United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KAHRS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________ 

2012-1034

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in case No. 07-CV-0343, Judge Gregory W. Carman. 

______________________ 

Decided: April 3, 2013

______________________ 

CARL D. CAMMARATA, Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, 

of Madison, Wisconsin, argued for the plaintiff-appellant. 

With him on the brief were STEPHEN S. SPRAITZAR, 

MICHAEL J. TONSING and GEORGE R. TUTTLE. 

MIKKI COTTET, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. 

With her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director; BARBARA S. WILLIAMS, Attorney in Charge, of 
2 KAHRS INTL v. US

New York, New York. Of counsel on the brief was YELENA 

SLEPAK, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of the Assistant 

Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United 

States Customs and Border Protection, of New York, New 

York. Of counsel was BEVERLY A. FARRELL, Trial Attorney.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges, and KRIEGER, 

Chief Judge.*

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Kahrs International Inc. (“Kahrs”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of International 

Trade upholding a tariff classification determination by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) that 

Kahrs’ imported engineered wood flooring (“EWF”) is 

properly classified as “plywood” under heading 4412 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(“HTSUS”). Because Kahrs’ flooring panels are properly 

classified as “plywood” under heading 4412, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

Kahrs imports engineered wood flooring panels into 

the United States for distribution to flooring wholesalers. 

Kahrs’ flooring panels are composed of multiple layers 

(that is, “plies”) of wood that are glued together and 

laminated to resemble solid hardwood flooring. The 

panels have specially milled edges that allow them to be 

joined together in their final installation over a structural 

subfloor. 

* The Honorable Marcia S. Krieger, Chief Judge of 

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation, assumed the position of Chief 

Judge on January 1, 2013.

 
 KAHRS INTL v. US 3

At issue in this appeal are two types of flooring panels 

imported by Kahrs: (1) panels that are 14 millimeters 

thick and composed of seven plies, and (2) panels that are 

15 millimeters thick panels and have three plies. All of 

the imported flooring panels are composed of an odd 

number of plies, bonded together so that grains of adjacent layers are at right angles. The panels are laminated 

and are designed to simulate solid wood strip or plank 

flooring.

Kahrs classified its engineered wood flooring imports 

as “assembled parquet panels” under HTSUS subheading 

4418.30.00, a duty-free provision for “Builders’ joinery 

and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and 

assembled parquet panels; shingles and shakes: parquet 

panels.” HTSUS, subheading 4418.30.00 (2006). Kahrs 

identified the imported merchandise on its entry summaries as “PARQUET PANELS BUILDERS’ JOINE[RY].” 

CF-7501, Entry Papers, USCIT Court File (Ct. No. 07-

000343). Customs subsequently liquidated Kahrs’ merchandise under HTSUS 4412, which covers “plywood, 

veneered panels and similar laminated wood,” at a duty 

rate of 8% ad valorem. Customs explained that the 

merchandise was not parquet panels, but specifically 

engineered flooring of plywood construction with a nonconiferous face ply and no ply exceeding 6 millimeters in 

thickness.1

1 The relevant provisions of the 2006 HTSUS read as 

follows:

4412 Plywood

Plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not 

exceeding 6 mm in thickness:

4412.14 Other, with at least one outer ply of nonconiferous 

wood:

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a clear 

or transparent material which does not obscure the 

grain, texture or markings of the face ply:

4412.14.31 Other ............................................8% ad valorem

 
4 KAHRS INTL v. US

Kahrs protested Customs’ classification, and Customs 

denied the protest. Kahrs subsequently filed a complaint 

before the Court of International Trade challenging the 

protest denial. The Court of International Trade found 

that Customs correctly classified Kahrs’ merchandise as 

plywood under heading 4412. Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United 

States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009). In its 

analysis, the court considered the plain language of the 

HTSUS, a dictionary definition of “plywood,” and the 

definition of plywood adopted by this court in Boen Hardwood Flooring, Inc. v. United States, 357 F.3d 1262 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004). Kahrs, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 1276–78. The Court 

of International Trade entered summary judgment affirming Customs’ classification.

Kahrs appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(5).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment by 

the Court of International Trade. Drygel, Inc. v. United 

States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Proper classification of goods under the HTSUS is a 

two-step process. First, we ascertain the meaning of the 

Other, with at least one outer ply of nonconiferous wood:

4412.29 Other:

Plywood: Not surface covered, or surface covered 

with a clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the face 

ply:

4412.29.36 Other ............................................8% ad valorem

4412.29.56 Other............................................................duty-free

4418 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including 

cellular wood panels and assembled parquet panels; 

shingles and shakes:

4418.30.00 Parquet Panels ...............................................duty-free

4418.90 Other:

4418.90.20 Edge-glued lumber..............................duty-free

4418.90.45 Other .........................................3.2% ad valorem

 
 KAHRS INTL v. US 5

specific terms in the tariff provision. Orlando Food Corp. 

v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

This step is a question of law which we review without 

deference. Id. Second, we determine whether the goods 

come within the description of those terms. Id. This step 

is a factual inquiry which we review for clear error. Id.

While we accord deference to a classification ruling by 

Customs relative to its “power to persuade,” United States 

v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 235 (2001), we have “an 

independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the 

proper meaning and scope of HTSUS terms,” WarnerLambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Kahrs argues that its engineered wood 

flooring panels are not classifiable as plywood under 

heading 4412. In support of its position, Kahrs makes 

two alternative arguments: First, Kahrs argues that 

Customs’ classification of the EWF panels is inconsistent 

with the commercial meaning of “plywood.” Instead, 

Kahrs asserts that its flooring panels should be classified 

under heading 4418 as “builders’ joinery” or “assembled

parquet panels.” Second, Kahrs argues that, even if its 

flooring panels are prima facie classifiable under heading 

4412, they are also properly classified under heading 

4418. Kahrs argues that, because heading 4418 is more 

specific than heading 4412, its merchandise should be 

classified under heading 4418.

HTSUS CLASSIFICATION

An HTSUS classification determination involves two 

steps. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1439. First, we address 

the proper meaning of the relevant tariff provisions. Id. 

Second, we determine whether the merchandise at issue 

falls within a particular tariff provision as construed. Id. 

When there is no factual dispute regarding the nature, 
6 KAHRS INTL v. US

structure, and use of imported merchandise, the proper 

classification turns on the first step. Faus Group, Inc. v. 

United States, 581 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

To determine a product’s proper tariff classification, 

we apply the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), which 

are part of the HTSUS, in numerical order. BASF Corp. 

v. United States, 482 F.3d 1324, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

According to GRI 1, the HTSUS headings and relative 

section or chapter notes govern the classification of a 

product. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440. Absent contrary legislative intent, we construe HTSUS terms according 

to their common and commercial meanings, which we 

presume to be the same. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 

195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To discern the 

common meaning of a tariff term, we may consult dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information 

sources. Mead Corp. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1342, 

1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). After consulting the headings and 

relevant section or chapter notes, we may also consult the 

Explanatory Notes of the relevant chapters.2 Fuji Am. 

Corp. v. United States, 519 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally 

binding or dispositive, we may consult them for guidance 

and they are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the various HTSUS provisions. JVC Co. of Am. v. 

United States, 234 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See 

also BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371, 

1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011); N. Am. Processing Co. v. United 

2 The Explanatory Notes are a publication of the 

World Customs Organization (WCO). The Explanatory 

Notes give WCO’s official interpretation of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the 

“Harmonized System”). The Harmonized System is the

global system of trade nomenclature on which the HTSUS 

is based.

 
 KAHRS INTL v. US 7

States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Carl Zeiss, 195 

F.3d at 1378 n.1. 

Here, there is no factual dispute regarding the structure and use of Kahrs’ engineered wood flooring panels. 

We therefore decide the proper classification of Kahrs’ 

merchandise by determining the proper meaning and 

scope of the relevant provisions of the HTSUS. See Carl 

Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1375.

HEADING 4412—PLYWOOD

Kahrs argues that its engineered wood flooring panels 

are not prima facie classifiable under heading 4412, 

which covers “Plywood, veneered panels, and similar 

laminated wood.” HTSUS, heading 4412. Specifically, 

Kahrs argues that its flooring panels are not “plywood” 

according to the commercial meaning of the term. 

We have previously considered the meaning of “plywood” in the context of the HTSUS. In Russell Stadelman 

& Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2001), we 

said, “Plywood consists of a panel composed of layers of 

wood glued together, usually with the grains of adjoining 

layers at right angles to each other.” 242 F.3d at 1046 n.2 

(citing The American Heritage Dictionary 1352 (4th ed. 

2000)). We confirmed this basic definition in Timber 

Products Co. v. United States, 515 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 

2008), where we explained, “Plywood consists of three or 

more wooden sheets pressed together, with each sheet 

referred to as a ‘ply.’” 515 F.3d at 1217. Both of these 

definitions are consistent with the dictionary definition on 

which the Court of International Trade relied in this case. 

See Kahrs, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 1277. That definition is 

found in Webster’s International Dictionary, which defines plywood as “a structural material consisting of 

sheets of wood glued or cemented together with the grains 

of adjacent layers arranged at right angles or at a wide 

angle and being made up (1) wholly of uniformly thin 

veneer sheets [all-veneer plywood] or (2) of usually equal 
8 KAHRS INTL v. US

numbers of veneer sheets on either side of a thicker 

central layer [lumber-core plywood].” Id. (citing Webster’s 

Third New Int’l Dictionary 1746 (1986)).

Perhaps our most thorough review of the term “plywood,” however, is our opinion in Boen Hardwood Flooring, Inc. v. United States, 357 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

In Boen, we considered the proper definition of plywood in 

classifying laminated wood flooring that was substantially 

the same as Kahrs’ EWF imports. 357 F.3d at 1263–64. 

Reviewing various trade and dictionary definitions of the 

term “plywood,” we concluded that “[t]here are three 

common characteristics of ‘plywood’ found in the definitions provided above: (1) there must be at least three 

layers; (2) each layer must be arranged at a right angle to 

its adjacent layer; and (3) the layers must be bonded 

together.” Id. at 1265. These characteristics are common 

to Kahrs’ EWF. While Boen is not dispositive in this case, 

we are persuaded that our definition in Boen was correct. 

Kahrs’ argument that the commercial meaning of 

“plywood” does not include engineered wood flooring is 

unavailing. Heading 4412 is an eo nomine classification 

provision, not a use provision, as it describes the subject 

merchandise by name, not by use. See Clarendon Mktg., 

Inc. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 

1998). Generally, we should not read a use limitation into 

an eo nomine provision unless the name itself inherently 

suggests a type of use. Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999). Further, an eo nomine provision includes all 

forms of the named article, including improved forms. 

CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 

1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

While Kahrs’ merchandise possesses some unique features related to its intended use as flooring, we disagree 

with Kahrs that these features are sufficiently significant 

to transform its identity. Kahrs’ flooring meets all the 

requirements for “plywood” as we have defined that term, 
 KAHRS INTL v. US 9

and we see no reason to read additional limitations into 

the tariff schedule. As the Court of International Trade 

noted, Kahrs’ flooring panels are composed of at least 

three layers of wood. Kahrs, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 1269–70. 

Each layer is arranged at right angles to adjacent layers, 

and the layers are bonded together. Id. Not only does 

Kahrs’ flooring meet all the requirements for plywood, but 

it is essentially the same product that we classified in 

Boen as plywood under heading 4412.

The Explanatory Notes confirm that Kahrs’ merchandise is properly classified as plywood under heading 4412. 

Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally dispositive, they provide useful guidance and are “generally 

indicative of the proper interpretation” of the HTSUS. 

JVC, 234 F.3d at 1352–53. As the Court of International 

Trade pointed out, the Explanatory Notes for heading 

4412 provide in pertinent part, 

The heading also covers plywood panels or veneered panels, used as flooring panels, and sometimes referred to as “parquet flooring”. These 

panels have a thin veneer of wood affixed to the 

surface, so as to simulate a flooring panel made 

up of parquet strips.

World Customs Organization, Harmonized Commodity 

Description & Coding System Explanatory Notes, Explanatory Note 44.12, 814–16 (3d ed. 2002) (“Explanatory 

Note(s)”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Explanatory 

Notes confirm that Kahr’s flooring is properly classified as 

plywood under heading 4412. 

For the reasons above, we find that Kahrs’ engineered 

wood flooring is prima facie classifiable as plywood under 

heading 4412 of HTSUS.

BUILDERS’ JOINERY, HTSUS 4418

Kahrs argues that even if, as we have determined, its 

merchandise is classifiable as plywood under heading 
10 KAHRS INTL v. US

4412, it is also prima facie classifiable under heading 

4418, which covers “Builders’ joinery and carpentry of 

wood, including wood panels and assembled parquet 

panels . . . .” HTSUS, heading 4418. Specifically, Kahrs 

maintains that its flooring is properly classified under 

heading 4418 either as “assembled parquet panels” or as 

“builders’ joinery.” Kahrs argues that heading 4418 is 

more specific than heading 4412, and therefore that we 

should classify its flooring panels under heading 4418. 

The Court of International Trade is correct that 

Kahrs’ engineered wood flooring does not fall within the 

meaning of “assembled parquet panels” as that term is 

used in heading 4418. After reviewing several dictionary 

definitions of “parquet” and “parquetry,” the Court of 

International Trade concluded that “the sin[e] qua non

[without which not] of ‘parquet’ and ‘parquetry’ is that the 

inlaid wood strips of the parquetry themselves form a 

geometric pattern or mosaic.” Kahrs, 645 F. Supp. 2d at 

1278–79. We agree with this characterization. Kahrs’ 

EWF is not composed of inlaid wood strips. We also agree 

with the Court of International Trade that “in their 

imported condition, Kahrs’ . . . flooring products do not 

form a geometric or mosaic pattern.” Id. at 1278. Rather, 

Kahrs’ flooring panels are meant to simulate wood plank 

or strip flooring, neither of which exhibit the “geometric or 

mosaic pattern” characteristic of parquetry. 

Alternatively, Kahrs argues that its engineered flooring is properly classified under heading 4418 as “builders’ 

joinery.” In support of its position, Kahrs cites our decision in Faus, where we decided that laminated fiberboard 

flooring panels were properly classified under heading 

4418 as builders’ joinery. Faus, 581 F.3d at 1375. In 

Faus, we assumed without deciding that the laminated 

fiberboard flooring at issue was prima facie classifiable 

under both heading 4411 as fiberboard and heading 4418 

as builder’s joinery. Id. at 1373. We concluded that, as 

between those two headings, Faus’ flooring was more 
 KAHRS INTL v. US 11

appropriately classified under heading 4418 as builders’ 

joinery because that heading provided the more specific 

description. Id. at 1374.

When goods are prima facie classifiable under two or 

more headings or subheadings of HTSUS, “[t]he heading 

which provides the most specific description shall be 

preferred to headings providing a more general description.” HTSUS, GRI 3(a). Under this rule, “we look to the 

provision with requirements that are more difficult to 

satisfy and that describe the article with the greatest 

degree of accuracy and certainty.” Orlando Food, 140 F.3d 

at 1441. 

A product “described by both a use provision and an eo 

nomine provision is generally more specifically provided 

for under the use provision.” Sports Graphics, Inc. v. 

United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This 

rule, however, is not obligatory. Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 

1380. Rather, it is a “convenient rule of thumb for resolving issues where the competing provisions are in balance.” 

Id. at 1380. If the competing provisions are not in balance, the rule does not apply. Id. at 1380–81.

Here, we need not decide whether Kahrs’ engineered 

wood flooring is prima facie classifiable as “builders’ 

joinery” under heading 4418 because, even if it is, we find 

that heading 4412 provides the more specific classification. Several factors persuade us that this result is 

correct. 

First, our holding in Faus does not control here. Faus

dealt with laminated fiberboard having a photographic 

overlay, not engineered wood flooring. Faus, 581 F.3d at 

1370. Additionally, the photographic overlay added to 

Faus’ fiberboard panels was not a conventional component of fiberboard. Rather, the photographic overlay was 

a notable addition to the fiberboard, added to simulate 

real wood. Id. Here, in contrast, Kahrs’ engineered wood 

flooring is made entirely of plywood. See Kahrs, 645 F. 
12 KAHRS INTL v. US

Supp. 2d at 1270. Even the finished top layer of Kahrs’ 

flooring is a ply of wood, not an overlay of a different, 

additional material. Id. Nothing has been added to 

Kahrs’ wood panels to change their fundamental nature. 

Second, “builders’ joinery” encompasses a much wider 

range of products than does “plywood.” Although builders’ joinery is defined by its intended use, it is a sweeping 

classification that includes products of many types. In 

Faus, for example, we noted that builders’ joinery broadly 

includes “products used as non-structural elements in the 

construction of buildings.” Faus, 581 F.3d at 1374. While 

this definition speaks to use, we can hardly see how this 

use is particularly described and meaningfully limited. 

“Plywood,” on the other hand, implies very specific structure: at least three plies of wood, with each ply arranged 

at right angles to adjacent plies, and with the plies bonded together. See Boen, 357 F.3d at 1365. While the uses 

of plywood may vary, its structure may not. We find the 

requirements for plywood more difficult to satisfy than 

those for builders’ joinery.

Third, the Explanatory Note for heading 4412 specifies that heading 4412 includes “plywood panels or veneered panels, used as flooring panels, and sometimes 

referred to as ‘parquet flooring.’” Explanatory Note 44.12, 

at 814–16. Moreover, the Explanatory Note for heading 

4418 states explicitly that heading 4418 excludes “plywood panels or veneered panels, used as flooring panels, 

which have thin veneer of wood affixed to the surface.” 

Explanatory Note 44.12, at 821. The Note further provides that such merchandise is properly classified under 

heading 4412. Id. Here, in contrast to Faus, we have a 

persuasive secondary authority that clearly indicates an 

appropriate classification. 

Finally, Customs has ruled on this issue. Customs 

took the following position in a 2001 ruling explaining the 

proper classification of engineered wood flooring:
 KAHRS INTL v. US 13

[W]e conclude that flooring panels consisting of 

one or more strips of veneer on the surface are 

classifiable in heading 4412, HTSUS. These veneered flooring panels are distinct from parquet 

panels of heading 4418, HTSUS, which consist of 

individual parquet strips (lumber strips) joined 

together at the edges or ends to form the panel.

Customs Ruling HQ 964565, 2001 WL 718602 (May 14, 

2001). Customs’ ruling, which was published as required 

by statute, see 19 U.S.C § 1625(c), is entitled to Skidmore

deference. Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 425 F.3d 

1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Skidmore v. Swift & 

Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). We are persuaded that 

Customs’ ruling is correct.

For the reasons above, we find that heading 4412 provides a more specific description of Kahrs’ imported 

merchandise than does heading 4418. Accordingly, we 

find that Kahrs’ merchandise is not properly classified 

under heading 4418.

CONCLUSION

Because Kahrs’ engineered wood flooring is prima facie classifiable as plywood under heading 4412, and 

because heading 4412 provides a more specific description 

of Kahrs’ merchandise than does heading 4418, we hold 

that the Court of International Trade correctly classified 

Kahrs’ merchandise as plywood under heading 4412 of the 

HTSUS. The decision of the Court of International Trade 

is

AFFIRMED