United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DEPENDABLE PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1300

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 10-CV-0330, Judge Richard K. Eaton.

______________________ 

Decided: July 9, 2014 

______________________ 

PETER S. HERRICK, Peter S. Herrick, P.A., of Miami, 

Florida, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

EDWARD F. KENNY, Trial Attorney, International 

Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of New 

York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With him 

on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney 

General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and AMY M.

RUBIN, Acting Assistant Director, International Trade 

Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was SHERYL A.

FRENCH, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United States 

Customs and Border Protection, of New York, New York.
2 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Before the court is Dependable Packaging Solutions, 

Inc.’s (“Dependable”) appeal regarding the classification of 

certain types of glass merchandise. For the reasons set 

forth below, the holding of the Court of International 

Trade (“CIT”) is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

Dependable imports and distributes packing, janitorial, floral, and office supplies, and certain glass items. On 

May 29, 2010, Dependable imported certain glass items 

from the People’s Republic of China and identified them 

on their respective commercial invoices as “Generic Bud 

Vases” for the smaller (“bud vases”) and “Generic Trumpet Vases” (“trumpet vases”) for the larger (collectively, 

“the vases” or “the merchandise”). Both types of vases 

have an inexpensive look and visible seams. When imported, the bud vases were valued at $0.30 or less and the 

trumpet vases at more than $0.30 but no greater than 

$3.00. 

After importing the vases, Dependable sells them to 

mass-market flower-packing houses that fill them with 

water and flowers. The packing houses then ship the 

flower-packed vases to supermarkets or similar retailers, 

where the vase and flower combinations are displayed 

and sold as a single unit. Similar vases are sold empty at 

retail. Dependable’s vases are not sold empty at retail, 

though they can be reused. 

When the vases were imported, Dependable classified 

them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 3

States (“HTSUS”)1 7018.90.50.2 At liquidation, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the 

bud vases under HTSUS 7013.99.404 and the trumpet 

vases under HTSUS 7013.99.50.5. The vases were thus 

classified under heading 7013, which provides for “Glassware of a kind used for . . . indoor decoration . . . (other 

than that of heading 7010 or 7018).” Specifically, heading 

7013 provides, in relevant part:

7013 Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes (other than that of heading 7010 or 7018):

 Other glassware 

7013.99 Other . . .

7013.99.40 Other:

 Valued not over $0.30 

 each . . . 38%

7013.99.50 Valued over $0.30 but not over 

 $3 each . . . 30%

(emphasis added).

Dependable timely protested but Customs failed to act 

within thirty days, resulting in a deemed denial. After

the assessed duties were paid, Dependable filed this 

action in the CIT, abandoning its entered classification 

under heading 7018.90.50 and asserting both vases 

should be classified under HTSUS heading 7010, which

1 All references to the HTSUS refer to the 2010 edition.

2 HTSUS 7018.90.50 covers: “Glass beads, imitation 

pearls, imitation precious or semiprecious stones and 

similar glass small wares and articles thereof other than 

imitation jewelry; glass eyes other than prosthetic articles; statuettes and other ornaments of lamp-worked 

glass, other than imitation jewelry; glass microspheres 

not exceeding 1 mm in diameter: . . . Other: . . . Other.”

 
4 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

includes “containers, of glass, of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of goods.” In particular, heading 7010 

states, in relevant part:

7010 Carboys, bottles, flasks, jars, pots, vials, 

 ampules and other containers, of glass, of 

 a kind used for the conveyance or packing 

 of goods; preserving jars of glass; stoppers, 

 lids and other closures, of glass: . . .

7010.90 Other . . . 

7010.90.30 Other . . . 5.2%.

Dependable contended its vases should be classified under 

HTSUS 7010.90.30.

After reviewing both competing headings and conducting a Carborundum analysis,3 the CIT determined “a 

reasonable jury could only conclude that the vases here 

are commercially fungible with other inexpensive clear 

glass vases whose principal use is decorative, rather than 

with glass packing containers.” Dependable Packaging

Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-0330, 2013 WL 

646328, at *9 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 20, 2013). The CIT

accordingly held Customs’ classification was correct and 

granted summary judgment in favor of the Government. 

Dependable timely appeals. This court has jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (2012).

3 When, as here, the CIT performs a principal use 

analysis to determine the proper heading for the imported 

merchandise, the CIT analyzes several factors, commonly 

referred to as the “Carborundum factors,” in order to 

determine which goods are “commercially fungible with 

the imported goods.” Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States, 

671 F.3d 1310, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 5

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court reviews the CIT’s grant of summary judgment on tariff classifications de novo. Lemans Corp. v. 

United States, 660 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 

Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006). In assessing Customs’ classification determinations, this court employs the two-step analysis used by 

the CIT: (1) ascertaining “the proper meaning of the tariff 

provisions, which is a question of law reviewed de novo”; 

and (2) determining “whether merchandise falls within a 

particular heading, which is a question of fact we review 

only for clear error.” Lemans, 660 F.3d at 1315 (citing 

Cummins, 454 F.3d at 1363). However, “[w]here . . . the 

nature of the merchandise is undisputed, the inquiry 

collapses into a question of law we review de novo.” Id.

“Here, there is no genuine dispute as to ‘exactly what the 

merchandise is’ or as to its actual use.” Dependable 

Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *2 (citing Bausch & 

Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998)). Although the parties disagreed as “to the 

‘principal use’ of the vases,” the CIT held this was “not a 

material dispute precluding summary judgment.” Id. 

II. Legal Framework

A. Classification Pursuant to the HTSUS

The HTSUS is composed of classification headings, 

each of which has one or more subheadings. Deckers 

Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). “The headings contain ‘general categories of 

merchandise,’ whereas ‘the subheadings provide a more 

particularized segregation of the goods within each category.’” Id. (quoting Orlando Food Corp. v. United States,

140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Along with the 

headings and subheadings, which are enumerated in 

chapters 1 through 99 of the HTSUS (each of which has 
6 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

its own section and chapter notes), the HTSUS statute 

also contains the “General Notes,” the “General Rules of 

Interpretation” (“GRI”), the “Additional United States 

Rules of Interpretation” (“ARI”), and various appendices 

for particular categories of goods. See Baxter Healthcare 

Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 3004(a) (1994)). The classification of merchandise is governed by the GRIs and the 

ARIs, which are applied in numerical order. BenQ Am. 

Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 

2011). The World Customs Organization’s “Explanatory 

Notes,” which accompany each chapter of the HTSUS, are 

“not legally binding, are ‘persuasive[,]’ and are ‘generally 

indicative’ of the proper interpretation of the tariff provision.” Lemans, 660 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Drygel, Inc. v. 

United States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

The classification analysis always begins with GRI 1, 

which directs that “classification shall be determined 

according to the terms of the headings and any relative 

section or chapter notes.” HTSUS GRI 1 (emphasis 

added); see Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440 (“[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.”). 

“Absent contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to 

be construed according to their common and commercial 

meanings, which are presumed to be the same.” Carl 

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

1999) (citing Simod Am. Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 

1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Pursuant to GRI 1, the 

possible headings are to be evaluated without reference to 

their subheadings, which cannot be used to expand the 

scope of their respective headings. Orlando Food, 140 

F.3d at 1440 (“Only after determining that a product is 

classifiable under the heading should the court look to the 

subheadings to find the correct classification for the 

merchandise. . . . [W]hen determining which heading is 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 7

. . . more appropriate for classification, a court should 

compare only the language of the headings and not the 

language of the subheadings.”); EOS of N. Am., Inc. v. 

United States, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1327–28 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 2013). Finally, if the proper heading can be determined under GRI 1, the court is not to look to the subsequent GRIs. See CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 

649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Mita Copystar 

Am. v. United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) 

(“We apply GRI 1 as a substantive rule of interpretation, 

such that when an imported article is described in whole 

by a single classification heading or subheading, then that 

single classification applies, and the succeeding GRIs are 

inoperative.”). 

All the relevant HTSUS headings in this case are

principal use provisions,4 which are governed by ARI 1(a). 

“[A] tariff classification controlled by use (other than 

actual use) is to be determined in accordance with the use 

in the United States at, or immediately prior to, the date 

of importation, of goods of that class or kind to which the 

imported goods belong, and the controlling use is the 

principal use.” ARI 1(a); see also Primal Lite, Inc. v. 

United States, 182 F.3d 1362, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This 

court has explained that the purpose of “principal use” 

provisions “is to classify particular merchandise according 

to the ordinary use of such merchandise, even though 

particular imported goods may be put to some atypical 

use.” Primal Lite, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1364. Thus, for 

example, “a classification covering vehicles principally 

used for automobile racing would cover a race car, even if 

the particular imported car was actually used solely in an 

advertising display.” Id.

4 The parties correctly agree that the competing 

headings, 7010 and 7013, are principal use provisions.

 
8 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

B. The Competing Headings

The parties are in agreement that the vases should be 

classified under HTSUS chapter 70 (“Glass and glassware”), but disagree about the appropriate heading. 

Currently the subject merchandise is classified under 

heading 7013, which provides for “Glassware of a kind 

used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, indoor decoration or 

similar purposes (other than that of heading 7010 or 

7018).” Dependable argues the vases should be classified 

under heading 7010, which includes “containers, of glass, 

of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of goods.”

III. The Scope of Heading 7013

The Explanatory Notes to HTSUS 7013 specifically 

identify “vases” as an example of “glassware for indoor 

decoration and other glassware covered by heading 7013.” 

See Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity 

Description and Coding Sys., 70.13, 4th ed. (2007) (“Explanatory Notes”) (“This heading covers . . . [g]lassware 

for indoor decoration and other glassware . . . such as 

vases.”). The CIT concluded Dependable’s vases were 

“vases” within the scope of 7013, in part by relying on 

dictionary definitions of the word “vase.” Dependable 

Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *4–5 & n.12 (“‘An open 

container, as of glass or porcelain, used for holding flowers or for ornamentation.’” (quoting American Heritage 

Dictionary of the English Language 1904 (4th ed. 2000))); 

“‘[A] usually round vessel of greater depth than width 

used chiefly as an ornament or for holding flowers.’” 

(Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, Vase, 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vase (last 

visited June 13, 2014))).

Dependable argues “it was an error to rely on a definition of ‘vase’ since the term vase does not appear” in 

Dependable’s proposed heading 7010. Appellant’s Br. 9. 

Dependable contends the CIT instead “should have concentrated on the definition of container, which does ap-
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 9

pear in heading 7010.” Id. Appellees counter the CIT 

correctly determined “the products at issue are glass 

flower ‘vases’ despite Dependable’s avoidance of that 

term.” Appellee’s Br. 14 (citing Dependable Packaging, 

2013 WL 646328, at *5). 

Dependable’s argument is without merit. The CIT 

properly relied upon the Explanatory Notes in determining the scope of heading 7013. The Explanatory Notes “do 

not constitute controlling legislative history but nonetheless are intended to clarify the scope of . . . and to offer 

guidance in interpreting” the HTSUS. Mita Copystar 

Am., 21 F.3d at 1082 (citation omitted). The Explanatory 

Notes are “‘generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the [HTSUS].’” Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976

F.2d 693, 699 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-

576 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N 1547, 1582). 

Dependable is therefore incorrect that the term “vase” is 

irrelevant to the proper interpretation of the headings. 

Additionally, Dependable itself identifies the merchandise as either “Generic Bud Vase” or “Generic Trumpet Vase” on its commercial invoices, see Dependable 

Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *1; its sales brochures, 

J.A. 150–159; and in its responses to Customs’ interrogatories, J.A. 194. Dependable never denies the merchandise is vases, see J.A. 47, and indeed, during oral 

argument agrees it is. See Oral Argument at 4:21–4:25,

available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argumentrecordings/13-1300/all (counsel replying “yes” when asked 

whether the subject merchandise is “sold by the stores, as 

being in vases”). Finally, Dependable conceded the merchandise is vases: “Q[uestion:] When you say glass containers, are you referring to vases, like the vases that are 

at issue in this case? A[nswer]: Yes.” J.A. 47. Accordingly, we find no error in the CIT’s focus on “vase,” and 

therefore turn to determining the principal use of the 

merchandise at issue.
10 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

IV. The Principal Use of the Merchandise

Principal use provisions “‘call for a determination as 

to the group of goods that are commercially fungible with 

the imported goods’” in order to identify the “use ‘which 

exceeds any other single use.’” Aromont USA, Inc. v. 

United States, 671 F.3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Primal Lite, 182 F.3d at 1365; Lenox Collections v. 

United States, 20 C.I.T. 194, 196 (1996)). The CIT analyzes the “Carborundum factors” in determining which 

goods are “commercially fungible with the imported 

goods.” Id. at 1312–13. The factors include: 

[The] use in the same manner as merchandise 

which defines the class; the general physical 

characteristics of the merchandise; the economic 

practicality of so using the import; the expectation 

of the ultimate purchasers; the channels of trade 

in which the merchandise moves; the environment 

of the sale, such as accompanying accessories and 

the manner in which the merchandise is advertised and displayed; and the recognition in the 

trade of this use.

Id. (citing United States v. Carborundum Co., 536 F.2d 

373, 377 (CCPA 1976)). 

The CIT found the “[a]pplication of the Carborundum

Factors demonstrates that Dependable’s vases are commercially fungible with other clear glass vases that are 

primarily used for decorative purposes,” thus falling 

under heading 7013. Dependable Packaging, 2013 WL 

646328, at *5. Dependable disputes that determination 

here. 

A. General Physical Characteristics

The CIT found this factor “shows that the vases are 

commercially fungible with other clear glass vases that 

are sold empty at retail and are used for decorative purposes.” Id. 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 11

The general physical characteristics of the merchandise are not disputed by either party. Examining the 

merchandise, the CIT found: 

The bud vases are eight inches in height, with a 

quarter-inch lip that the parties agree is not designed for any sort of closure. The lip surrounds 

an opening measuring one and one-half inches in 

diameter. The bud vases have a narrow neck extending downward five inches from the opening. 

The neck then widens into a bulbous shape, two 

and three-quarters inches in diameter at its widest point, and ends in a slightly concave bottom 

two inches in diameter. The bud vases also have 

deepening striations beginning one inch below the 

lip that continue to the bottom of the article.

The trumpet vases are nine and three-quarter 

inches in height with a quarter-inch lip that the 

parties agree is not designed for any sort of closure. The lip surrounds an opening measuring 

three and three-quarter inches in diameter. The 

diameter of the opening gradually narrows (as one 

moves two-thirds of the way down the vase) to a 

diameter of three inches, widening again thereafter to end in a bottom measuring four and onequarter inches in diameter.

Id. at *1 (footnote omitted). The vases’ physical characteristics are indistinguishable from other glass vases sold 

at retail for the purpose of decoration. See J.A. 218, 220–

22 (testimony of a Customs Senior Import Specialist 

about her visits to various retail stores that sold similar 

vases for decorative purposes), 239–46 (exhibit documenting various retail stores selling similar vases for decorative purposes). 

Additionally, “[t]he design features of the vases that 

Dependable points to as indicating use as [] packing 

material (narrow waists, long necks, small openings, 
12 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

inexpensive glass) are apparent in . . . other, virtually 

identical vases,” which indicates Dependable’s merchandise is “commercially fungible” with other inexpensive 

vases that are sold empty at retail and used for decorative 

purposes. Dependable Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *5.

Finally, Dependable’s vases do not include closures 

and thus are not well-suited for “conveyance or packing,” 

as required by Dependable’s proposed heading. Subheading 7010.90.30 provides for:

Carboys, bottles, flasks, jars, pots, vials, ampoules 

and other containers of glass, of a kind used for 

the conveyance or packing of goods; preserving 

jars of glass; stopper, lids and other closures of 

glass: . . . Other: . . . Other.

HTSUS 7010.90.30 (emphasis added). The products listed

in this heading typically have closures. The Explanatory 

Notes to heading 7010 further support this proposition: 

“The above-mentioned containers are generally designed 

for some type of closure”; “They generally have a large 

opening, a short neck (if any), and as a rule, a lip or flange 

to hold the lid or cap”; and the covered containers also 

include “[a]mpoules . . . intended to serve, after sealing.” 

See also Latitudes Int’l Fragrance, Inc. v. United States, 

931 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1254 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (“The 

capacity of the bottles to take a stopper is a physical 

characteristic that distinguishes glassware for the conveyance of goods under heading 7010 from decorative 

glassware under heading 7013.”). Accordingly, that 

Dependable’s vases do not have a closure is indicative 

that they do not have the physical characteristics of 

merchandise that would fall under heading 7010. 

Because Dependable’s vases are fungible with other 

decorative glassware that falls under heading 7013, the 

general physical characteristics favor classifying the vases 

under heading 7013. 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 13

B. Actual Use

The CIT determined the “use in the same manner 

which defines the class,” or actual use, favored classifying 

Dependable’s merchandise as glass vases primarily used 

for decorative purposes. “[A]ctual use of the particular 

imported goods is evidence of the principal use of the 

merchandise involved. Actual use of the goods involved is 

but one of a number of factors, and perhaps one of the 

more important of the Carborundum factors.” Aromont,

671 F.3d at 1313. Dependable contends the actual use of 

the merchandise is use for “wet packing and conveyance 

of flowers” from the packing house to retailers. Appellant’s Br. 14. 

The CIT correctly concluded that the actual use of the 

merchandise is primarily decorative. It is undisputed 

that the merchandise is filled with flowers when sold to 

the end purchaser, and the unit is sold for a price higher 

than either the flowers or the vase individually. Additionally, purchasers of the unit at retail are able to display flowers in the vases and then reuse the vases in 

order to display flowers bought later in time. Indeed, 

Dependable concedes that consumers “do[] not want to go 

to the trouble of buying vases and flowers separately, but 

want[] the ease of having the glass containers and flowers 

as a unit ready to be displayed at home or in the office.” 

Id. at 19 (emphasis added). 

Dependable’s vases are not “sold empty at retail, indicating that they have some use as packing materials.” 

Dependable Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *7. However, 

the ultimate use of the merchandise, consistent with the 

way in which other inexpensive glass vases are used, 

evidences a primarily decorative purpose. Additionally, 

that the vases can be used for conveyance does not negate 

the fact that they are also used primarily as decoration. 

Accordingly, the actual use of the merchandise is primari-
14 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

ly decorative, which favors classification under heading 

7013. 

C. Economic Practicality

The CIT found there was “no admissible evidence on 

the record that the vases’ use as packing containers is 

economically practical.”5 Dependable Packaging, 2013 

WL 646328, at *7. According to Dependable, however, 

this factor is “decisive” in finding the vases are classifiable under 7010 rather than 7013 because “Dependable’s 

glass containers are the most economically feasible way to 

ship flowers from a packing house to supermarkets.” 

Appellant’s Br. 21 (citing J.A. 123). Dependable asserts

that because Dependable conveys and packs the flowers 

before arrival at the retailers, supermarkets do not need 

to hire florists. 

Dependable fails to offer any evidence for this statement, and indeed, when asked during oral argument 

about its statement in its briefing that “most supermarkets do not have florist[s] on their premises that can care 

for flowers,” Appellant’s Br. 21–22, counsel conceded “I 

perhaps did misp[ea]k.” Oral Argument at 15:26–16:20. 

Without evidence on the record that supports Dependable, 

this factor favors classifying the merchandise under

heading 7013. 

D. Expectations of the Ultimate Purchasers

Dependable argues the ultimate consumers of Dependable’s merchandise purchase the vases “not for the 

5 “[U]nder 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1), a classification of 

merchandise by Customs is presumed to be correct . . . [so] 

the burden of proof is upon the party challenging the 

classification.” Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 

F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 15

purpose of acquiring a decorative vase but for the conveyance of transporting flowers in a container.” Appellant’s 

Br. 17. 

The record indicates that, at retail, the unit of the 

vase and flowers sells for more than the cost of flowers or 

vase alone. Retail purchasers pay extra for the pairing of 

flowers and vase when compared to the cost of flowers 

alone. See J.A. 85 (“Q[uestion:] You take the exact same 

bouquet of roses, you buy it out of the bucket without a 

vase, it’s less expensive than the bouquet in the vase[?] 

A[nswer:] Yes. It’s less cost for transport and product 

obviously.”); see also Oral Argument at 4:39–5:03 (counsel 

replying “yes” to both whether customers pay more for the 

vase and flower combination and whether retailers charge 

more for that combination). That the unit price is more 

expensive than flowers alone indicates that acquiring 

Dependable’s vases is not merely incidental to the purchase of the flowers, as would be the case if the vases 

were merely packing containers. 

Dependable also argues that a purchaser “would not 

expect to reuse the glass containers for decoration after 

transporting the flowers to their intended location.” 

Appellant’s Br. 17. However, Dependable has provided no 

support for this assertion. See Dependable Packaging, 

2013 WL 646328, at *6. It is also not disputed “that the 

vases are capable of reuse and that the ultimate purchaser would have the option to do so.” Id.; see also J.A. 79. 

The CIT correctly determined that the ultimate purchaser 

buys the vases for primarily decorative purposes, not to 

perform conveyance or packaging.

E. Channels of Trade

Dependable argues that because its vases “are never 

sold for any purpose other than that of being used as a 

container for conveying or packing of flowers” this factor 

supports classification under 7010. Appellant’s Br. 19. 

However, Dependable’s sale of the empty vases to packing 
16 DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US

houses does not mean they are fungible with glass containers intended to be used for packaging or conveyance. 

The ultimate purchaser buys the vase at retail for the 

purpose of decoration, as determined above. Thus, we 

agree with the CIT’s analysis that “the movement of the 

vases in trade merely suggests that Dependable’s vases 

travel in an atypical manner to the final purchasers who 

employ them in a typical manner.” Dependable Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *6. 

F. Environment of the Sale

The manner in which a product is displayed and advertised is relevant to an analysis of this factor. See 

Carborundum, 536 F.2d at 377. It is undisputed that the

vases are filled with flowers and displayed for sale at the 

retail location in order to encourage customers to purchase the vase and flower unit because of the decorative 

value of the vase and flowers combined. Indeed, Dependable’s own marketing materials depict some of its vase 

and flower units being used as decoration and state 

“retailers hope that consumers would be attracted to the 

presentation of the flowers within glass containers.” See 

J.A. 160, 161, 164; Appellant’s Br. 20. 

G. Recognition in the Trade of This Use

Under this factor, “courts consider whether the merchandise is recognized in the trade as having that particular use or whether it meets certain specifications 

recognized in the trade for that particular class of products.” Aromont, 671 F.3d at 1316. Dependable contends 

the trade recognizes its merchandise as “utility vases,” 

which reflects “the durability of the glass containers” and 

their ability to protect the flowers during transport. 

Appellant’s Br. 23. However, the only record evidence 

related to this factor is Dependable’s testimony about the 

use of its actual customers, “rather than connoting any 

broad commercial meaning or industry practice.” Dependable Packaging, 2013 WL 646328, at *8 (citing J.A. 
DEPENDABLE PACKAGING v. US 17

76–77) (“Q[uestion:] Is that a term of art, utility vase? 

A[nswer:] Of art, no. Q[uestion:] Is it something used in 

the industry, that term ‘utility vase’? A[nswer:] They 

usually use utility vase as cheap.”). As discussed above, 

the record shows that vases that are “virtually indistinguishable” from Dependable’s glass vases are sold empty 

at retail for the purpose of decoration. Id. The record 

thus shows that this factor is neutral. 

In sum, nearly every Carborundum factor weighs 

heavily in favor of classifying Dependable’s merchandise 

under heading 7013 rather than heading 7010, and not 

one supports Dependable. Accordingly, the CIT correctly 

granted summary judgment upholding Customs’ classification of the vases under heading 7013. 

CONCLUSION

The decision of the CIT is

AFFIRMED