United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

BENQ AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-1259 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in case No. 05-CV-0637, Judge Delissa A. Ridgway. 

_________________________ 

Decided: May 27, 2011 

_________________________ 

V. JAMES ADDUCI, II, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffappellant. With him on the brief were MUNFORD PAGE 

HALL, II and WILLIAM C. SJOBERG. 

BARBARA S. WILLIAMS, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of 

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

With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was BETH BROTMAN, 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 2

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade 

Litigation, United States Customs and Border Protection, 

of New York, New York. Of counsel were MIKKI COTTET 

and EDWARD F. KENNY, Attorneys, of New York, New 

York. 

WILLIAM D. OUTMAN, II, Baker & McKenzie LLP, of 

Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Hewlett-Packard 

Company. With him on the brief were MICHAEL E.

MURPHY and KEVIN J. SULLIVAN. 

__________________________ 

Before LINN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

SCHALL, Circuit Judge. 

BenQ America Corporation (“BenQ”) appeals the final 

decision of the United States Court of International Trade 

in BenQ America Corp. v. United States, 683 F. Supp. 2d 

1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (“BenQ”). In its decision, the 

court denied BenQ’s motion for summary judgment and 

granted the government’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment. In so doing, the court upheld the ruling of the 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) 

classifying certain liquid crystal display (“LCD”) monitors 

imported by BenQ from China in 2004 under subheading 

8528.21.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (“HTSUS”). BenQ had protested the classification, arguing that the monitors should be classified 

under subheading 8471.60.45 of the HTSUS. Because we 

conclude that the Court of International Trade erred in 

not conducting a principal use analysis with respect to the 

imported goods, we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of the government and remand the case to 

the court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 
3 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

BACKGROUND

I. 

The products at issue are flat-panel LCD monitors 

with screens measuring 20.1 inches on the diagonal. The 

monitors are equipped with five different types of connectors for receiving data: (1) a 15-pin D-sub analog video 

connector; (2) a DVI-D digital video connector; (3) an Svideo connector; (4) a composite connector; and (5) USB 

ports. The D-sub analog video and DVI-D digital video 

connectors can receive signals from a personal computer, 

whereas the S-video and composite connectors can receive 

video signals from devices such as DVD players and 

VCRs. The USB ports allow the monitors to be connected 

to digital cameras and other devices. The monitors are 

imported with a stand for use on a desktop but can also be 

mounted on a wall. BenQ imported the monitors, DellTM 

2001FP Flat Panel Color Monitors, for BenQ Corporation, 

a Taiwanese company that manufactured the monitors for 

DellTM. 

Upon importation, BenQ entered the monitors under 

HTSUS heading 8471, subheading 8471.60.45, both of 

which are part of Section XVI of the HTSUS. Subheading 

8471.60.45 is a duty-free provision for: 

Automatic data processing machines and units 

thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for 

transcribing data onto data media in coded form 

and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included: Input or output units, 

whether or not containing storage units in the 

same housing: Other: Display units: Other: 

Other.1 

 1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the 

HTSUS are to the 2004 HTSUS. 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 4

In due course, Customs classified and reliquidated the 

monitors under HTSUS heading 8528, subheading 

8528.21.70, dutiable at 5% ad valorem, and assessed 

duties on the monitors at that rate. Heading 8528 and 

subheading 8528.21.70 also are part of HTSUS Section 

XVI. Subheading 8528.21.70 provides for: 

Reception apparatus for television, whether or not 

incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or 

video recording or reproducing apparatus; video 

monitors and video projectors: Video monitors: 

Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other. 2 

BenQ filed a timely protest of Customs’ reclassification, arguing that the monitors are of a kind solely or 

principally used in an automatic data processing (“ADP”) 

system and thus classifiable under subheading 8471.60.45 

pursuant to Notes 5(B) and (C) of Chapter 84 of the 

HTSUS. After Customs failed to take action on the 

protest, the protest was deemed denied. 

II. 

BenQ filed suit in the Court of International Trade 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to contest the denial of its 

protest. After designating the action a test case to control 

the outcome of at least one other action, the court entertained the parties’ respective motions for summary judg-

 2 As of 2007, HTSUS heading 8528 was amended to 

cover all monitors “[o]f a kind solely or principally used in 

an automatic data processing system of heading 8471.” 

See subheading 8528.41.00, HTSUS (2007) (covering 

“ . . . Cathode-ray tube monitors: Of a kind solely or 

principally used in an automatic data processing system 

of heading 8471”); subheading 8528.51.00, HTSUS (2007) 

(covering “ . . . Other monitors: Of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of 

heading 8471”); see also BenQ, 683 F. Supp. 2d at 1347 

n.22. 
5 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

ment. In its motion, BenQ argued that the court should 

apply a principal function analysis under Note 3 to 

HTSUS Section XVI. Note 3 provides that, “[u]nless the 

context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting 

of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole 

and other machines designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions 

are to be classified as if consisting only of that component 

or as being that machine which performs the principal 

function.” According to BenQ, the principal function of 

the DellTM monitors is to serve as a monitor for a computer or an automatic data processing machine. Hence, 

they should be classified under HTSUS subheading 

8471.60.45, as BenQ claimed at the time of importation. 

For its part, the government urged that, in order for 

the DellTM monitors to be classified in heading 8471, 

BenQ must satisfy the criteria of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84, 

which requires a principal use analysis pursuant to 

HTSUS Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation (“ARI”) 

1(a). Chapter 84, Note 5(B)(a) states that a unit can be 

classified under heading 8471 if it is “of a kind solely or 

principally used in an automatic data processing system.” 

ARI 1(a) states in relevant part that, “[i]n the absence of 

special language or context which otherwise requires — 

(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.” Such an analysis, the government contended, compelled the conclusion that the DellTM monitors 

could not be classified under HTSUS subheading 8471 

because BenQ did not present evidence regarding the 

class or kind of goods to which the monitors belong. The 

government also pointed to an Explanatory Note to head-
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 6

ing 8471 limiting “Display units of automatic data processing machines” to those machines that are “capable of 

accepting a signal only from the central processing unit of 

an automatic data processing machine . . . .” World 

Customs Org., Harmonized Commodity Description & 

Coding System, Explanatory Notes (“Explanatory Notes”) 

1579 (2002). In the government’s view, the Explanatory 

Note provided additional support for its position that the 

monitors should not be classified under heading 8471 

because the DellTM monitors accept signals from sources 

other than automatic data processing machines. According to the government, the monitors were properly classified in heading 8528, a provision encompassing video 

monitors. 

The Court of International Trade granted the government’s motion and denied BenQ’s motion, holding that 

Customs had properly classified the monitors under 

HTSUS heading 8528. BenQ, 683 F. Supp. 2d at 1347-48. 

The court, however, followed an approach somewhat 

different from that urged by either BenQ or the government. Instead of employing either a principal use or 

principal function analysis, the court relied on Note 5(E) 

to Chapter 84, HTSUS, and the Explanatory Notes to 

heading 8471. The court determined that the DellTM

monitors can perform a specific function other than data 

processing, that function being serving as a video monitor 

for a video source. Id. at 1345. This ability, the court 

concluded, meant that the monitors could not be classified 

under heading 8471 because Note 5(E) provides that 

“[m]achines performing a specific function other than data 

processing and incorporating or working in conjunction 

with an automatic data processing machine are to be 

classified in the headings appropriate to their respective 
7 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

functions or, failing that, in residual headings.”3 Note 

5(E) to Chapter 84, HTSUS. Since the DellTM monitors 

are admittedly capable of connection to a video source for 

use as video monitors, the court reasoned that they can 

“perform[ ] a specific function other than data processing” 

and thus had to be classified, not under heading 8471, but 

under “the heading[ ] appropriate to their respective 

function[ ] . . . .” BenQ, 683 F. Supp. 2d at 1345-46 (quoting Note 5(E) to Chapter 84, HTSUS). That heading, 

according to the court, was the broad eo nomine heading 

8528 (“Reception apparatus for television, whether or not 

incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video 

recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and 

video projectors”) because the monitors are video monitors. Thus, the court upheld Customs’ classification of the 

monitors under subheading 8528.21.70. The court rejected BenQ’s reliance on Note 3 to Section XVI on the 

ground that the Note includes the express proviso that it 

applies “[u]nless the context otherwise requires.” Id. at 

1341-42. The terms of heading 8471 and the relevant 

Chapter Notes, the court found, “plainly constitute a 

‘context [which] otherwise requires,’” overriding the 

general default rule in Note 3 to Section XVI. Id. at 1342. 

BenQ timely appealed the decision of the Court of International Trade. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

 3 The court also agreed with the government that 

the Explanatory Notes to heading 8471 confirm that the 

DellTM monitors could not be classified under that heading 

because the monitors accept signals from video sources. 

See BenQ, 683 F. Supp. 2d at 1346-47. 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 8

DISCUSSION

I. 

Whether particular imported merchandise has been 

classified under an appropriate tariff provision generally 

entails a two-step process: (1) ascertaining the proper 

meaning of specific terms within the tariff provision, and 

(2) determining whether the merchandise at issue comes 

within the description of such terms as properly construed. Intel Singapore, Ltd. v. United States, 83 F.3d 

1416, 1417-18 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The first step is a question of law that is reviewed de novo; the second is a question of fact that is reviewed for clear error. Id. The issue 

in this case presents a question of law: specifically, 

whether, in determining the HTSUS subheading under 

which the DellTM monitors should be classified, the Court 

of International Trade improperly relied upon certain 

provisions of the HTSUS.

The General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and the 

ARIs govern classification of merchandise under the 

HTSUS, and are applied in numerical order. N. Am. 

Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (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. Faus Grp., Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 

1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Orlando Food Corp. v. 

United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

“The terms of the HTSUS are construed according to 

their common commercial meanings.” Millenium Lumber 

Distribution Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326, 1329 

(Fed. Cir. 2009). “According to the [HTSUS’s] [p]reface, 

‘[t]he legal text of the [HTSUS] includes all provisions 

enacted by Congress,’ including ‘Section and Chapter 

notes.’” Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. United States, 607 
9 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

F.3d 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Section and Chapter 

Notes “are not optional interpretive rules, but are statutory law.” Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 

922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Unlike the Section and Chapter 

notes, the Explanatory Notes are not legally binding or 

dispositive, but they may be consulted for guidance and 

are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the 

various HTSUS provisions. Id. at 929 n.3; N. Am. Processing Co., 236 F.3d at 698 (citing Carl Zeiss Inc. v. 

United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1378 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 

II. 

BenQ’s first argument on appeal is one that the government does not dispute: that the trial court erred in 

relying on Note 5(E) to Chapter 84, HTSUS, to exclude 

the monitors from heading 8471. According to BenQ, 

Note 5(E) applies only in two distinct situations: (1) in the 

case of a machine incorporating an ADP machine and 

performing a specific function other than data processing; 

or (2) in the case of a machine presented with an ADP 

machine and intended to work in conjunction with the 

ADP to perform a specific function other than data processing, as set forth in the Explanatory Note to Chapter 

84, Note 5.4 At the time of importation BenQ’s monitors 

 

4 The Explanatory Note to Chapter 84, Note 5(E) 

states: 

In accordance with the provisions of Note 5(E) to 

Chapter 84, the following classification principles 

should be applied in the case of a machine incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data 

processing machine, and performing a specific function: 

(1) A machine incorporating an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing is classifiable in 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 10

did not incorporate an ADP machine, did not work in 

conjunction with an ADP to perform a function other than 

data processing, and were not presented with an ADP 

machine. Therefore, BenQ argues and the government 

agrees, the court’s reliance on Chapter 84, Note 5(E), was 

in error. 

The government also concedes BenQ’s second argument: that the Court of International Trade erroneously 

relied on the first clause of an Explanatory Note to heading 8471 to exclude BenQ’s monitors from that heading. 

BenQ argues that the first clause of the non-binding 

Explanatory Note to heading 8471, which requires that a 

display unit of an ADP be capable of accepting a signal 

“only from the central processing unit of an [ADP],”5

 

the heading corresponding to the function of that 

machine or, in the absence of a specific heading, 

in a residual heading, and not in heading 84.71. 

(2) Machines presented with an automatic data processing machine and intended to work in conjunction therewith to perform a specific function 

other than data processing, are to be classified as 

follows: 

the automatic data processing machine must be 

classified separately in heading 84.71 and the 

other machines in the heading corresponding to 

the function which they perform unless, by application of Note 4 to Section XVI or Note 3 to 

Chapter 90, the whole is classified in another 

heading of Chapter 84, Chapter 85 or of Chapter 

90. 

Explanatory Notes 1395 (2004). 

5 The Explanatory Notes to heading 8471 state: 

Among the constituent units included [under heading 

8471] are display units of automatic data processing 

machines which provide a graphical presentation of 

the data processed. They differ from the video moni-
11 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

conflicts with the statutory language of Note 5(B)(a) to 

Chapter 84, which states that a unit can be classified 

under heading 8471 if, amongst other things, it is “of a 

kind solely or principally used in an automatic data 

processing system.” Chapter 84, Note 5(B)(a) (emphasis 

added). See Appellee’s Br. 29 n.9 (“To the extent that the 

Explanatory Notes to Heading 8471 (2002) at 1579 support the trial court’s reading of Note 5(E), we believe that 

the Explanatory Notes may conflict with Note 5(B) and, 

accordingly, do not govern here.”). 

BenQ’s principal argument is that the Court of International Trade should have determined, and that we 

should now determine, the “principal function” of the 

DellTM monitors, as required by Section XVI, Note 3, 

HTSUS. BenQ urges that the monitors’ “principal function” is serving “as an output (display) unit of an ADP 

system,” and that the monitors thus should be classified 

in heading 8471 as “units” of ADPs. Appellant’s Br. 44. 

BenQ argues that Section XVI, Note 3, prevails over 

Chapter 84, Note 5(B)(a), and the “principal use” analysis 

under ARI 1(a), because the Chapter Note relates to only 

one of the competing headings, whereas both Chapter 84 

and Chapter 85 fall within Section XVI. BenQ also argues that ARI 1 applies “[i]n the absence of special language or context which otherwise requires” and that 

Section XVI, Note 3 provides such “special language or 

context.” BenQ requests that we perform a principal 

function analysis through an application of the factors set 

 

tors and television receivers of heading 85.28 in several ways, including the following: 

(1) Display units of automatic data processing machines are capable of accepting a signal only from 

the central processing unit of an automatic data 

processing machine . . . . 

Explanatory Notes 1579 (2002). 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 12

forth in United States v. Carborundum Co., 536 F.2d 373, 

377 (C.C.P.A. 1976), even though those factors are typically used to establish whether merchandise falls within a 

particular class or kind for purposes of a principal use 

analysis. In the alternative, BenQ argues that we should 

remand the case to the Court of International Trade for it 

to perform a principal function analysis. 

The government responds that we should affirm the 

Court of International Trade’s decision for several alternative reasons. First, the government points out that 

BenQ has admitted that the monitors are “capable of 

connection to a video source as video monitors.” BenQ, 

683 F. Supp. 2d at 1341. Thus, the government contends, 

the monitors fall squarely under heading 8528, which is a 

broad eo nomine provision covering, inter alia, “video 

monitors.” 

Next, the government argues that BenQ has not established that the monitors should be classified in heading 8471, which is directed to “Automatic data processing 

machines and units thereof.” BenQ, the government 

observes, does not argue that the monitors are ADP 

machines, but instead that they are “units thereof.” As 

noted above, Chapter 84, Note 5(B), provides statutory 

requirements for “units” of ADP systems, requiring at 

Note 5(B)(a) that such units be “of a kind solely or principally used in” an ADP system. The government argues, 

and BenQ does not dispute, that Chapter 84, Note 5(B), 

invokes a principal use analysis under ARI 1(a). See

Primal Lite, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1362, 1363-64 

(Fed. Cir. 1999); Grp. Italglass U.S.A., Inc. v. United 

States, 17 Ct. Int’l Trade 226, 228 (1993), reconsideration 

granted in part by 17 Ct. Int’l Trade 373 (1993).6 Thus, 

 6 The government also argues that Note 5(B)(a) invokes the concept of “actual use” under ARI 1(b) and 19 
13 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

the government argues that, pursuant to ARI 1(a), BenQ 

was required to establish (1) the class or kind to which 

the imported goods belong, and (2) the principal use of 

that class or kind at or immediately prior to the date of 

importation. According to the government, BenQ did not 

carry this burden because it failed to define the class of 

goods encompassed by heading 8471 and failed to produce 

evidence regarding the class or kind of goods to which the 

imported multimedia monitors belong. The government 

argues that the trial court correctly found Note 3 of Section XVI inapplicable and that BenQ is impermissibly 

seeking to use this Note to extend heading 8471 beyond 

its statutory terms by rendering it an “actual use” provision in direct contravention of the principal use statutory 

requirements for classification as a “unit” provided in 

Chapter 84, Note 5(B). Accordingly, the government 

states that the trial court’s classification of BenQ’s monitors as video monitors under heading 8528 should be 

affirmed. 

III. 

Chapter 84, Note 5(B), lists three features which, if 

present, indicate that, pursuant to Note 5(C), a “unit is to 

be regarded as being a part of a complete [ADP] system” 

under heading 8471. Notes 5(B) and (C) to Chapter 84 of 

the HTSUS (2004) state: 

5. (B) Automatic data processing machines may be in the form of systems consisting of a variable 

number of separate units. Subject to 

paragraph (E) below, a unit is to be 

 

C.F.R. §§ 10.131-10.139, HTSUS, but that BenQ did not 

satisfy any of the statutory or regulatory requirements for 

classification of the monitors based on “actual use.” BenQ 

does not appear to dispute this contention. 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 14

regarded as being a part of a complete system if it meets all the following conditions: 

(a) It is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic 

data processing system; 

(b) It is connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more 

other units; and 

(c) It is able to accept or deliver 

data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by 

the system. 

(C) Separately presented units of an 

automatic data processing machine 

are to be classified in heading 8471. 

As already seen, Note 5(E), which is referenced in Note 

5(B), states: 

5. (E) Machines performing a specific 

function other than data processing 

and incorporating or working in 

conjunction with an automatic data 

processing machine are to be classified in the headings appropriate to 

their respective functions or, failing 

that, in residual headings. 

As noted above, the Court of International Trade did 

not perform an analysis under Chapter 84, Note 5(B), 

because the court concluded that Note 5(E) and the Explanatory Note to heading 8471 prohibited classification 
15 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

in heading 8471. BenQ, 683 F. Supp. 2d at 1343-47. The 

parties take the position that the court’s reliance on Note 

5(E) and the relevant Explanatory Note was erroneous, 

and we agree. Note 5(E) is limited to “[m]achines performing a specific function other than data processing and 

incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine.” The DellTM monitors do 

not incorporate ADP machines, but rather are separate 

and distinct units. Additionally, the government does not 

appear to dispute that when “performing a specific function other than data processing,” such as when the monitors are serving as video monitors for other devices such 

as DVD players and VCRs, the monitors are “working in 

conjunction” with those other devices, not with an automatic data processing machine.7 Further, to the extent 

that the Explanatory Note to heading 8471 prohibits 

classification in heading 8471 for those machines that are 

not “capable of accepting a signal only from the central 

processing unit of an automatic data processing machine,” 

it contradicts the express statutory language of Note 

5(B)(a), which specifically provides for units that are 

merely “principally,” as opposed to “solely,” used in automatic data processing systems. Explanatory Notes 1579 

(2002) (emphasis added); Chapter 84, Note 5(B)(a). 

Although the Court of International Trade relied on Note 

5(E) in error, the remaining statutory requirements of 

Chapter 84, Note 5, must be met in order for the monitors 

to be classified under heading 8471. Thus, to determine if 

the DellTM monitors can be classified under heading 8471 

as BenQ argues, an analysis under Chapter 84 Note 5(B) 

must be undertaken. 

 7 In addition, we note that the government does not 

dispute that the DellTM monitors are not “presented with” 

(i.e., imported with) automatic data processing machines. 

See Explanatory Notes 1395 (2004). 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 16

IV. 

It is undisputed that the requirements of paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of Note 5(B) are met in the DellTM monitors. 

The question thus becomes whether the requirement of 

paragraph (a) (“of a kind solely or principally used in an 

automatic data processing system”) also is met. BenQ 

does not argue that the monitors are “solely” used in ADP 

systems. A determination of whether this requirement is 

met therefore requires an analysis of the “principal use” of 

the monitors unless, as BenQ argues, the “principal 

function” analysis of Section XVI, Note 3, overrides the 

“principal use” analysis of Note 5(B)(a). 

As previously noted, ARI 1(a) states that “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.” The 

rule “call[s] for a determination as to the group of goods 

that are commercially fungible with the imported goods.” 

Primal Lite, 182 F.3d at 1365. One method of determining the “class or kind” is by applying the factors set forth 

in Carborundum. These factors are the general physical 

characteristics of the merchandise; the expectation of the 

ultimate purchasers; the channels, class or kind of trade 

in which the merchandise moves; the environment of the 

sale of the merchandise; the use of the goods at issue, if 

any, in the same manner as merchandise which defines 

the class; the economic practicality of so using the import; 

and the recognition in the trade of this use (“the Carborundum factors”). See 536 F.2d at 377. 

Even though both heading 8471 and heading 8528 fall 

within Section XVI, Chapter 84, Note 5(B), is specifically 

directed to heading 8471. Section XVI, Note 3, is a Note 
17 BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US

of general application which, in certain circumstances, 

calls for a principal function analysis. It is highly 

unlikely that the drafters intended to override the specifically tailored Note 5(B), which sets forth the statutory 

requirements for heading 8471, with Section XVI, Note 3’s 

general analysis. This is particularly the case, we think, 

because Section XVI, Note 3, includes a proviso indicating 

that it does not apply when “the context otherwise requires.” Here, we think that, by reason of the language of 

Note 5(B), “the context otherwise requires.” Moreover, 

the purpose of “principal use” provisions in the HTSUS 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, 182 F.3d at 1364. Although, as seen, the parties 

disagree about whether a Section XVI, Note 3, principal 

function analysis or a Note 5(B) principal use analysis 

should be performed, they do not appear to argue that the 

DellTM monitors are put to atypical use after importation, 

so that the two analyses could possibly produce different 

outcomes in this case.8 In fact, BenQ admits that Customs “has traditionally used [the Carborundum] factors to 

classify multifunction monitors,” Appellant’s Br. 44, and 

proposes that we consider these factors in performing a 

principal function analysis. It is unclear whether a principal use analysis would require a different result in this 

case than a principal function analysis. In any event, we 

conclude that a principal use analysis is the correct approach in this case. 

 8 This is not the case where, for example, we must 

consider whether 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. See Primal Lite, 182 F.3d 

at 1364. 
BENQ AMERICA CORP v. US 18

The government argues that remand is not necessary 

because BenQ failed to provide any evidence regarding 

principal use, instead limiting its proof to a principal 

function analysis focused upon the use of the monitors 

themselves as opposed to their “class or kind.” We note 

that the government challenged the adequacy of BenQ’s 

showing at the trial court as it related to principal function, but the Court of International Trade expressly did 

not reach the issue of the adequacy of the evidence for 

either a principal use or principal function analysis because of its rationale for disposing of the case. BenQ, 683 

F. Supp. 2d at 1343-44 n.15. Because the Court of International Trade did not reach this issue, we decline to 

address it on appeal. On remand the Court of International Trade should conduct a principal use analysis to 

determine the correct classification of the DellTM monitors. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of 

the Court of International Trade classifying BenQ’s 

monitors under subheading 8528.21.70. The case is 

remanded to the Court of International Trade for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

VACATED and REMANDED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.