United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THE CONTAINER STORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1666

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:09-cv-00327-MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

Decided: July 18, 2017 

______________________ 

ROBERT B. SILVERMAN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, 

Silverman & Klestadt LLP, New York, NY, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ALAN R.

KLESTADT, ROBERT FLEMING SEELY.

MARCELLA POWELL, International Trade Field Office, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for 

defendant-appellee. Also represented by AMY RUBIN,

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, BENJAMIN C. MIZER; PAULA S.

SMITH, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, United 

States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, United 

States Department of Homeland Security, New York, NY.
 2 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

MAYER, Circuit Judge. 

The Container Store appeals the final judgment of the 

United States Court of International Trade (“Trade 

Court”) granting the government’s motion for summary 

judgment and concluding that imported elfa® top tracks 

and hanging standards were properly classified under 

subheading 8302.42.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (“HTSUS”) as “[b]ase metal mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture.” 

See Container Store v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 

1331, 1348–49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016) (“Container Store 

II”). Because we conclude that the subject imports should 

instead be classified under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.80 as parts of unit furniture, we reverse and 

remand.

BACKGROUND

The Container Store’s top tracks and hanging standards are two components of its elfa® modular storage and 

organization system. See id. at 1333. Consumers can 

assemble the different components of this system “in a 

variety of configurations to create a customized, modular 

storage unit.” Id. The top tracks and hanging standards, 

which are made of epoxy-bonded steel, see id., “serve as 

the frame or support structure in a complete elfa® system,” id. at 1344.

A top track has a flat back and is designed to be affixed horizontally, using screws or anchors, to a vertical 

surface such as a door or a wall. It has top and bottom 

edges that “protrude and respectively bend downward and 

upward to form the track’s upper and lower lips.” Id. at 

1333. A hanging standard, which has an open back and a 

flat front with rows of evenly spaced slots, is suspended 
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 3

vertically “from a top track by means of notches on the top 

end of the standard that slide into the top track’s lower 

lip.” Id. Consumers can attach various additional elfa® 

components, such as baskets, drawers, and shelves, to the 

hanging standards. Id. at 1334. The top tracks and 

hanging standards are designed to be used only with 

other elfa® system components. Id.

The Container Store imported the elfa® top tracks 

and hanging standards through the Port of Houston, 

Texas, in October 2007 and January 2008. See id. U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) liquidated 

the subject merchandise under subheading 8302.41.60, a 

provision for base metal mountings and fittings suitable 

for buildings. The Container Store filed timely protests 

challenging Customs’ classification, arguing that the 

subject merchandise should instead be classified under 

subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of furniture. Customs 

denied these protests, relying on a prior Customs ruling 

that had been issued to The Container Store. See Cust. B. 

& Dec. HQ 967149, 2004 U.S. CUSTOM HQ LEXIS 411, 

at *1 (Nov. 2, 2004) (“HQ 967149”). In that prior ruling, 

Customs held that the elfa® top tracks and hanging 

standards at issue were properly classified under subheading 8302.41.60 as mountings suitable for buildings. 

Id. at *11, *20–21. In declining to classify the merchandise under subheading 8302.42.30 as mountings suitable 

for furniture, Customs explained that “the top tracks and 

hanging standards are not accessory items to be used 

with furniture,” but “[i]nstead . . . form the structure of 

the furniture.” Id. at *17. Customs further explained 

that “[s]tructural elements of furniture are not mountings 

and fittings suitable for furniture” and therefore cannot 

be classified under subheading 8302.42.30. Id. The 

Container Store then appealed to the Trade Court, which 

placed the appeal on its reserve calendar pending resolution of another appeal filed by The Container Store involving identical merchandise. See Container Store v. 
 4 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

United States, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) 

(“Container Store I”).

In Container Store I, Judge Ridgway granted The 

Container Store’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards at 

issue were properly classified under subheading 

9403.90.80 as parts of unit furniture. Id. at 1336–38. 

Relying on this court’s decision in storeWALL, LLC v. 

United States, 644 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Judge 

Ridgway determined that the elfa® organization and 

storage system, like the storeWALL organization and 

storage system, “constitutes ‘unit furniture,’ because it 

consists of components that are fitted together with other 

pieces to form a larger system, it is designed to be hung 

on or fixed to a wall, and it is assembled together so as to 

suit specific individual consumers’ particular needs to 

organize and store various objects or articles.” Container 

Store I, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 1337. She emphasized, moreover, that “it is the very versatility and adaptability of 

systems such as the elfa® system and the storeWALL 

system that render them unit furniture and distinguish 

them from the run-of-the-mill coat, hat and similar racks 

that are specifically excluded from classification as furniture.” Id. at 1338 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). According to Judge Ridgway, because the metal 

elfa® top tracks and hanging standards, like the plastic 

wall panels and locator tabs at issue in storeWALL, are 

“dedicated solely for use with a completed” unit furniture 

system, they are properly classified as parts of unit furniture under heading 9403.1 Id. (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

 

1 The government subsequently appealed Judge 

Ridgway’s decision to classify the elfa® top tracks and 

hanging standards under subheading 9403.90.80, but 

later abandoned its appeal.
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 5

Judge Barnett reached a different conclusion with respect to the classification of the elfa® top tracks and 

hanging standards at issue in the present appeal. See

Container Store II, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 1348–49. Judge 

Barnett acknowledged that this court, in storeWALL, 644 

F.3d at 1363–64, held that the plastic wall panels and 

locator tabs used in the storeWALL modular storage 

system were properly classified under heading 9403 as 

parts of unit furniture. See Container Store II, 145 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1340–41. He further acknowledged that the 

“elfa® top [tracks] and hanging standards are functionally 

equivalent to the storeWALL system.” Id. at 1344 (footnote omitted). Judge Barnett noted, however, that “Chapter 94 Note 1(d) excludes parts of general use from 

Chapter 94, while Section XV Note 2(c) specifically places 

parts of general use into heading 8302, HTSUS.” Id. at 

1346. In Judge Barnett’s view, because the elfa® top 

tracks and hanging standards are parts of general use, 

they are properly classified under heading 8302 and 

excluded from heading 9403. Id. at 1349. 

The Container Store then appealed to this court. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

I.

We review the grant of summary judgment by the 

Trade Court de novo. Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 

524 F.3d 1287, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Russell Stadelman 

& Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). The proper interpretation of HTSUS headings and 

subheadings is a question of law, reviewed without deference. Drygel, Inc. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1133 

(Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Warner-Lambert Co. v. United 

States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasizing 

that “this court has an independent responsibility to 

decide the legal issue of the proper meaning and scope of 

HTSUS terms”).
 6 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

“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.” Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United 

States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is guided by the 

principles set forth in the General Rules of Interpretation. 

See Millenium Lumber Distribution Ltd. v. United States, 

558 F.3d 1326, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). These rules are 

applied in numerical order, and if a particular rule resolves the classification issue, there is no need to examine 

subsequent rules. See CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United 

States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Under 

General Rule of Interpretation 1, a court must determine 

the appropriate classification for merchandise “according 

to the terms of the headings and any relative section or 

chapter notes.” See Millenium, 558 F.3d at 1328–29. 

“HTSUS terms are construed according to their common 

and commercial meanings, which are presumed to be the 

same absent contrary legislative intent.” Len-Ron Mfg. 

Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

II.

The dispute here centers on whether the subject imports are properly classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

8302.42.30 as mountings and fittings suitable for furniture or under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.80 as parts of 

furniture.2 Subheading 8302.42.30 covers:

8302 Base metal mountings, fittings and similar 

articles suitable for furniture, doors, staircases, 

windows, blinds, coachwork, saddlery, trunks, 

chests, caskets or the like; base metal hat racks, 

 

2 Subheading 8302.42.30 carries a 3.9% duty, 

whereas subheading 9403.90.80 is a duty-free provision.
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 7

hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures; castors 

with mountings of base metal; automatic door 

closers of base metal; and base metal parts thereof:

8302.42 Other, suitable for furniture: 

8302.42.30 Of iron or steel, of 

aluminum or of zinc.

HTSUS subheading 9403.90.80 covers:

9403 Other furniture and parts thereof:

9403.90 Parts:

9403.90.80 Other.

In storeWALL, we defined “unit furniture,” for purposes of heading 9403, as an article:

(a) fitted with other pieces to form a larger system 

or which is itself composed of smaller complementary items, (b) designed to be hung, to be fixed to 

the wall, or to stand one on the other or side by 

side, and (c) assembled together in various ways 

to suit the consumer’s individual needs to hold 

various objects or articles, but (d) exclud[ing] other wall fixtures such as coat, hat and similar 

racks, key racks, clothes brush hangers, and 

newspaper racks.

644 F.3d at 1361 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted); see also id. at 1363.

The government acknowledges that “[t]he elfa® system facially satisfies this definition as it consists of vari[ous] pieces that form a larger storage or organizational 

system that is designed to be hung on a wall and assembled in various ways to suit the consumer’s needs.” It 

argues, however, that because the elfa® top tracks and 
 8 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

hanging standards are “parts of general use” and such 

parts are excluded from the scope of heading 9403,3 they 

cannot be classified under heading 9403 but must instead 

be classified under heading 8302.

The Container Store does not dispute that parts of 

general use covered by heading 8302 are excluded from 

the scope of heading 9403. It asserts, however, that the 

elfa® top tracks and hanging standards are not parts of 

general use because they are essential structural components of the elfa® system. It further contends that because the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards, like 

the plastic locator tabs and wall panels at issue in storeWALL, 644 F.3d at 1363–64, are components of a unit 

furniture system, they are properly classified as parts of 

unit furniture under heading 9403. 

We agree with The Container Store. In concluding 

that the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards constitute parts of general use, the Trade Court failed to give 

due consideration to Explanatory Note 83.02, which 

provides pertinent guidance as to the merchandise covered by heading 8302. See World Cust. Org., Harmonized 

Commodity Description & Coding Sys. Explanatory Notes, 

Explanatory Note 83.02. “The World Customs Organization’s Explanatory Notes that accompany each Chapter of 

the HTSUS, while not legally binding, are persuasive and 

are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the 

 

3 Note 1(d) to Chapter 94 states, in relevant part, 

that the chapter does not include “[p]arts of general use 

as defined in note 2 to section XV.” Note 2 to section XV, 

which covers articles of base metal, states that the phrase 

“[p]arts of general use” includes “[a]rticles of heading . . . 

8302.” Read together, these notes indicate that if items 

are parts of general use covered by heading 8302, they 

cannot be classified in heading 9403. See Container Store 

II, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 1345–46. 
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 9

tariff provision.” Lemans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 

1311, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. 

United States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the Explanatory Notes were “prepared by 

the World Customs Organization to accompany the international harmonized schedule”). Explanatory Note 83.02 

states:

[Heading 8302] covers general purpose classes of 

base metal accessory fittings and mountings such 

as are used largely on furniture, doors, windows, 

coachwork, etc. Goods within such general classes 

remain in this heading even if they are designed 

for particular uses (e.g., door handles or hinges for 

automobiles). The heading does not, however, extend to goods forming an essential part of the 

structure of the article, such as window frames or 

swivel devices for revolving chairs.

This provision draws a sharp distinction between 

“general purpose . . . accessory fittings and mountings,” 

which fall within the scope of heading 8302 and “goods 

forming an essential part of the structure of [an] article,” 

which do not. The top tracks and hanging standards 

provide the indispensable structural framework for the 

elfa® modular storage unit, and without them the system 

could not hang from a vertical surface. See Container 

Store II, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 1334 (explaining that the top 

tracks and hanging standards “serve as the frame or 

support structure in a complete elfa® system”); see also 

Container Store I, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 1332 (stating that 

the “[t]op tracks and hanging standards are the core 

components of the elfa® system” and “serve as the ‘backbone’ of [that] system”). Because the subject imports are 

essential structural components of the elfa® modular 

storage unit, they are excluded from heading 8302. See 

HQ 967149, 2004 U.S. CUSTOM HQ LEXIS 411, at *17 

(explaining that elfa® top tracks and hanging standards 
 10 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

cannot properly be classified in subheading 8302.42.30 

because they are “structural elements of the shelving unit” 

(emphasis added)).

A review of the products listed in Explanatory Note 

83.02 reinforces our conclusion that heading 8302 does 

not cover the subject merchandise. Explanatory Note 

83.02 states that items “such as” swivel devices for revolving chairs and frames for windows, which “form[] an 

essential part of the structure of [an] article,” are excluded from heading 8302. A swivel device, which is integrated between the base and the seat of a revolving chair, is 

part of the framework of the chair and allows it to rotate. 

A window frame holds and positions the window glass. 

The elfa® top tracks and hanging standards are analogous to these products. Just as a swivel device is an 

indispensable skeletal component of a revolving chair and 

a window frame is an indispensable skeletal component of 

a completed window assembly, the top tracks and hanging 

standards are essential skeletal components of an elfa® 

modular storage unit. See, e.g., Lemans, 660 F.3d at 

1320–22 (analyzing a list of examples provided in the 

Explanatory Notes in interpreting the term “sports 

equipment”); Totes, Inc. v. United States, 69 F.3d 495, 

499–501 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (considering the examples listed 

in the Explanatory Notes when determining the proper 

classification for automobile “trunk organizers”).

III.

As the government correctly points out, Explanatory 

Notes may not be deployed to contravene the plain meaning of a tariff provision. See Airflow Tech., 524 F.3d at 

1293 (“[W]hen the language of the tariff provision is 

unambiguous and the Explanatory Notes contradictory, 

we do not afford [the Explanatory Notes] any weight.” 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (second 

alteration in original)). According to the government, the 

language of Explanatory Note 83.02 which excludes 
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 11

“goods forming an essential part of the structure of [an] 

article” from the scope of heading 8302 should be disregarded because it “conflict[s] with the actual terms of that 

heading by removing goods that are indisputably classified there.” In support, the government argues that door 

hinges and door knobs are classifiable in heading 8302, 

notwithstanding the fact that both hinges and knobs are 

“essential to doors.”

This argument fails. Explanatory Note 83.02 does not 

exclude from heading 8302 any mounting or fitting “essential” to an article, but instead excludes only those 

mountings and fittings that “form[] an essential part of 

the structure of the article.” While a hinge or a knob may 

be essential to the operation of a door, they are not essential parts of the structure of the door itself. Items such as 

hinges and knobs are attached to, or placed on, a door. By 

contrast, the top tracks and hanging standards actually 

create the structure of the elfa® modular storage unit. 

Without them, the elfa® system would not exist. See HQ 

967149, 2004 U.S. CUSTOM HQ LEXIS 411, at *17 

(explaining that “the top tracks and hanging standards 

are not accessory items to be used with furniture,” but 

“[i]nstead . . . form the structure of the furniture”).

IV.

Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. v. United 

States, 607 F.3d 771 (Fed. Cir. 2010), upon which the 

government relies, is inapposite. There the issue was 

whether the Trade Court erred in concluding that imported oil bolts were classifiable as “parts of general use”—

more specifically, as screws—under HTSUS subheading 

7318.15.80 rather than as parts of motor vehicles under 

Chapter 87. Id. at 774–75. The importer conceded that 

the oil bolts had the fastening characteristics of metal 

screws, but argued that they were not parts of general use 

because they did “not function solely in a fastening capacity, but [instead] also conduct[ed] fluids and prevent[ed] 
 12 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

leakage.” Id. at 775 (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). We rejected this argument, however, 

explaining that the relevant “Explanatory and Section 

Notes [did] not restrict heading 7318 to items whose sole 

function is to fasten,” but instead clarified that the heading “include[s] all types of fastening bolts and metal 

screws regardless of shape and use.” Id. (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). We further explained 

that because the oil bolts were properly classified as parts 

of general use under heading 7318, they could not be 

classified as parts of motor vehicles under Chapter 87. Id. 

at 774–76.

The situation here is readily distinguishable from that 

presented in Honda. Heading 7318, the “parts of general 

use” tariff provision at issue in Honda, specifically included “screws” and the importer conceded that its oil bolts 

functioned as screws. Id. at 775. Furthermore, as discussed above, the relevant Explanatory Notes clarified 

that heading 7318 covered all types of screws, regardless 

of use. See id. Here, by contrast, Explanatory Note 83.02 

makes clear that while heading 8302 covers “base metal 

accessory fittings and mountings such as are used largely 

on furniture,” it does not extend to essential structural 

parts.

V.

In storeWALL, we concluded that plastic components 

of a home storage and organization system were properly 

classified under heading 9403 as parts of unit furniture. 

644 F.3d at 1363–64. At issue there were “locator tabs,” 

which were used to affix the system to a wall, and wall 

panels, which rested upon the locator tabs. Id. at 1360. 

Consumers then had the option of attaching various 

additional components, such as shelves, baskets, and 

hooks, to the wall panels in order “to create a customized 

storage or display unit.” Id.
THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES 13

In concluding that the storeWALL system constituted 

“unit furniture,” we explained that “[t]he fact that the end 

user has the option with the storeWALL system to add or 

subtract accessories is the very reason any such system is 

unit furniture,” and that “[e]ven if equipped only with 

hooks, the . . . system retains the essential versatility and 

adaptability that is the very essence of unit furniture.” 

Id. at 1364. We further concluded that “because both the 

wall panels and . . . locator tabs are dedicated solely for 

use with a completed storeWALL system, and such a 

system is unit furniture, the Court of International Trade 

clearly erred by not classifying the products as ‘parts’ of 

unit furniture under [s]ubheading 9403.90.50, HTSUS.” 

Id. (footnote omitted).

A similar analysis applies here.4 The elfa® system 

constitutes “unit furniture” because it is designed to be 

 

4 Contrary to The Container Store’s assertions, 

however, stare decisis did not compel the Trade Court to 

classify the elfa® top tracks and hanging standards in 

heading 9403. “Stare decisis . . . is limited to only the 

legal determinations made in a prior precedential opinion 

and does not apply to either issues of fact, such as classification of specific goods within a construed tariff provision, 

or issues of law that were not part of a holding in a prior 

decision.” Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 

956 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In storeWALL, 644 F.3d at 1363–64, 

we concluded that plastic components of a home storage 

system should be classified as parts of unit furniture 

under subheading 9403.90.50 rather than as “[o]ther 

articles of plastics” under subheading 3926.90.98. We did 

not, however, resolve the precise issue presented here, 

which is whether metal top tracks and hanging standards 

should be classified as metal mountings and fittings 

suitable for furniture under subheading 8302.42.30 or 

instead as parts of unit furniture under subheading 
 14 THE CONTAINER STORE v. UNITED STATES

hung on a wall, is “fitted with other pieces to form a 

larger system,” and can be “assembled together in various 

ways to suit the consumer’s individual needs to hold 

various objects or articles.” Id. at 1361 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). Given that the top 

tracks and hanging standards are designed exclusively for 

the elfa® unit furniture system, they are properly classified as parts of unit furniture under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.80. See Container Store II, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 

1334 (“By design, consumers may only use top tracks and 

hanging standards with other elfa® system components.”).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of International Trade is reversed and the case is remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

COSTS

No costs.

 

9403.90.80. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631 

(1993) (explaining that stare decisis applies where an 

issue was “squarely addressed” in a prior opinion).