United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LINK SNACKS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1319

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 09-CV-0304 and 09-CV-0464, Judge Leo M. 

Gordon.

______________________ 

Decided: February 3, 2014

______________________ 

GREGORY G. GARRE, Latham & Watkins LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the 

brief were LIZBETH R. LEVINSON and RONALD M. WISLA, 

Kutak Rock, LLP, of Washington, DC. 

ALEXANDER VANDERWEIDE, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of New York, New York, argued 

for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were 

STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE 

E. DAVIDSON, Director, of Washington, DC, and BARBARA 
2 LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US

S. WILLIAMS, Attorney in Charge, International Trade 

Field Office, of New York, New York. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Link Snacks, Inc. (“LSI”) appeals from the summary 

judgment decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming Customs’ decision classifying LSI’s 

beef jerky products as “[c]ured or pickled” bovine meat 

products under subheading 1602.50.09 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Link 

Snacks, Inc. v. United States, 901 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2013). Because the imported articles are 

described eo nomine by HTSUS Heading 1602.50.09 and 

the court did not err in granting summary judgment as a 

matter of law, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

LSI imported beef jerky products from New Zealand 

and Brazil consisting of sliced, cooked, cured, and dried 

meat seasoned with salt and other spices and flavors. The 

manufacturing process for the imported jerky involves, 

inter alia, curing the sliced boneless beef in a mixture of 

seasoning, sodium nitrate, and water for 24 to 48 hours, 

after which the meat is cooked and smoked for three to six 

hours. Id. at 1371–72. Once placed in airtight bags, the 

product has a shelf life of 18–20 months. 

United States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified the subject beef jerky under HTSUS 

subheading 1602.50.09 as “cured” prepared or preserved 

beef and denied LSI’s protests to classify it under subheading 1602.50.2040 as “other” prepared or preserved 

beef. Id. at 1371. LSI then filed suit in the Court of 

International Trade. After discovery, both parties then 

moved for summary judgment.
LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US 3

The Court of International Trade denied LSI’s motion 

for summary judgment and granted the government’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment. Id. at 1375. The 

court analyzed each party’s proposed subheading pursuant to Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation 

(“GRIs”) by consulting expert statements and relevant 

materials to determine the common meaning of the term 

“cured.” Id. at 1373–74. The court considered LSI’s 

arguments that beef jerky is a product defined more by its 

dehydrated properties than by the curing process, but 

instead found that subheading 1602.50.09 was an eo 

nomine provision because it “‘includ[ed] all forms of the 

named article’, even improved forms.” Id. at 1375 (quoting Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 1999)). The court thus affirmed Customs’s 

classification, concluding that although LSI’s jerky product may also be affected by the preservative process of 

dehydration, it nevertheless remained “cured” within the 

meaning of 1602.50.09. Id. at 1375.

LSI timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Court of International Trade’s grant of 

summary judgment without deference, CamelBak Prods., 

LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 

2011), and “decide de novo the proper interpretation of the 

tariff provisions as well as whether there are genuine 

issues of fact to preclude summary judgment,” Millenium 

Lumber Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326, 

1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Although we accord deference to a 

classification ruling by Customs to the extent of 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,” Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 

F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We thus review the 
4 LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US

interpretation of the governing statutory provisions 

without deference to the trial court’s decision. Lynteq, 

Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

LSI argues that its beef jerky products are properly 

categorized under 1602.50.2040 as “other” prepared or 

preserved beef. It argues that the drying process changes 

the beef jerky into a different product from conventional 

cured meat products, such as packaged ham and roast 

beef. For support, LSI points to differences in the way the 

United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) classifies meat products depending on the moisture content. 

Additionally, LSI argues that under GRI 3(b), beef jerky 

is properly classified as “other.” 

The government maintains, and the Court of International Trade so held, that the subject beef jerky is categorized under subheading 1602.50.09 because it is described 

eo nomine under that heading as cured beef. The government contends that another agency’s non-tariff regulations do not control the Customs categorization. The 

government also responds that no analysis beyond GRI 1 

is required because the imported merchandise is not 

classifiable under two or more subheadings. 

We agree with the government and the Court of International Trade that the proper classification is under 

subheading 1602.50.09. Merchandise imported into the 

United States is classified under the HTSUS. The 

HTSUS scheme is organized by headings, each of which 

has one or more subheadings. The headings set forth 

general categories of merchandise, and the subheadings 

provide a more particularized segregation of the goods 

within each category. 

The classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is 

governed by the principles set forth in the GRIs and the 

Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. See Orlando 

Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998). The GRIs are applied in numerical order and 
LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US 5

a court may only turn to subsequent GRIs if the proper 

classification of the imported goods cannot be accomplished by reference to a preceding GRI. Carl Zeiss, Inc. 

v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999); 

Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). GRI 1 provides that “for legal purposes, 

classification shall be determined according to the terms 

of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes 

and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise 

require, according to the [remaining GRIs.]” GRI 1. 

The proper classification of merchandise under the 

HTSUS is a two-step process. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 

1439. First, we ascertain the meaning of the specific 

terms in the tariff provision, which is a question of law 

that we review without deference. Id. HTSUS terms are 

construed in accordance with their common and commercial meaning, which are presumed to be the same. Carl 

Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379. Second, we determine whether 

the goods come within the description of those terms, 

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

Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1439. However, when there is 

no dispute as to the nature of the merchandise, then the 

two-step classification analysis “collapses entirely into a 

question of law.” Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 

1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The relevant section of the HTSUS reads as follows: 

1602 Other prepared or preserved meat, meat 

offal or blood:

1602.50 Of bovine animals

Not containing cereals or vegetables:

1602.50.09 Cured or pickled

 Other:

 In airtight containers:
6 LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US

 . . .

1602.50.2040 Other

HTSUS (2006). 

The identity of the imported articles here is not in 

dispute; they are marked and sold as beef jerky products. 

The parties agree that the subject beef jerky is classified 

under subheading 1602.50 as “prepared or preserved 

meat, meat offal or blood: Of bovine animals.” The only 

issue in this case is whether the subject beef jerky should 

be classified as “cured” or “other” prepared beef products. 

Accordingly, there are no genuine issues of fact precluding

summary judgment. 

The trade court was correct that no analysis beyond 

GRI 1 is necessary. The subject beef jerky is described, eo 

nomine, by HTSUS 1602.50.09 as cured beef products. 

HTSUS 1602.50.09 does not draw distinctions based on 

whether or not the meat is dehydrated; the only inquiry is 

whether or not the meat has been cured. It is undisputed 

that LSI’s beef jerky products are cured for a period of 24 

to 48 hours. Although there is a respectable argument 

that the further step of dehydration affects the beef jerky 

product beyond the curing process, it does not overcome 

the simple and straightforward classification of the subject merchandise as cured beef products. 

LSI’s reliance on USDA’s differing treatment of dehydrated meat products to support its conclusion that the 

subject beef jerky should be classified by HTSUS 

1602.50.2040 is misplaced because, although they may be

helpful, non-tariff regulations by other agencies are not 

dispositive for purposes of tariff classification. North Am. 

Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001); Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 

530, 537 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Nor do this court’s opinions in Arko Foods Int’l, Inc. v. 

United States, 654 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and 
LINK SNACKS, INC. v. US 7

CamelBak support LSI’s argument. In Arko, the court 

upheld a decision of the Court of International Trade that 

mellorine, although containing milk, was not an “article of 

milk” because it contained substantial amounts of other 

ingredients, and in CamelBak, the court held that bags 

designed to carry cargo and provide a method for handsfree hydration were not classifiable as “backpacks” because the hydration feature provided the bags “with a 

unique identity and use that remove[d] them from the 

scope of the eo nomine backpack provision.” 649 F.3d at 

1369. In this case, none of the other steps in the process 

of making LSI’s beef into jerky alters the fact that LSI’s 

beef jerky is “cured.” 

Finally, because we conclude that the merchandise at 

issue is properly classifiable under GRI 1, resorting to an 

analysis under GRI 3(b) is unnecessary. Avenues in 

Leather, Inc. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005). As indicated, the subject beef jerky is not 

classifiable under GRI 3(b) because under GRI 1, the 

merchandise is prima facie classifiable by HTSUS 

1602.50.09 as cured beef products, and the GRIs are 

applied in numerical order. Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court

of International Trade did not err in granting summary 

judgment in favor of the government as a matter of law 

because the imported articles are provided for eo nomine

as cured prepared or preserved beef products in HTSUS 

subheading 1602.50.09. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

Court of International Trade is

AFFIRMED