Slip O p. 12- UNITED STA TES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Court No. 09-00455

[ Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgm ent is den ied and Defen dant’s cross-motion for summary judgme nt is granted. ] Peter S. Herri ck of Miam i, FL, for Plainti ff. Beverly A. Farrell , Tri al Att or ney, Commercial L i tigati on Branch, Ci vil D i vis i on, Uni ted S tate s Department of Justi ce, of Washingto n, DC, for Defendan t. On t he bri efs were Stuart F. Dele ry, Assi stant Att or ney General, Barba ra S. Williams, Att or ney in Charge , Inter nati onal Trade Field Offi ce, Uni ted S tate s Department of Justi ce, and Beth C. Brotman , Of Counsel, Offi ce of the Assi stant Chi ef Counsel, International Trade Li tigati on, Uni ted S tate s Cus toms and Border Prot ecti on.

Decem ber 14, 2012 O P I N I O N C A R M A N , J U D G E : Thi s matter is b efore t he Courton a Mo tion for Summary Judgment by Plainti ff R.T. Foods, Inc. (“P lainti ff” or “R.T. Fo ods”) and a Cross-Motion for S umm ary Judgment by Defen dant Uni ted S tate s (“D efendant” or “Custo ms”) . The R.T. FOODS, IN C., Plaint iff,

v. UNITED STA TES, Defendant.Court No. 09-00455 Page 2

parties di spute the corr ect tar i ff c lass i fi cati on of the subject merchandi se—frozen tempura-batter ed veg etable mi xtur es from Thai land—i mport ed by Plainti ff. For t he reasons set fort h below, P lainti ff’s m otion i s deni ed, and Defendant’s cross-m otion i s gr anted. F A C T U A L B A C K G R O U N D Plainti ff i s an i mport er o f the two pro ducts at i ssu e: Tempura Vegetables (“Vegetable Medley ”) and Vegetable Bi rd’s Nests (“Bi rd’s Nests”) from Thai land. Pl .’s St atement o f Mater i al Facts as to Whi ch No Genu i ne Issu e Exis ts (“Pl. Facts”) ¶¶ 2–3; Def.’s Statement o f Mater i al Facts as to Whi ch No Genu i ne Issu e Exis ts (“Def . Facts”) ¶¶ 2–4. Thi s cas e i nvolv es twenty-four entr i es into the port s of Long Beach, Cali fornia and Boston, Massachu setts between October 2007 and August 2008. Summons, ECF No. 1; Def.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mo t. for Summ. J. an d in Supp. of Def.’s Cro ss- Mot . for S umm . J. (“D ef. Cross-Mot .”) at 2. The parties do notdi spute the i denti ty o f the subject mer chand i se: frozen tempura-batter ed veg etable mi xtur es sold un der t he names of “Veget able Bi rd’s Nests” and “Temp ura Veget ables.” Bi rd’s Nests consi st of carro ts, oni on and kale, whi ch are cut juli enned-s tyle, mixed tog ether , di pped in tempura batter , deep fri ed, flashfrozen and packaged ei ght in a retailtr ay. The name of the product is eponymous wi th the appearance of the pro duct. Def . Cro ss- Mot . at 2, Def. Ex. 2; Pl. Mot. at 2–3.Court No. 09-00455 Page 3

Vegetable M edley in clud es ei ghteen piec es of tempura: thre e Bi rd’s Nests, three pi eces of s weet pot ato, t hree piec es of carrot, three pi eces of w i ng bean, three pieces of long o r g reen bean, and three pieces of egg plant. Def. Cross-Mot. at2. The indi vidu al veg etables in the Veget able Medley ar e also dusted wi th tempura batt er, deep fried, flashfrozen and packaged in a retai l box. Id

. Plainti ff i mport ed twenty-four ent ries of subject mer chand i se in thi s cas e, ten in to the por t of Bosto n and fourteen i n the por t of LongBeach. D ef. Cross-Mot . at 3. Customs c lass i fi ed the ten Bo ston entr i es and three of the Lo ng Beach entriesunder the Harmoni zed Tari ff Schedu le of the United Stat es (“HT SUS ”) tariff clas si fi cati on of 2004.90.85, whi ch provides for “Other veg etables prepared o r pr eserve d other wi se than by vinegar or aceti c aci d, frozen, ot her than pro ducts of h eadi ng 2006: Ot her v eget ables and mi xtur es of vege tables: Other : Other , inclu ding mi xtur es,” wi th a duty r ate o f 11.2%. Def. Cross-Mot. at3. Customs notes that elev en of the entr i es into t he port of Long Beach were 1 li qui dated under Plainti ff’s p ro posed tariff clas si fi cati on of 2106.90.99, HTSUS , whi ch prov i des for “Fo od prepar ations not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded: Other : Other : These eleven entries ( 277-0117421-4, 277- 0117498-2, 277-0117803- 3, 277-0118263- 1 9, 277-0118077-3, 277- 0118462-7, 277-0118901- 4, 277-0119300-8, 277- 0119301-6, 277- 0119997-1 and 277- 0116454-6) w ere liqui dated under Plainti ff’s p ro posed clas si fi cati on of sub heading 2106.90.99, HTSUS . Customs avers that “t hi s duty-free li qui dation w as i n err or and does not re flect Cus toms’ posi tion of the clas si fi cati on/rat e of duty o f the subject mer chand i se.” Def . Facts ¶¶ 12-13.Court No. 09-00455 Page 4

Other : Fr ozen,” wi th a duty-free pr eference for pr oducts from Thai land. Def . Facts ¶ 13; Def. Cross-Mot. at2–3. Although the other thi rt een entries w ere liqui dated at t he duty r ate o f 11.2%, these eleven entr i es were i n fac t, whether acci dentally as Customs clai ms or pro perly as Plai nti ff c lai ms, li qui dated wi th no tar i ff rate. Pl. Facts ¶ 19; Def. Facts ¶ 13. On Mar ch 24 and 25, 2009, Plainti ff ti mely pro tested Customs’ class i fi cati on for all twenty-four entr i es, ass ert i ng that t he proper clas si fi cati on of its s ubject merchandi se i s subheading 2106.90.99, HTSUS

. See Summons, ECF No. 1. Customs i ssu ed notic es of deni als in response to Plai nti ff’s p ro tests on the follo wing dates: Prot est Numb er 2704- 09-100924 on August 14, 2009; Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100996 on Sept ember 23, 2009;

2 3 and Protest Number 0401-09-100048 on April 1, 2009. Id .; Def.’s Cross- Mot . at 3. 4 Plainti ff c ommenced thi s acti on on Octo ber 21, 2009. Summons, ECF No. 1.

Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100924 cover s the following thr ee entr i es into t he port 2 of Long Beach: 277-0116601-2, 277- 0116682-2 and 277- 0119690-2. Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100996 cover s the following eleve n entries into t he port 3 of Long Beach: 277-0117421-4, 277- 0117498-2, 277-0117803- 3, 277-0118263-9, 277- 0118077-3, 277-0118462- 7, 277-0118901-4, 277- 0119300-8, 277-0119301- 6, 277-0119997-1 and 277-0116454- 6. Prot est Numb er 0401-09-100048 cover s the following ten entr i es into t he port of 4 Boston: 281-0107098-6, 281-0107614-0, 281- 0108049-8, 281-0108452- 4, 281-0108451-6, 281- 0109110-7, 281-0109447- 3, 281-0111268-9, 281- 0111338-0 and 281- 0112080-7.Court No. 09-00455 Page 5 J U R I S D I C T I O N A N D S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W The Court has “exclusi ve j uri sdi cti on of any ci vil ac tion c ommenced to contest the deni al of a prot est, i n whole or in p art, under secti on 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930” pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1581(a) (2006)

. Summary j udgment i s appropriate when the 5

recor d shows that “t here is no genuine i ssu e as to any mate rial f act and that the mov ant i s enti tled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c). Although Customs usu ally enjo ys a statuto ry presumpti on of corr ectness in i ts clas si fi cati on deci si ons, thi s does not apply to pure i ssu es of law in a su mmary judgment mot i on before t he Court

. Unive rsal Elec. Inc . v. United S tat es , 112 F.3d 488, 492 (Fed. Ci r. 1997). The Court“does not defer to C ustoms’ deci si ons becau se i t has been tasked by Co ngress to conduct a de novo rev i ew, and to deter mine the corr ect clas si fi cati on based on the recor d made bef or e i t.” Unive rsal Elec. , 112 F.3d at 493; see 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a). Ultimately, the Co urt's “duty is to find the correctresult, by whatever procedure is b est sui ted to the case at hand.” Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States , 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Ci r. 1984) (emphas i s in origi nal). Resolution of a di sputed cl assi fi cati on entails a two-step pro cess : (1) as certaining the pro per meani ng of speci fi c terms in the relev ant tar i ff provisi ons; and (2)

All refer ences to the United Stat es Code hereinafter refer to t he 2006 edi tion, 5 unles s otherwis e speci fi ed.Court No. 09-00455 Page 6

deter mining whether t he merchandi se at i ssu e comes w i thi n the descri ption of s uch ter ms as proper ly construed. Pillowtex Corp. v. United States , 171 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Ci r. 1999). When “the nature o f the merchandi se i s un di sputed, . . . the clas si fi cati on i ssu e collapses entirely i nto a question of law .” Cum mins Inc. v. Un ited States , 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Ci r. 2006) (ci tations omi tte d). Corr ect class i fi cati on of im port ed merchandi se i s ulti mately a question of law

. Pillowtex Corp. , 171 F.3d at 1373. D I S C U S S I O N The threshold questi on in any judi ci al proceedin g is whether the court has jurisdi cti on to hear the case. Defendan t r ai ses juri sdi cti onal i ssu es in i ts cross-m otion, and therefor e the Co urt first addresses the questi on of j uri sdi cti on as to t he three prot ests at i ssu e. The Court t hen deci des the proper clas si fi cati on of the subject merchandi se for the ent riesov er whi ch i t has juris di cti on. A. Jurisdi cti on 1. Protest Nu mber 0401-09-100048 Defendan t r ai ses a s tatut e of li mi tations defen se for Prot est Numb er 0401-09- 100048. Whi le thi s court has “exclus i ve j uri sdi cti on of any ci vil ac tion c ommenced to contest the denial of a protest” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), ther e i s a statute of li mi tations on the commenc ement of an acti on pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2636(a)(1) : (a) A ci vil ac tion c ontesting the deni al, in whole or in p art, of a pro test under secti on 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is barred unless c ommenced inCourt No. 09-00455 Page 7

accordance w i th the r ules of the Court o f Internat i onal Trade— (1) w i thi n one hundred and ei ghty days after t he date of mai ling of not i ce of deni al of a prot est under secti on 515(a) of su ch Act. For jurisdi cti on to attach, a summ ons mus t be fi led wi thi n 180 days after the no tic e of a deni al of prot est i s mai led. In the in stant case, P lainti ff fi led three pr ote sts to cov er t he twenty-four ent ries and Cus toms i ssu ed deni als on the following dates: Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100924 on August 14, 2009; Protest Number 2704-09-100996 on September 23, 2009; and Protest Number 0401-09-100048 on April 1, 2009. See Summons, ECF No. 1; see also Def.’s Cross- Mot . at 3. The sum mons c ommencing this acti on was fi led on October 21, 2009. Se e Summons, ECF No. 1. Accordin gly, t he prot ests deni ed on August 14, 2009 and September 23, 2009 ar e tim ely ; however , the pro test denied on April 1, 2009 f alls outsi de the li mi tations peri od by appro xim ately t wenty days. Therefore , the Cour t is barred by 28 U .S.C. § 2636(a)(1) fro m hearing a challenge to the deni al of Prot est Numb er 0401-09-100048. On April 28, 2009, Pl ai nti ff fi led a request to Customs to have its deni al of Prot est Numb er 0401-09-100048 set asi de pursuant to 19 U.S .C. § 1515(d), and on May 13, 2009, Plainti ff fi led a request to have the denial of i ts appli cati on for r eview s et asi de pursuant to 19 U .S.C. § 1515(c). Summons, ECF No. 1; Def. Cro ss- Mot . at 10, n.3. Dropped in a foot note in i ts Summons b ut not ex panded upon in i ts motion, Pl ai nti ff c lai med that the completi on of the 180-day stat ute of li mi tations c lock was tolled due to Customs’ fai lureCourt No. 09-00455 Page 8

to r espond to its requests to set asi de the deni al of i ts prot est and the deni al of i ts appli cati on for r eview. Id . Defendant counter ed that Plai nti ff inserted this clai m in i ts 4 Summons b ecaus e Plainti ff “[ a]pparently r ecogniz[ ed] that j uri sdi cti on would not att ach to t hese entries due to fi ling the summonsafter 180 day s had pas sed”; however, Defendan t asserted t hat Plainti ff’s c lai m has “no i mpact on the 180-day period for fi li ng

a sum mons and s ecti on 1515 pro videsno to lling mechani sm.” D ef. Cross-Mot . at 10, n.3. The Court not es that 19 U.S .C. § 1515(c) explic i tly mandates that t he 180-day period for commencing an acti on i n the Court of Inter nati onal Trade is tr i gge red by t he ini tial deni al of the pro test for statute o f li mi tations pu rposes. Thus, the Cour t finds that

commenc ement of this acti on i n relation to Pro test Number 0401-09-100048 i s barred by the statute of li mi tations and d eter mines that i t lacks jurisd i cti on ov er t he ten entr i es

cover ed by Prot est Numb er 0401-09-100048.

2. Protest Nu mber 2704-09-100996 Defendan t r ai ses a Consti tutional defen se for Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100996. A federal court’ s juris di cti onal reach has Consti tutional li mi tations: an ac tion mu st present a case or contr ov ersy t o be heard. U.S . C O N S T . ArtIII , § 2. Precedent has establi shed three elements to satis fy the Co nsti tutional requi rement o f cas e or contro ver sy: a plainti ff ( 1) mu st have suffered an in jury in fac t (2) that is caus ed by the conduct See t he asteris k not e on page 2 o f the Schedule of Protests in clud ed i n i ts 4 Summons, ECF No. 1. See also Defendant’s Exhibi t 3 to i ts cross-m otion.Court No. 09-00455 Page 9

complained of and (3) that is“li kely” be “r edressed by a favor able deci si on.” Luj an v. Def. of Wildlif

e, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plainti ff, asthe part y invo kin g j uri sdi cti on, bears the burden of establi shing these factors. Id . at 561. Defendan t asserts that t he eleven entr i es covere d by Prot est Numb er 2704-09- 100996 were acci dentally and i ncorre ctly li qui dated at Plai nti ff’s p ro posed clas si fi cati on at a duty fr ee rat e. Def. Cross-Mot. at8–9. Becaus e li qui dation occ urred at a duty free rat e, Customs argues that Plai nti ff s uffered “no injury in f act” as to these elev en entries as requi red by t he cas e or contro ver sy doctrine. Id . at 8-9. The Court ag rees that Plainti ff s uffered no injury as to these eleven entr i es. Thu s, the Courtfinds that there is no case or contr ov ersy as to these entries and deter mines that i t lacks jurisd i cti on ov er the elev en entries c ov ered by Pro test Number 2704-09-100996.

3. Protest Nu mber 2704-09-100924 Defendan t does notchallen ge j uri sdi cti on for Pr ote st Numb er 2704-09-100924, whi ch w as ti mely commenc ed. Plainti ff c lai ms injury caus ed by Customs’ i mproper li qui dation at a 11.2% duty rat e and seeks redress in the Court . Thus, the Cour t deter mines i t has juris di cti on ov er t he three e ntries ( 277-0116601-2, 277- 0116682-2 and 277-0119690-2) cover ed by Prot est Numb er 2704-09-100924. B. Proposed Class ific ations Customs c lass i fi ed the subject merchandi se und er subheading 2004.90.85,Court No. 09-00455 Page 10

HTSUS, whi ch provides for “Other veg etables prepared o r pr eserve d other wi se than by vinegar or aceti c aci d, frozen, ot her than pro ducts of h eadi ng 2006: Ot her v eget ables and mi xtur es of vege tables: Other : Other , inclu ding mi xtur es,” wi th a duty r ate o f 11.2%. Def. Cross-Mot. at3. Defendan t ex plains:

Nei ther the inclu si on o f no n-veget able i ngredients nor the process of coatin g the veg etables i n tempura bat ter and then frying t hem serv es t o remov e the [subject merchandi se] fro m clas si fi cati on i n Heading 2004.

. . . long-standing precedent on the subject of prepar ed or pr e se r v ed food products i ndi cates that products undergoing var i ous processes (inclu ding frying) and contai ning added i ngredients fall squarely within the tar i ff prov i si on for pr oducts that are “pr epared o r pr eserve d.” Def. Cross-Mot. at13. Whi le conceding that t he veg etables us ed i n the subject merchandi se are pro cess ed wi th tempura batt er, Defendant asserts that the v eget ables “ret ai n[] the s ame nature and the same us e for edible c onsump tion as the ve get ables prior to processing” (Def. Facts ¶¶ 3, 7), and thus belong under the speci fi c tariff prov i si on for pr epared mi xed v eget ables an d not Plai nti ff’s p ro posed basket pro vis i on for “foo d preparat i on” (Def. Cross-Mot. at 5-6). Plainti ff c ontends that t he manu facturing pro cess does i ndeed chan ge t he nature of the pro ducts fro m a veget able mi xtur e to food pre paration. See Pl. Mot. at 6-7. Plainti ff argues that the pr oper clas si fi cati on of the pr oducts i s HT SUS sub heading 2106.90.99, whi ch provides for “Foo d preparat i ons not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded: Other : Other : Other : Fr ozen,” wi th a duty fre e prefer ence for pro ducts fro m Thai land.Court No. 09-00455 Page 11

See HTSUS, Gener al Notes 3(a)(i i i ), 3(c )(i ), 4(a) ; see also HTSUS Heading 2106. Pl ai nti ff asserts i ts propo sed cl assi fi cati on i s more speci fi c than Defendant’s propo sed clas si fi cati on becaus e “food pr eparat i ons not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded, prov i des a more speci fi c desc ripti on of the imp or ted go ods when c onsi dering the prin ci ple use of the im port ed goo ds as food pre parations.” P l. Mot . at 9. Defendant counters that becau se a more speci fi c heading i s appli cable, P lainti ff’s u se prov i si on arg ument in supp or t of its b asket pr ov i si on class i fi cati on i s rendered moo t. See Def.’s Reply Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mo t. for Summ. J. an d in Further Suppor t of Def.’s Cross-Mot. fo r Summ. J. ( “Def. Reply”) at 5. C. GRI Analysi s Classi fi cati on of merchandi se i s gov erned by t he General Rules of Interpr etat i on (“GRIs”). Avenues in L eather, Inc. v. United S tat es , 423 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The GRIs di rect “t he proper clas si fi cati on of all merchandi se and are appli ed i n numeri cal order .” Carl Zeis s, Inc. v. Un ited States , 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Court may no t consult any sub sequent GRI unles s the proper clas si fi cati on cannot be determined b y r eference to GRI 1. Mita Copystar Am. v. United States , 160 F. 3d 710, 712 (Fed. Ci r. 1998). The analysi s alw ays start s wi th GRI 1, whi ch provides “clas si fi cati on shall b e deter mined acc or ding to the ter ms of the headings and any relat i ve section or chapter not es.” Tari ff terms are construed inaccordance w i th theirCourt No. 09-00455 Page 12

common or popular meanin g. Medline Indu s., Inc. v. Un ited States , 62 F.3d 1407, 1409 (1995). The Court first consi ders heading 2004, HTSUS , whi ch provides for “Other veg etables prepared o r pr eserve d other wi se than by vin egar or aceti c aci d, frozen, ot her than products of heading 2006.” Thi s heading i s an eo nomine clas si fi cati on pro vis i on, whi ch “des cribes a c ommodi ty by a speci fi c nam e.” Clarendon Marketing, Inc. v. Un ited States , 144 F.3d. 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Bi rd’s Nests are compris ed of julienned

carro ts, oni on and kale, whi ch are mi xed to get her, dip ped in tempura batter , deep fri ed, flashfrozen and packaged eight i n a retail tray . Def. Cross-Mot. at2. Vegetable M edley consi sts of ei ghteen piec es of tempura veg etables or v eget able mi xtur es: three Bird’s Nests, three piec es of sw eet po tato , three pi eces of c arr ot, t hree piec es of wing bean, three pi eces of long or gr een bean, and three pi eces of eggplant, whi ch are dusted wi th flour and salt, di pped in tempura batter , deep fri ed, flashfrozen and packaged in a ret ai l box. Id

. To prima facie fall un der headin g 2004, HTSUS fi ve criteria mu st be met: the products mus t be (1) veget ables that are (2) prepare d or pr eserve d, (3) otherwi se than by vinegar or aceti c aci d, whi ch are (4) fro zen, and are (5) other t han products of heading 2006, HTSUS . Both t he Bi rd’s Nests and the Vegetable Medley sati sfy all fi ve cri ter i a: they ar e (1) veget ables that are (2) prepare d (3) in tempura batter , not in vinegarCourt No. 09-00455 Page 13

or aceti c aci d, whi ch are (4) flash fro zen, and are (5) not pro ducts p reserv ed by sugar as prov i ded for by headin g 2006, HTSUS . Thus, the Cour t fi nds that the subject merchandi se prima facie falls under heading 2004, HTSUS

. Next, t he Courtconsi ders heading 2106, HTSUS , whi ch provides for “Foo d prepar ationsnot elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded.” To prima facie fall un der headin g 2016, HTSUS, t wo cri ter i a mus t be met: the pr oducts mu st be (1) a food pr eparat i on, whi ch i s (2) not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded. Both Bird Nests an d Vegetable Me dley sati sfy the fi rst criterion, bu t notthe second: they ar e (1) a food preparat i on by common meaning, but they ar e (2) els ewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded. Becaus e they ar e class i fi able under heading 2004, HTSUS , Bi rd’s Nests and Vegetable Medley do not satis fy the second c riterion of “not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded.” Thu s, the Courtfinds that the products do notprima facie fi t under headi ng 2106, HTSUS , whi ch i s an expansi ve basket heading that o nly appli es in the absenc e of another appli cable h eadi ng. In support o f i ts posi tion, P lainti ff referenced two rulin g lett ers as su pport for its propo sed cl assi fi cati on: (1) Ruling Lett er NY 815439 (O ct. 26, 1995) and ( 2) Ruling Lett er N004522 (Jan . 12, 2007). Pl.’s Mot . at 6-7. Ruling Lett er NY 815439 involve s clas si fi cati on of frui t and veg etable chi ps from China and Tai wan whi le Ruling Lett er N004522 involv es frozen hor s d’oeuvr es from Canada. The Court fi nds b oth o f those Ruling Lett ers i napposi te because the subject merchandi se di scu ssed in those ruli ngCourt No. 09-00455 Page 14

lette rs—chi ps mad e from a combinati on of frui ts and veget ables an d hors d’oeuv res made from var i ous ingredients inclu ding water, cheeses, oi ls, wheat crumbs and flour, corn starch, batter , spi ces, s alt, flavor i ngs, alcohol, color and sorbicaci d—are not sub stanti ally si mi lar to the tempura v eget able products at i ssu e. The Court r eviewed ruling lett ers reg ardin g ot her te mpura-c oate d products,

such as s hrim p. For example, Customs cl assi fi ed tempura shri mp products un der a prov i si on for pr epared shrim p. See Ruling Lett ers N138762 (Jan. 6, 2011) , NY L80717 (Dec . 14, 2004). It appears that Customs hasconsi stently classi fi ed tempura-coated products by the underlying main food di pped into the tempura batter , not as a food prepar ation. Th erefor e, the ex i sti ng rulin g lett ers lend credence to Customs’ pro posed clas si fi cati on for fr ozen prepar ed veg etables over Plainti ff’s p ro posed basket pro vis i on for foo d preparat i ons. Defendan t mentions another heading to be consi dered. Defendant rais es the poin t thatthe sweet potat oes i n the Veget able Medley may belong under a di fferent heading in Chapter 20. Def. Cro ss- Mot . at 14, n.8. An Explanato ry Note t o headi ng 2008 i ndi cates that headi ng 2008 i nclu des “[s ]tems, root s and other edib le parts of plants (e.g., ginger, angelic a, yams, sw eet po tato es . . . .) c onserv ed i n syrup or o therwis e prepar ed or preserv ed.” WCO, Explanato ry Note (7) to Heading 2008 (Supp. 9 to 2007 Ed.) (em phasi s added) . Heading 2008, HTSUS , prov i des for “frui ts, nuts and otherCourt No. 09-00455 Page 15

edible parts of plants, other wi se prepared o r pr eserve d, whether or not containing added su gar or other sweetening matter or spi rit, not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded.” First, the Court notes thatthe Explanato ry Notes ar e “not leg ally binding or di sposi tive, but they may be consulted for guidan ce and are gener ally indi cati ve o f the proper i nterpr etat i on of the v arious HTSUS pr ov i si ons.” Benq America Corp. v. Un ited States , 646 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (c i tations omi tte d). Next, the Co urt acknowledges that the subject merchandi se at i ssu e i s not mere sweet pot atoe s bu t rat her te mpura-c oate d veg etables or v eget able mi xtur es of whi ch only one of the t wo products i nclu des three piec es of sw eet po tato , a mere 16 per cent of the ve get able mi xtur e. Conte mplating the pr oduct as a wh ole, a r easonable mind could n ot consi der the subject merchandi se a sw eet po tato . It is, rather, a mi xed v eget able product i n whi ch s weet pot atoe s do not dominate. Assu ming, arguendo , that t he sw eet po tato es di d consti tute a si gni fi cant percentage or value of the Veg etable Medley , the Cour t analyzes the t erms of heading 2008, HTSUS, t o comprehensi vely consi der all the po ssi ble tariff prov i si ons. To prima facie fall un der t hi s cl assi fi cati on thr ee criteri a mus t be met: the pr oducts mu st be (1) frui ts, nuts or ot her edib le parts of plants, (2) otherwis e prepar ed or preserv ed, whi ch are (3) not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded. The Vegetable Medley ar guably sati sfi es the fi rst t wo cri ter i a but not the t hi rd: whi le not a fruit or nut, it could c olor ably beCourt No. 09-00455 Page 16

consi dered (1) an other edible part o f a plant and i t is certainly (2) prepar ed in tempura batter . However , as wi th Plainti ff’s p ro posed clas si fi cati on, this clas si fi cati on i s ni xed from consi derat i on by the phrase (3) “not elsewhere speci fi ed or i nclu ded.” Becaus e i t was found to fit un der headin g 2004, HTSUS , Vegetable M edley cannot fall under the rubricof a basket pro vis i on, whi ch w as the same f ate t hat befell heading 2106, HTSUS

. Thus, the Cour t fi nds that the pro ducts d o notprima facie fall un der headin g 2008, HTSUS. The Court fin ally examin es the one appli cable h eadi ng, 2004, for t he proper sub heading. Upon r eview of the poss ible subheadings under heading 2004, the Co urt finds that the pro per subheading i s 2004.90.85, HT SUS , whi ch provides for “Other veg etables and mi xtur es of vege tables: Other .” Therefore , the Cour t holds the corr ect tar i ff c lass i fi cati on for t he Bi rd’s Nests and Vegetable Medley is s ubheading 2004.90.85, HTSUS. C O N C L U S I O N Sinc e ther e i s no di spute between the parties as to t he nature of t he merchandi se i nvolv ed i n thi s cas e and the only is sues to be r esolved ar e legal, the case i s ri pe for di sposal at the sum mary j udgment stage. See, e.g., V alue Vin yls, Inc. v. U nited States , 31 CIT 173, 175, 2007 WL 273839 at *2 (2007) ( citing An derson v. Li berty Lobb y, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986) ). The Court affi rms Defen dant’s preferr ed tar i ff c lass i fi cati on ofCourt No. 09-00455 Page 17

2004.90.85, HTSUS, for entries 277- 0116601-2, 277-0116682- 2 and 277-0119690- 2 for whi ch juri sdi cti on li es. Therefore, Plai nti ff’s Motion for Summary Judgement is deni ed and Defendant’s Cross-Mot i on for S umm ary Judgment i s granted. Judgment wi ll enter accordi ngly.

/s/ Gregor y W. Car man Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Dated: December 14, 2012 New York, New York