government’s 

argument, however, Note 4 has no effect on the scope of heading 4418. Even if the 

Government is correct that Note 4 does not exclude the products at issue from coming 

within heading 4411, Note 4 does not narrow other headings such as heading 4418 by 

excluding those products that also fit within heading 4411. As discussed, goods can be, 

and often are, classifiable under more than one heading. 

Having concluded that the trial court correctly determined that Faus’s flooring 

panels are prima facie classifiable under heading 4418, we turn next to heading 4411. 

Faus argues on appeal that the trial court erred in interpreting Note 4 to permit 

classification of the imported goods under heading 4411. Under Faus’s reading, 

fiberboard that has been subject to any of the enumerated processes in Note 4 is 

removed from heading 4411 if the process results in a product with the character of 

another heading. Since its flooring panels have been tongued and grooved and fall 

2008-1605 7
within the scope of heading 4418, Faus argues, they are excluded from heading 4411. 

The Government responds that the trial court correctly held that the proviso at the end 

of Note 4 applies only to “any other operation” (i.e., only non-enumerated processes). 

Therefore, the Government’s position is that Note 4 does not remove the imported 

products from heading 4411. 

If we were to hold that the trial court’s interpretation of Note 4 was incorrect, then 

Faus’s products would not be prima facie classifiable under heading 4411, leaving 

heading 4418 as the only possible classification. For argument sake, we will assume 

that the trial court’s interpretation is correct, as the Government urges, and that, in 

addition to heading 4418, the products are prima facie classifiable under heading 4411. 

That circumstance then invokes the application of General Rule of Interpretation 3(a), 

as the trial court recognized. However, our understanding of how GRI 3(a) applies to 

this case differs from that of the trial court. 

According to GRI 3(a), when a product is prima facie classifiable under two or 

more headings, “[t]he heading which provides the most specific description shall be 

preferred to headings providing a more general description.” See Orlando Food, 140 

F.3d at 1441. Under this rule, “we look to the provision with requirements that are more 

difficult to satisfy and that describe the article with the greatest degree of accuracy and 

certainty.” Id.

In Orlando Food, we compared heading 2103, which covers preparations for 

sauces, with heading 2002, which covers prepared and preserved tomatoes. We 

concluded that heading 2103 was “more difficult to satisfy” because producing a 

preparation for a sauce necessarily involves some degree of processing, whereas 

2008-1605 8
heading 2002 required only minimal processing. Because the requirements of heading 

2103 were more difficult to satisfy, we held that it was the more specific heading. Id. at 

1441-42. 

A similar analysis applies in this case. In order for a product to be classified 

under heading 4418, using the trial court’s definition of “builders’ joinery,” it is necessary 

that the raw material (fiberboard or other wood-based material) be processed so that 

there can be a joining of pieces, or so that products are created that are capable of 

being joined. In contrast, while fiberboard that has undergone some processing may 

under Note 4 still come within heading 4411, processing is not a requirement for 

classification in that heading, which by its plain language includes raw fiberboard. Thus, 

under Orlando Food, heading 4418 is more difficult to satisfy and therefore more 

specific than heading 4411. In arriving at the opposite conclusion, the trial court failed 

to give adequate weight to the “more difficult to satisfy” test described in Orlando Food. 

Other cases have determined which of two headings was more specific by 

considering the range of items covered by each heading or the range of uses of 

products in each heading. See Russ Berrie & Co. v. United States, 381 F.3d 1334, 

1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“imitation jewelry” more specific than “festive articles” because 

the former covers a narrower set of items); Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 

1304, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“vanity cases” more specific than “articles of a kind 

normally carried in the pocket or the handbag” because articles within the latter “vary 

widely and have different principal uses”). 

Application of those concepts to the case before us also leads to the conclusion 

that heading 4418 is more specific than heading 4411. As defined by the trial court, 

2008-1605 9
“builders’ joinery” covers only products used as non-structural elements in the 

construction of buildings. Thus, while heading 4418 may embrace a number of different 

products, the uses of those products are rather limited. By contrast, heading 4411 is 

not limited at all by use. 

Furthermore, the range of products covered by heading 4411 is less restricted 

than the Government would have us believe. It is undisputed that heading 4411 covers 

raw fiberboard, regardless of its use. In addition, under Note 4, heading 4411 includes 

fiberboard that has been processed as long as it has not been worked to the point of 

taking on the character of a product under another heading. Finally, under the trial 

court’s interpretation of Note 4, which we have assumed is correct for purposes of this 

analysis, heading 4411 also covers any fiberboard product that has the character of an 

article under another heading as long as it was created using one of the many 

enumerated processes in Note 4. The trial court’s statement that “there are few 

transformations to which fiberboard may be subjected and remain classifiable under 

heading 4411,” Faus, 358 F. Supp. 2d at 1267, is not entirely consistent with its earlier 

interpretation of Note 4 as establishing only minimal limitations on the types of 

fiberboard articles classifiable under heading 4411. Thus heading 4411 covers a large 

variety of unprocessed and processed fiberboard products, whereas heading 4418 

covers only processed products (made from fiberboard or other wood-based material) 

that are used as non-structural elements in the construction of buildings. Because 

heading 4418 encompasses a narrower range of items and uses, it is the more specific 

of the two headings. 

2008-1605 10
2008-1605 11

In sum, according to the rule of relative specificity set forth in GRI 3(a), the 

imported products at issue in this case should be classified under heading 4418, which 

we have concluded is more specific than heading 4411. The trial court’s conclusion to 

the contrary was in error. 

That leaves the question of the proper subheading under heading 4418. On 

appeal, Faus has abandoned its earlier position that its goods should be classified as 

“parquet panels” under 4418.30.00. Therefore, the imported flooring panels should be 

classified within subheading 4418.90.40, the residual category for “builders’ joinery,” 

subject to a duty of 3.2% ad valorem. 

CONCLUSION 

The judgment of the Court of International Trade is 

REVERSED.