United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2009-1493 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in case No. 05-00058, Senior Judge Thomas J. 

Aquilino, Jr. 

__________________________ 

Decided: June 2, 2010 

__________________________ 

JEREMY PAGE, Page Fura, P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was 

SHANNON E. FURA. 

EDWARD F. KENNY, Trial Attorney, International 

Trade Field Office, United States Department of Justice, 

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

With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on 
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 2

the brief was MICHAEL W. HEYDRICH, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, 

United States Customs and Border Protection, of New 

York, New York. 

__________________________ 

Before MAYER, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

LINN, Circuit Judge. 

Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. (“Honda”) appeals a final decision of the Court of International Trade 

(“CIT”) affirming, on summary judgment, a Customs and 

Border Protection (“Customs”) classification of Honda’s oil 

bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (“Schedule” or “HTSUS”). Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. 

v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2009). Because the CIT properly interpreted and applied 

the Schedule, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In 2002-2004, Honda imported “oil bolts” used in its 

cars and motorcycles. Pl.’s Compl. 2. These oil bolts 

feature a smooth upper portion with a hollow, threaded 

body, some of which have extended stems. The oil bolts 

connect fluid lines to brake master cylinders or transmission cases, allowing fluid to flow through without leaking. 

Honda’s Principal Br. 5-8. Customs classified the oil bolts 

under Schedule subheading 7318.15.80: “Screws, bolts, 

nuts, . . . and similar articles, of iron or steel . . . 

[t]hreaded articles . . . [h]aving shanks or threads with a 

diameter of 6 mm or more.” Customs Headquarters 

Ruling No. 966412 (Sept. 3, 2003), aff’d, Customs Headquarters Ruling No. 966789 (June 21, 2004). Customs 

liquidated at the corresponding 8.5% duty. 
3 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US

Honda appealed to the CIT, arguing that the proper 

classification is one of three subheadings in Schedule 

Chapter 87, “Vehicles . . . and Parts and Accessories 

Thereof.”1 On Honda’s motion, the CIT designated this 

case a test case for four others. Both parties cross-moved 

for summary judgment. The CIT granted the government’s motion, holding that Customs correctly classified 

the oil bolts as “parts of general use,” even though the 

bolts have specialized features, because the Schedule 

“does not generally make an exception for specialized 

parts.” Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1327. Honda appeals, 

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

DISCUSSION

“We review the Court of International Trade’s grant of 

summary judgment concerning tariff classifications de 

novo. A classification decision involves two underlying 

steps: determining the proper meaning of the tariff provisions, which is a question of law; and then determining 

which heading the disputed goods fall within, which is a 

question of fact.” Outer Circle Prods. v. United States, 590 

F.3d 1323, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). A 

Customs decision “is presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2639(a)(1). 

“The General Rules of Interpretation (‘GRIs’) govern 

classification of merchandise under the HTSUS,” Mille-

 1 Because Honda imported in 2002-2004, we use the 

June 30, 2004 supplemented edition of the Schedule. See

N. Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 696 

& n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting for imports in 1992, 

“[a]ccordingly, all references to the HTSUS are to the 

1992 edition”); Pl.’s Statement of Uncontested Facts ¶ 22 

(“The provisions of the HTSUS that pertain to the classifications at issue in this action did not change during the 

period of 2002 through 2004, when the entries of the oil 

bolts that are the basis of this action occurred.”). 
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 4

nium Lumber Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 

1326, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and “are applied in numerical 

order,” ABB, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1274, 1276 

n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2005). General Rule 1 states that classification occurs “according to the terms of the headings and 

any relative section or chapter notes.” Therefore, “a court 

first construes the language of the heading, and any 

section or chapter notes in question.” 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, 

558 F.3d at 1329. Here, the plain language of the competing relevant subheadings is not dispositive. The oil bolts 

facially meet subheading 7318.15.80 because they are 

undisputedly “threaded articles” of iron or steel with a 

diameter of 6 mm or more. However, they also facially 

meet Honda’s proposed subheadings because they are 

“parts and accessories” of vehicle power trains (subheading 8708.99.6790), of vehicle “brakes and servo-brakes” 

(subheading 8708.39.5050), and of motorcycles (subheading 8714.19.0060). Customs recognized that the oil bolt 

“is classifiable in heading 8708 by the fact that it is a part 

of a part for use in a motor vehicle . . . .” Customs Headquarters Ruling No. 966412, at 7.

However, the Section Notes in the Schedule clarify 

the relationship between these subheadings. According to 

the Schedule’s Preface, “[t]he legal text of the [Schedule] 

includes all provisions enacted by Congress,” including 

“Section and Chapter notes.” Heading 7318 is in Chapter 

73, which is in Section XV. Honda’s proposed subheadings are in Chapter 87, which is in Section XVII. Note 

2(b) to Section XVII states: “The expressions ‘parts’ and 

‘parts and accessories’ do not apply to the following articles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods 

of this section: . . . [p]arts of general use, as defined in 
5 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US

note 2 to section XV.” Note 2(a) to Section XV also explains: “Throughout the tariff schedule, the expression 

‘parts of general use’ means . . . [a]rticles of heading . . . 

7318 and similar articles of other base metals.” Thus, 

reading these Notes together, as the CIT did, articles that 

are “parts of general use” under Chapter 73 cannot be 

classified as “parts” or “parts and accessories” under 

Chapter 87. 

Honda challenges this interplay between Chapters 73 

and 87, relying on the Explanatory Notes to Section XVII. 

4 World Customs Org., Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes 1712-13 (3d 

ed. 2002) (“Explanatory Notes”). “Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally binding or dispositive, they may 

be consulted for guidance and are generally indicative of 

the proper interpretation of the various HTSUS provisions.” Millenium Lumber, 558 F.3d at 1329 (citation 

omitted). Here, General Explanatory Note III to Section 

XVII says that the headings in that section 

apply only to those parts or accessories which 

comply with all three of the following conditions: 

(a) They must not be excluded by the terms of 

Note 2 to this Section . . . . and 

(b) They must be suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of Chapters 86 to 88 . . . 

. and 

(c) They must not be more specifically included 

elsewhere in the Nomenclature . . . . 

4 Explanatory Notes, supra, at 1712. Honda insists that 

its oil bolts meet condition (b) because they are suitable 

principally for use with vehicles listed in Chapter 87. 

However, the Explanatory Note requires an article to 

satisfy “all three” conditions, including condition (a): that 

it not be excluded “by the terms of Note 2 to this Section.” 
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 6

See also id. at 1739, 1745 (confirming that articles under 

headings 8708 and 8714 “must not be excluded by the 

provisions of the Notes to Section XVII”). As explained 

above, Note 2 to Section XVII excludes “[p]arts of general 

use.” Therefore, parts of general use cannot be classified 

under Chapter 87, even if they are “suitable for use solely 

or principally” with articles in that chapter. Paragraph 

(C) of the Explanatory Note to Section XV reiterates this 

rule: “parts of general use (as defined in Note 2 to this 

Section) presented separately are not considered as parts 

of articles, but are classified in the headings of this Section appropriate to them.” 3 Explanatory Notes, supra, at 

1210. The Explanatory Note then offers an example: “in 

the case of . . . springs specialised for motor cars . . . [t]he 

springs would be classified in heading 73.20 (as springs) 

and not in heading 87.08 (as parts of motor vehicles).” Id.

(emphasis added). Thus, an article’s specialization for 

vehicles does not preclude its classification as a part of 

general use. 

The Section Notes define “parts of general use” to include articles under heading 7318. Heading 7318 covers 

“[s]crews, bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw hooks, rivets, 

cotters, cotter pins, washers (including spring washers) 

and similar articles, of iron or steel.” The CIT thus correctly observed that “the initial test for plaintiff’s articles 

herein is whether the definition of screws, bolts and 

similar articles of iron or steel covers them.” Honda, 625 

F. Supp. 2d at 1327. If the oil bolts are parts of general 

use, then they cannot fall under Honda’s proposed subheadings. 

Within heading 7318, Customs chose subheading 

7318.15.80. “[S]ubheading 7318.15.80 is necessarily 

limited to screws.” Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United 

States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Ex-
7 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US

planatory Notes to heading 7318 list physical traits of 

“screws, bolts and nuts”: 

• They are “threaded” and “used to assemble or 

fasten goods.” 

• “Bolts and screws for metal” are “cylindrical in 

shape, with a close and only slightly inclined 

thread,” and “may have slotted heads or heads 

adapted for tightening with a spanner.” This “includes all types of fastening bolts and metal 

screws regardless of shape and use.” 

• Screws are “more usually screwed into a hole 

tapped in the material to be fastened.” 

3 Explanatory Notes, supra, at 1270. Similarly, in “Distinguishing Bolts From Screws,” a Customs Informed 

Compliance Publication of May 2000, Customs defined 

“screw” as “an externally threaded fastener capable of . . . 

mating with a preformed internal thread . . . and of being 

tightened or released by torquing the head.” We affirmed 

this definition in Rocknel Fastener, noting its basis in “an 

authoritative industry source that is generally consistent 

with the dictionary definitions.” 267 F.3d at 1358, 1361. 

Determining whether the oil bolts fall within subheading 7318.15.80 is a factual question, Outer Circle, 590 

F.3d at 1325, but there are no material disputes of fact 

here. Honda’s oil bolts mate with preformed holes, perform a fastening function, and are tightened by torquing 

their heads, thereby meeting the established definition for 

“screw”—despite their “bolt” moniker. Honda conceded 

before the CIT that its oil bolts “consist of partiallythreaded hex head articles of steel, which are torqued by 

a head into a preformed hole with one of their functions 
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 8

being to fasten both the oil bolt and the hose assembly to 

either a brake master cylinder or transmission case.” 

Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 2. Thus, 

there is no dispute that the oil bolts have the characteristics for subheading 7318.15, “Other screws and bolts, 

whether or not with their nuts or washers.” Nor does 

Honda dispute that the oil bolts feature “shanks or 

threads with a diameter of 6 mm or more,” which places 

them specifically under subheading 7318.15.80. See

Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1328. 

Honda insists that its oil bolts are not for “general 

use” because they “do not function solely in a fastening 

capacity,” but also conduct fluids and prevent leakage. 

Honda’s Reply Br. 5-6. However, the Explanatory and 

Section Notes do not restrict heading 7318 to items 

“whose sole function is to fasten,” as Honda claims. Id. 5. 

Rather, the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 73 clarify that 

“bolts and screws for metal” include “all types of fastening 

bolts and metal screws regardless of shape and use” 

(emphasis added). 

Honda also claims that Customs’ decision deserves 

less deference because it conflicts with previous rulings 

involving heading 7318. See Warner-Lambert Co. v. 

United States, 425 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that deference to Customs depends partly on “its 

consistency with earlier and later pronouncements,” 

according to Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 

(1944)). Those rulings are distinguishable. Honda cites 

Customs New York Ruling No. F88921 (July 7, 2000), 

where Customs classified a “steel washer” under heading 

8708 instead of heading 7318. Customs found, however, 

that “[t]he design features of this washer do not appear to 

have the characteristics of ‘parts of general use’ washers” 

under heading 7318. Id. This ruling therefore followed 

the principle that articles are classifiable under Chapter 
9 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US

87 only if they are not parts of general use. Similarly, in 

Customs Headquarters Ruling No. H007106 (May 8, 

2007), Customs placed a “plastic dryer timer knob” under 

heading 8451 because “[k]nobs are not described in Note 2 

to Section XV, HTSUS, as parts of general use nor are 

they similar to any of the articles mentioned therein.” It 

noted that the knobs were used “solely or principally with 

dryers” of subheadings in Chapter 84, but recognized that 

if the knobs were parts of general use, they would be 

“excluded from classification in Chapter 84.” Id. Finally, 

in Customs Headquarters Ruling No. 954102 (Mar. 15, 

1994), “control cables” with features that “dedicate them 

for use in vehicles” were classified under heading 8709, 

not as parts of general use. However, the contemporary 

Explanatory Notes to Chapter 73 stated that cables were 

parts of general use “provided they do not thereby assume 

the character of articles of other headings.” Id. Thus, the 

Notes specifically exempted the cables from Chapter 73, 

while the Notes applicable here do not exempt oil bolts. 

The CIT also noted that, at the time Ruling No. 954102 

issued, Customs was reconsidering the scope of heading 

8709 and its application to a cable, but not to a “screw, 

bolt, or the like.” Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30. 

Honda’s citation of other allegedly inconsistent rulings is 

similarly unpersuasive. Consistency with earlier and 

later pronouncements “cannot be read as precluding any 

deference to an agency ruling that has the power to 

persuade, solely because it is inconsistent with an earlier 

one.” Warner-Lambert, 425 F.3d at 1386. 

Finally, Honda argues that General Rule of Interpretation 3 requires that Chapter 87 headings apply because 

they are more specific than those in Chapter 73. Rule 3 

applies to tiebreakers: when goods are, “prima facie, 

classifiable under two or more headings,” the heading 

with “the most specific description” (Rule 3(a)), the head-
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 10

ing that covers the goods’ “essential character” (Rule 3(b)), 

or “the heading which occurs last in numerical order” 

(Rule 3(c)) governs. The government correctly responds 

that Rule 3 does not apply because there is no tie to 

break. Under Rule 1, which starts with the headings and 

“relative section or chapter notes,” the oil bolts are not 

prima facie classifiable under any Chapter 87 headings. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the CIT’s grant 

of summary judgment that Customs properly classified 

Honda’s oil bolts under Schedule subheading 7318.15.80. 

AFFIRMED