Slip Op. 06-116



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

____________________________________ : FUJIAMERI CA CORP ORATI ON, : : Plaintiff, :

: Before: M USGRA VE, Jud ge v. : : Court No. 03-00126 TH E U NI TE D ST AT ES, : : De fe nd ant. : ____________________________________: [P laintiff challeng ed classification of m erc handise by United States Customs and Borde r Protection under H armonized Tar iff Schedule of the United States ( “HTSUS”) he ading8479 as “Ma chines a nd me c ha nic a l a pp lia nc e s h avin g fu

nc tio ns , n ot sp e c if

ie d or inc lud e d e lse wh e re in t his c ha pte r, pa rt s there of . . . .” Plaintiff claimed that merc handise identified as a “chip place r” was proper ly classified under H TSUS heading 8428 as “O ther lifting , handling , loading or unloading machiner y . . . ,” and that merc handise identified as a “fe eder ” was proper ly classified unde r hea ding 8431 a s “par ts” of m a c h i n e s o f h e a d i n g 8 4 2 8
. P l a i n t i f f ’ s m o t i o nf

o r s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tw a s d e n i e d

i ni t s e n t i r e t y. Def endant’ s cross-motion for summary judgme nt w as g rante d in pa rt and denied in par

t as the cour

t foun d th a t t h e c h ip p la c e r s w e r e p r o p e r ly c la s s if ie d u n d e r s u b h e a d in g 8 4 7 9
. 8 9 a s th e y d id n ot pa ssi ve ly lif t and ha nd le e le c tr on ic c omp on e nts but, r a the r, pla y e d a n a c tiv e and

int e g ral rol e in making printed circ uit assemblies and, fur ther, tha t t h e fe eder s were proper ly classified unde r subheading8479.90 as “pa rts” of those ma chines.] Dec ided: J uly 26, 2006 Kat te n M uc hin Zav is R os e nm an LLP ( Mark S. Zolno , Eric R. Rock , and Da v id P . S

an de rs ) for the pla intiff. Peter D. Ke isler , A ssi sta nt A ttorne y

Ge ne ra l; Barbara S. W

illiams , Attorney

in Charg e, I n te r n a ti o n a l T r a d e F ie ld

O f f ic e , Co mm e r c ia l L it ig a ti o nB r an c h , Ci v il D iv is io n , U n it e d States Department of Just ice (

Ar thu r J . G rib bin and Br uc e N. S tra tv e rt) ; O f

f ic e o f th e A s s is ta

n t Chief Counsel, I nternati o n al Trade L itigation, United States Customs and Bor der Protec tion ( Sheryl F. French ), of

c ouns e l, f

or the de fe nd ant. OP IN ION Be fore the Court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt and def

endant’ s cross-motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Pla int if

f c ha lle ng e s th e c la ssi fi c a tio n o f t he su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise —c e rt a inCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 2

The Uni te d

St a te s Cu s to ms Se r

v ic e h a s b e e nr e n a me d

U n it e d St a te s Cu s to ms and 1 Bor der Protec tion. specia liz ed mac hinery

—by the United States Customs S ervic e (“ Customs ”). By its cross-motion, 1 de fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t Cu sto ms’ c la ssi fi c a tio n was c or re c t. T he Court

ha s juri sd ic tio n o ve r t

his matter pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1581(a) (2000). Backg ro und The subjec t mercha

ndise, consisting of

machiner y identified as “chip plac ers” and “f eede rs,”
was e ntere d into the United States betwee n J anuar y 3 , 2 0 01, and De cembe r 10, 2001. Pl.’s State m en t o f Mater ial Fa cts not in Dispute (“Pl.’s Fa cts”), se c. 1, par a. 1; Def .’s Resp. to Pl.’s State me nt o f M a te ri a l F a c ts n ot i n D isp ute (“ DRPF ” ), se c . 1, para . 1. Cus tom s det e rm ine d th a t a ll of the subjec t mercha

ndise was pr operl y classified unde r hea ding 8479 of the Har moniz ed Ta

riff Schedule of

the Unit ed S t at es (2001) ( “HTSUS”), which provides f or “Ma chines a

nd mecha nical
a pp lia nc e s h avin g ind ivi du a l f

un c tio ns , n ot s pe c if

ie d o r i nc lud e d els ewh e re in t his c ha pte r; pa rt s the re of
. . . ,” wh ic h wou ld be a sse sse d a duty rate of 2. 5 p e rc e nt ad valorum
. Id . Pl a int if f t ime ly pro te s te d Cu s to ms ’ c la s s if ic a ti o n , ar g u in g th a t th e c h ip p la c e r s w e r e p r o p e r ly c la s s if ie d under HTS US h ea d i n g 8428 as “O ther lifting , handling , loading or unloadingmachiner y (for example, elevators, esca lators, conveyors, telefe rics) . . . ,” which w ould enter duty fre e. SeePl.’s Fac ts, sec. 1, pa ra . 2 ; D RPF , s e c . 1 , p ara . 2 . Cu sto ms d e nie d th e pr ote st, fi nd ing that the su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise was prope rly

classified unde r hea ding 8479. Plaintiff then timely commence d this action. Stan dard of Revie w Where ther e is a disput e as to the classification of me rcha ndise, that issue may

be re solved by means of summary

judgme nt. See E

ssex M fg. v. United States , 30 CI T __, __, Slip Op. 06-01 atCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 3

The HTSUS def

ines PCAs as “g oods consisting of one or more printed circ uits
. . . 2 with one or more act i v e elements a ssembled there on, with or without passive eleme nts. For the p u rposes of this not e, ‘ ac tiv e e le me nts ’ me an s d io d e s , tr an s is to r s an d s im il ar s e mi c onductor de vic e s . . . and

int e g rate d c ir c uit s and mic ro a sse mbl ie s . . . .” Se c tio n X VI Ad dit ion a l U .S. No te 1. 5 (2006) ( “Essex ”) ( citing Bausch &Lomb, Inc. v . United States , 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) (“ Bausch &Lomb ”))
. I n a cla ssification ca se, summary judgme nt is appropriate wher e “the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd ad m i s s ions on file, toge ther with the
a ff ida vit s, if any , sh ow that the re is no g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l fa c t and tha t th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” USC I T R. 56 (c ); see Essex , 30 CI T at __, Slip Op. 06-01
a t 5. “ Sum mary

jud g me nt o f a

c la ssi fi c a tio n is su e is ap pr op ri a te wh e n th e re is n o g e nu ine dis pu te as to the under ly ing f

actua l issue of exactly what the merc handise is.” Essex , 30 CI T at __, Slip Op. 0 6 -0 1 at 5 (c i t i n g B a u s ch & Lomb , 1 48 F .3 d at 13 65 ; Rollerblade, Inc . v. United States , 112 F.3d 481, 483 (F ed. Cir. 1997) (“ Rollerblade ”)) (interna l quotation mar ks omitted). “Where jur isdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) , Customs ’ interpr etation of a n HTSUS tariff ter

m, a question of law, is subjec t to de novo revie w.” Id. ( citing 28 U. S.C. § 2 64 0( a )( 1) ; E.T. Horn Co. v. United States , 2 7 CI T _

_, __ , Sl ip O p. 03 -2 0 at 4 ( F e b. 27 , 2 00 3) ). I t is inc umb e nt u po n th e Court

“ to ‘re ach the corr ect d ec i s i o n ’ i n classification cases . . . .” Rollerblade , 112 F.3d at 484 (internal qu otatio n ma

rk s and c itatio ns omi tte d) . H e re , th e pa rt ie s a g re e that th e re are no mate ri a l f a c ts i n dispute and, ac cording ly , resolution of this matter by summary judgme nt is appropriate
. The a g ree d-upon fa cts are the following . The subjec t mercha ndise consists of two ty

pes of machines : “chip plac ers” and “f eede rs.” SeePl.’s Fac ts, sec. 2, par a. 1; DRPR, sec. 2, para . 1. A chip place r is “ used in the manufa cture /assembly of printed c ircuit assemblies (PCAs).” SeeDef .’s 2Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 4

See al so M e m . I n S u

p p . o f P l
. ’ s M o t
. f

o r S u m m . J. a t E x. 5 , A t t a c h s . I n th e se 3 do c ume nts , c hip pla c e rs are state d to have the fo llo wi ngsy ste m c omp on e nts : “ XY -r obot s, PCB conveyors, part supply stations, placingheads, a nd part a nd fiducial inspec tion camer as.” See Tw in Station Mul ti-Func tion SM D Mounter NP- 2 5 1 E / 2 5 1 E -X LM ac h
. S p ec i fi ca t i o n s at 3 ; Multi-Function SMD Mounter QP-351E-MM Mac h. Specifications at 2.

The Vide o was not f

iled concur

rently with e ither parties’ paper s. Be cause , howeve r, 4 the par ties ref ere nce the content of the Video ( see , e.g. , Pl.’s Br
. I n Reply to Def.’ s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J
. and Def .’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J . at 5; Def .’s Reply Br . I n Supp. of Mot. for Sum m. J. a

nd in O pp ’n to P l.’ s Re sp . at 2) , a

nd Cus tom s r e vie we d th e Vi de o d ur ingthe pr ote st pr oc e ss (see HRL965608 ), t h e C o u rt reque sted that plaintiff file a copy of it, which plaintiff did. I n the Video, F uji’s Applications Eng ineer ing Ma nag er g ives a de tailed explanation of the func tions of var ious machines—with an e mphasis on chip place rs—and the proce sses involved in making PCA s. Statement of Mate ri al Facts as to Which There is No Genuine I ssue to Be Tried ( “De f.’s F acts” ), pa ra . 1 ; Pl. ’s Re sp . to De f. ’s State me nt o f M a te ri a l F a c ts N ot in Di sp ute (“ PRD F ” ), pa ra . 1 ( “ Chi p place rs ar e but one of

sever al machine s used in the multi-step proce ss of manufa cturingprinted
c ir c uit a sse mbl ie s. ” ). Chi p p la c e rs are ma c hin e s th a t “ are us e d to pla c e va ri ou s e le c tr on ic components such a s resistors, ca pacitors a nd circ uits onto blank printed circ uit boards (‘PCBs’ ). This proce ss is often ref err ed to as ‘populating’ the PCBs.” Pl.’s Facts, sec. 2, pa ra. 2 ( citing Hea dquarte rs Ruling L etter (“HRL ”) 965608 (Sept. 10, 2002)); DRPF, sec . 2, para . 2. A chip plac er is a machine that i s co m posed of se vera l discrete units, including a loadingsy stem, a compone nt place ment sy stem, and a pa rts inspection sy stem. SeePl.’s Fac ts, sec. 2, par a. 3 ; DRPF, sec. 2, pa ra. 3 3; P l.’ s R e p l y t o D e f

. ’ s R e s p . t o P l
. ’ s S t a t e m e n t o f M a t e r i a l F a c t s N o t i n D i s p u t e ( “ P l
. ’ s Re ply to DRPF ” ) at 6; De f. ’s F a c ts, pa ra . 3 ; P RDF , p ara . 3 ; see ge nerally Fuji Corp. Video of 3/11/02 (“V ideo”) . The loadingsy stem rec eives PCBs fr om an external conve y or, moves PCBs within the

4 chip place r, and the n disgor g es populated PCBs onto a second external conveyor. Def .’s Fa cts, para
.Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 5

Th e se numbe rs re fe r t o the tim e sta mp on the Vi de o. Th e sta mp a pp are ntl y re fe rs to 5 the date a nd time the Video wa s rec orded. F or cla rity , the date a

n d “A M ” desig nations are not repr oduced w ith the citations herein. 3. PRD F , p ara . 3 ; se e als o Vi de o at 9: 56 :17 –:3 2 ; id. at 10:04:22–:30 (showing e x terna l conveyor 5 introducing PCB into chip placer). The pla ceme nt sy stem consists of “numer ous vacuum nozzl es andhead s, whi ch p op ul ate th e P CB w it h great accur acy and sp eed. ” Def. ’s Facts , para . 3; P RD F, pa ra . 3 ; see Vi de o at 9: 56 :54 –:5 7:15. Th e part s r e c og nit ion sy ste m in sp e c ts c omp on e nts pr ior to place ment to ensure that the corr ect c omponent has bee n selec ted for placement. SeeVideo at 9:57:16–:34. Th e fe e de rs a t issu e c on sis t of two dif fe re nt ty pe s o f m a c hin e s: “ mot or ” and “ po we r” fe e de rs . Pl. ’s F a c ts, se c . 2 , p ara . 4 ; D RPF , s e c . 2 , p ara . 4. Th e fe e de rs are sp e c if ic a lly de sig ne d to su

pp ly various ele ctronic c o m p o n en t s to chip place rs via a va riety of diffe rent sy stems. See , e.g. , Def .’s F a c ts, pa ra . 9 ; PRD F , p ara . 9 ; id . at par a. 10. The se sy stems include tape and tray fee ders. De f.’s Fa cts, para . 10; PR DF, pa ra. 10. Discussion The pa rties ar gu e t h at cl as s i fi ca t i o no f t h e s u b j ec tm er ch an d i s e c an b e r es o l v edb y ap p l ication of HTSUS Gene ral Rul e of I nterpre tation (“GRI ”) 1. SeeMe m. I n Su pp . o f P l.’ s Mo t. f

or Sum m. J. (“ Pl. ’s Me m.” ) at 20 ; D e f. ’s Me m. I n Su pp . o f Its Mot . f

or Sum m. J. a

nd in O pp ’n to P l.’ s Mo t. fo r S umm . J. ( “ De f. ’s Me m.” ) at 7 ( “ Th e c la ssi fi c a tio n of the imp or

te d me rc ha

nd ise re qu ir e s a str a ig htf or wa rd a pp lic a tio n o f H TSU S [GRI ] 1 . .
. . ” ). GR I1 p ro vid e s: Th e ta ble of c on te nts , a lph a

bet ica l in de x, and

tit le s o f s e c tio ns , chapte rs and sub-cha

pters are provided for ease of ref ere nce only ; for leg al purposes, c lassification shall be de t er m ined ac cordingto the terms of th e h e a d in g s an d an y r e lati v e s e c ti o no r

c h a p te r n o te s and,Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 6 provided such he adings d o not otherwise r equire , acc ording to the [ot her g ener al rules of

interpre tation]
. . . . GR I1; Nidec Corp. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1333, 1335 (F ed. C ir. 2005) (“ Nidec ”) ( citing G RI1). I n the ca se at ba

r the pa rties ag ree that the chip place rs are proper ly classified within HT SUS chapter 84. See Pl. ’s Me m. at 16 ; D e f. ’s Me m. at 7. Th e pa rt ie s d if fe r, ho we ve r, a s to wh ic h h e a din g wi thi n
c ha pte r 8 4 th e c hip pla c e rs and fe e de rs fa ll. A

1 Th e Court

fi rs t e xami ne s th e c la ssi fi c a tio n o f t he c hip pla c e rs . Cu sto ms cl a ssi fi e d th e c hip place rs under HTSUS heading 8479 and, more specific ally , subheading8479.89.9797, which cove rs “Mac hines and mec hanica l appliance s having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhe re in this chapte r; parts there of : . . . Other ma chines a nd mecha nical applianc es . . . Other : Electrome chanic al applianc es with self-c ontained motor .
. . Other
. . . Other . . . O ther . . . .” See HRL 9 6 5 6 0 8
. Cu s to ms s tate d th a t c la s s if ic a ti o n w it

h in h e a d in g 8 4 7 9 w a s p r o p e r b ecause the function of the chip place rs “is not a func tion described w ithin the terms of hea ding 8428, H TSUS.” Customs further

stated that the Court of International Trade upheld the Customs S ervic e position that the s cope of Hea ding 8428 cover s a wide r ang e of ma chiner y for mec hanica l h andling of mate ri als, g oo ds , p e op le and oth e r i te ms. Citi ngte c hn ic a l so ur c e s, Customs has maintained that Hea ding 8428, HTSUS, c overs mate rial handling equipment[,] which ar e devic es that transpor t, positi on and store raw m ater ials and finished g oods for indust rial and c ommercia l op e ratio ns . HR L9 6 5 6 0 8 (c i t i n g Mitsubishi Int’l Cor p. v. United States , 2 2 C I T 324, 339, 5 F. Supp. 2d 991, 1 0 0 5 ( 1 9 98) (“

Mi ts ub ish i I

”), aff’d , 182 F.3d 884 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999) (“ Mitsubishi II

” )) . Cu sto msCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 7

I n further detail, hea ding 8428 pr ovides for the classification of: 6 8428.00 Other lifting , handling , loadin g o r unloading

ma c hin e ry

(f or e xamp le , e le vator s, e sc alato rs , conveyors, telef

eric s): . . . 8428.10 Pas s en g er or fre ight e levators other

than continuous action; skip hoists . . . 8428.20 Pneumatic elevators and conve y ors . . .

Other c onti n u o u s-ac tion elevators a nd conveyors, for g oods or mate ri a ls: 8428.31 Specially desig ned for

underg round use . . . 8428.32 Other, buc ket ty pe . . . 8428.33 Other, be lt ty pe . . . 8428.39 Other . . . (continued...) rea soned that cla ssification of the subjec t mercha ndise under he ading8479 was prope r bec ause [t]he c hip mou

nte r’ s f un c tio n is to m anufact

ur e pr int e d c ir c uit assemblies by

mounting (so m eti me[s] ref err ed to as “ populating” ) elec tronic compone nts onto printed c ircuit boards. This position was further c o n f ir med upon re viewingthe videotape submitt ed by counsel on behalf of t he protestant that demonstrated the chip pl ace rs. I n the vid e ota pe , th e ma c hin e is d e sc ri be d a s a high s pe e d a sse mbly ma c hin e . T he ma c hin e ’s fu nc tio n is to p op ulate th e PCB wi th e le c tr on ic c omp on e nts . It po pu late s the PCB s by us inga c on ve y or to loa d and un loa d a PCB un de r the va c uum no zzle pla c in g heads. These placing heads retrie ve the elec tronic components fr om one of the seve ral ty

pes of f eede rs made by

the manufa cture r. W e find that the chip mounters/plac ers do not meet the ter ms of Hea ding 8428, a s they do not transport, position and store ma t erials. Theref ore, classification under He ading842 8 i s prec luded. B ased upon our ho ldi ng s in

NY88 43 27 and

in N Y A8 8431 , w e fi nd that th e c hip mou nte rs /pl a c e rs are c la ssi fi e d in He a din g 84 79 , H TSU S. Id
. Plaintiff argues that the c hip placer s should be classified un d er h ea d i ng 8428 as “O ther lif tin g , h and lin g , lo a din g or un loa din g ma c hin e ry

(f or e xamp le , e le vator s, e sc a lator s, c on ve y or s, te le fe ri c s)
. . . .” Pla int if f c on te nd s that thi s is the pr op e r c la ssi fi c a tio n o f t he c hip pla c e rs du e thi s 6Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 8

(...continued) 6 8428.40 Escalators and moving walkwa y s . . . 84 28 .5 0 Min e wagon pu sh ers , l oco mo ti ve o r wagon tr aver ser s,

wag on t i p pers a

nd simil ar r ailway

wag on handling equipment . . . 8428.60 Tele fer ics, cha ir lifts, ski drag lines; traction

mecha nisms for funicular s . . . 8428.90.00 Other Ma chiner y . . . 8428.90.00.02 Of a kind used in char g ing o r dischar g ing furna ces . . . 8428.90.00.04 Of a kind used for r adioac tive materia ls . . . 8428.90.00.06 Woodland log handlingequipment (other than skidders) . . . Other: 8428.90.00.10 I ndustrial robots . . . 8428.90.00.20 Oil and g as field mac hinery
. . . 8428.90.00.30 Sidebooms and pipehandler s . . . 8428.90.00.40 L oader s, underg round mine ty pe . . . 8428.90.00.90 Other . . . . Court’s jurisprudenc e. See P l
. ’s M em . at 2 4 (c i t i n g Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T 324, 5 F. Supp. 2d 991). P l ai n t i ff ar gu es t h at , fo l l o wi n g Mi tsu bis hi I , “ [t]he Chi p Pla c e rs ’ imm e diate , pr ima ry fu nc tio n is t o lif t e le c tr on ic c omp on e nts fr om the fe e de r ba nk s by me ans of

the va c uum no zzle s and

the n h and le them in order to plac e them at the ap p ro priate loc ations on the blank PCB.” Pl.’s Mem. at 24–25 (e mph a sis re mov e d; c iti ngAf f. of Dr . Ke vin M. L y

nc h, ¶ 7 ). Whil e the Court a g re e s th a t Mitsubishi I is i ns tr uc tiv e on thi s p oint, t

he Court do e s not ag re e that Mi tsu bis hi I supports plaintiff’s position. I n Mi tsu bis hi I

the Court was pre sented wi t h the issue of the pr oper c lassification of va rious machines use d in a continuous steel ca sting proc ess. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 325, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 994. The pla intiff argued that cla ssification of ce rtain of those machines under heading8428 was not proper be cause none of the m were operated by pulley s, winches or

jackingsy stems and,
mor e ov e r, the e xemp lars lis te d in the he a din g mov e d r aw m a te ri a ls, wh e r e a s t h e s u b j e c t me rc ha nd iseCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 9

was pa rt of an a ssembly

proce ss. See id. at 338–339, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1005. The def en dant counter ed that hea ding 8428 c overe d a “w ide rang e” of machiner y , and that the prope r question for classification was what constituted the “primary function” of eac h of t he machines. Id . at 33 9, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1005–06. The Court a g ree d that it wa s the “primar y function” of a mac hine that was the deter mining fa ctor for classification, and procee ded to revie w each article usi ng that standard. See id . at 341, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1007. The Court first examined severa l machines, includinga “torch approa ch table,” a “tor ch roller table,” a “torc h runout table,” and a “slab transfe r table.” Id . at 340, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1006. The Court stated that the “t ables are use d to convey the solidify ing ste el duri ngthe fi na l f

or min g op e ratio ns . E a c h r oll e r t a ble c on sis ts o f a

fr a me on to whic h r oll e rs wi th bear ings a

nd drives ar e mounted and they advanc e and discharg e the slab at a c asting speed . . . .” Id . T he Court

fo un d th a t e a c h of the se ite ms we re pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d un de r h e a din g 84 28 be c a us e “the primary function of the c omponents at issue is not making stee l slabs but lifti ng and handling
m aterials.” Id . at 34 1, 5 F . Su pp . 2 d at 10 07 ; see M

itsubishi II

, 1 8 2 F
. 3 d

a t 8 8 7 ( s tati n g “ [w ]e conclud e th e c la s s if

ic a ti o n s w e r e c o r

r e c t
. . . . ” )
. T h e Co u rt n e xt e xami n e d a ma c h in e c a lled a “debur ring table.” Mi

stu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 341, 5 F . Supp. 2d at 1007. The Court, n o t i n g that the plaintiff conceded that “the deburring runout table is simil ar to the [other roller table s],” found that it was proper ly

classified unde r hea ding 8428 a s a conve y or. Id. at 342, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1008 (b ra ck et i n g i n o ri gi n al ). T h e C o u rt n ex tex am i n eds ev er al m ac h i n es , i n cl u d i n g a “ s egm en tch an ge sy stem,” a “ ladle turre t,” a “ tundish transfer car ,” a “ladle- to-tundish shroud cha ng ing me chanism,” a “tundish lifting be am,” a “seg ment l i ft ing be am,” a “mold and first zone lifting be am,” a nd a “seg ment transfe r ca

r.” Id. at 342, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1008. The Court found that these machines w ereCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 10

The Court uses plaintiff’ s model QP-351E-MM as the basis of its discussion, as the 7 fu n ct i o n i n g o f t h i s m o d el i s ex p l ai n edi nt h e V i d eo an d p l ai n t i ff h as i n cl u d edt h at m ac h i n e’ s d es i gn specific ations with its papers. SeePl.’s Mem. at Ex . 5, Attach. 2. a ll pr op e r l y

c l a s s i f i e d u n d e r h e a d i n g 8 4 2 8 b e c a

u s e t h e i r p r i m ar y f u n c t i o nw a s t o l i f

tan d h an d le various it ems. The Court rea soned t hat the ladle tur ret wa s proper ly

classified unde r hea ding 8428 beca use its “primary

function is lifting or ha

ndling mate rials.” Id. at 343, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1009. The Court re a so ne d th a t th e tun dis h tr ans fer car and the s hr ou d c ha ng ingme c ha

nis m w e re pr op e rl y classified w ithin heading 8428 beca use “[i] n their condition as imported
. . . these c omponents . . . perf orm lifting a

nd handling functions.” Id. at 345, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1010. The Court noted that there wa s “n o evidenc e that the tundish transfe r ca r or shroud c hang ing me chanism . . . per form additional castingoperations . . . without parts adde d afte r importation.” Id. Fi n al l y , t h e C ourt
re a so ne d th a t th e tun dis h li ft ing be am, se g me nt c ha ng e r sy ste m, s e g me nt l if

tin g be a m, m old

and fi rs t zone lifting bea

m, and the seg ment transfe r ca r were al l proper ly

classified unde r hea ding 8428 b ec au s e “ t h es e c o mp o n en t s ar e d es cr i b e d b y p l ai n t i ff as h av i n g fu n ct i o n s i n cl u d i n g al i gn i n g, transportingand re moving stee l slabs by lifting a nd handling .” Id . at 347, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1011. I n the ca se at ba

r, plaintiff a

rgues that a c hip place r’ s p ri m ary function is “lifting and handling ” computer

components. The Court doe s not a g ree . The main difficulty with this position is that it re du c e s th e ov e ra ll f

un c tio n o f a

c hip pla c e r t o a

sin g le pr oc e ss wi thi n it. I n o the r w or ds , plaintiff’s ar g ument does not take into acc ount a chip place r’s entire func tion within t he proc ess of making PCAs. To better under stand this point, t he Court finds plaintiff’s Video—which e x plains in d e ta il howc hip pla c e rs fu nc tio n— ins tr

uc tiv e . Ac c or din g to t

he Vi de o, a

c hip pla c e r b e g ins its 7 fu nc tio n in makin g a PCAby havin g a PCB mov e d into the c hip pla c e r’ s inte rn a l loa din g sy ste m.Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 11

T h e m echanical c hucks ar e vac uum actuate d tools that gra sp components with a 8 pincer action. SeeVideo at 9:55:53–:58. Components are he ld in place during the popul ation proce ss by a var iety of methods 9 inc lud ing“ so lde r pa ste , c on du c tiv e a dh e siv e s, and no n- c on du c tiv e a dh e siv e s. ” Gl e nn R. B la c kw e ll, P.E., & James K. Hollomon, J r., Surface Mount Tec hnology for PC Boards 96 (2d ed. 2006)
. Video at 10:04:21

– :36. The loadingsy stem g rasps the PCB, move s it int o the chip plac er’ s work
are a, li fts it into position, and locks it in place. Id
. at 9:56:24–:31. After being locked in plac e, the chip place r uses a

came ra to locate fiducia l marks printed on the PCB to de termine the PCB’s exact position within the work spa ce. Id
. at :56:34–:44. Using this information, the chip plac er c alculate s an off set that allows ac cura t e p l acement of c omponents. Id . at :56:46–:52. Next , the chip plac er selec ts a place ment tool by moving the place ment head to a “tooling f

ix ture” wher e, depe nding on the size and ty

pe of c omponent to be place d, the place ment head is fitted with one of sever al vac uum
no zzle s o r m e c ha

nic a l c hu c ks
. Id . at :55:35–:56:10. The chip p lace r then moves the tooled

8 place ment head to a

fee der station whe re a

varie ty of compone nts can be selec ted. Id
. at :57:07–:15. After making a sele ction, the chip plac er move s the place ment head to the pa rts identifica t i on sy stem, which take s a picture of the sele cted c omponent. Id . at :57:16

– : 2 6
. T h e chip place r then matches the picture of

the selec ted compone nt with a ref ere nce imag e to deter

mine whether

the
corr ect c omponent has bee n selec ted. Id
. a t : 5 7 :2 7

– :3 4
. A f te r d e te r mi n in g th a t t

h e s e le c te d compone n t i s th e c o r

r e c t c o mp o n e n t, th e c h ip p la c e r ma k e s a c a lc u lati o na s to w h e r e th e s e lected component is to be place d on the PCB. Id
. at : 57:35–:43 The c hip placer then moves the plac ement head to the c orre ct spot over the PCB a nd place s the comp o n ent on t he PCB’s surf ace . Id . at 9 :57:45–:48. After the c hip placer place s the selec ted component, it re p ea t s t h e process. Id . at :57:50–:52. As the place ment proce ss pr og resse s, the chip place r may , dependingon the componentCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 12

to be selec ted, re turn the plac ement hea d to the tooling fix ture to chang e the tooling on the placement head. Id . at :57:52–:58:04. I n sum, the Video shows that a c hip placer does not mere ly

move
mate ri a ls (in thi s c a se PCB s and e le c tr on ic c omp on e nts ) f ro m on e pla c e to a

no the r; ins te a d, a

PCB is i ntr od uc e d into a

c hip pla c e r, the PCB ha s com po ne nts pla c e d o n it , a

nd the po pu late d PCB e xits the chip plac er at the end of the proce ss. I n direc t contra st to machines at issue in Mi tsu bis hi I , the chip place rs’ primar

y function is not t he passive liftingand handlingof mater ials but, rather , an active a nd integ ral step in makingPCAs. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 34 1 , 5 F. S u p p . 2 d at 1007 (“[T]he primary function of the [machine s] at is sue is not making ste el slabs but lifting a nd handling materia ls.”). The ref

ore, be cause the chip plac ers’ primary function is not “lifting a

n d h a ndling,” they cannot be classifi ed u n der he ading 8428 as “O ther lifting , handling , loading or unloading machiner y . . . .” Plaintiff presents sever al additional arguments in support of its posit ion that chip place rs ar e
corr ectly classified w ithin heading 8428. First, plaintiff take s issue with defenda nt’s position t hat the chip plac ers c annot be c lassified in hea ding 8428 be cause they perf orm an “ assembly ” func tion. See Pl.’s Mem. at 27 (citing Def .’s Resp. to Pl.’s First Set of Interrog s. and Req. for P ro d ., ¶ 12). Plaintiff argues t hat “[ t] he jurisprudence of this court and numer ous Custom s rulings make cle ar that the a pp ro pr iate qu e sti on is not wh e the r a ma c hin e ‘a sse mbl e s, ’ but ra the r the fu

nc tio n it pe rf or ms in contributing to that a ssembly .” Id . at 27. In support of its positi on plaintiff states that

The c lear est example of this disti nction is in the Mitsubishi case . . . . I n that case , all of the va rious machines at issue contributed to the assembly

(or manuf

actur e) of

t h e s teel slabs. The court sp ecifically

reje cted the sug g estion that all of the var ious machines shou ld s im p ly b e c la s s if

ie d a s p arts o f

a “ s te e l c a s ti n g ma c hine” sim ply be c a us e the y we re pa rt of the pr oc e ss wh e re by ste e l w a s c a stCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 13
into s la b s . . . . [T ]h e a

p p r o p r iate in qu ir

y is e a c hma c h in e ’s imme d iate , p r im ar

y f u n c ti o n w it

h in th a t p r o c e s s o f a s s embly or production. Pl. ’s Me m. at 27 . A g a in, the Court do e s not a g re e that Mi tsu bis hi I su pp or ts p la int if f’ s a rgume nt. Specifica lly , in Mi tsu bis hi I the pla int if

f a rgue d th a t a pr ior de c isi on c ov e ri ngsim ila r m e rc ha nd ise
was controlling for the classific ation of the mer chandise at issue. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T 331–332, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 999–1000. The Court disag ree d, finding that the prior action wa s not controlling beca use the merc handise at issue had bee n classified unde r provisions of the Ta riff Sche dule of the United States (“T SUS”) and not the HTSUS, and that the “special l anguag e” of the HTSUS dictated a diffe rent re sult. See id. at 336, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1003 (ex amining G RIadditional U.S. note 1(c) ; TSUS GRI 10(ij); HT S US s ec t ion XVI note 2(a )) ( “The inclusion of Note 2(a ) to Section XVI provides a ‘ context’ which requir es this Court to ex amine whe ther the c omponents at i ssue ar e ‘[p ] ar t s wh i ch are g oods included in any of the he ading s of cha

pters 84 and 85’ and thus whethe r they should ‘be cla ssified in their re spective he ading s.’” ( brac keting in orig inal)). On a ppeal, the Court of Appeals for the F eder al Circuit aff irmed, stating that “[n] ote 2(a ) of Sec tion XVIprovides that ‘par ts which are g oods included in any of the heading s of chapte rs 84 and 85 . . . ar e in all ca ses to be classifie d in t heir re spective he ading s.’ This provision is ‘special languag e or c ontext ’ that rende rs Rule of Interpre tation 1(c) ina pplicable to the extent that they conflict.” Mistubishi II

, 182 F. 3 d at 8 8 6 (c i t i n g Clarendon Mktg., Inc . v. United States , 144 F.3d 1464, 1469 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998)). Her e, the issue is not whethe r a c hip place r i s part of a larg er a ssembly proce ss. I nstead, the issue has solely to do with the primary

function of a

chip place r. As previously stated, the classific ation
o f th e c h ip p la c e r s w it

h in h e a d in g 8 4 2 8 is n o t p r o p e r b e c a u s e th e y ar e n o t, a s in Mitsu bis hi I ,Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 14

ma c hin e s th a t pa ssi ve ly

lif t and ha nd le mate ri a ls f

ro m on e pla c e to a

no the r w ith in a

larg e r p ro c e ss. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I

, 22 CI T at 341, 5 F . Supp. 2d at 1007. Next, plaintiff arg ues that the e x planatory notes support its posit ion that the chip place rs ar e pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d un de r he a din g 84 28 . Pl a int if f a rgue s th a t th e c hip pla c e rs “ are ind us tr ia l r ob ots , as t hat term is used both in the Explanatory Notes and in the r obotics industry at larg e . . . .” Pl.’s Mem. at 29. Ther efor e, plaintiff rea sons, be cause the chip place rs are industrial robots that perfor m the primary fu n ct i o n of lifting a nd handling , they

are excluded from hea ding 8479. Id .; see Expl anator

y No te 84 .7 9( I ) ( “ [T]he he a din g e xclu de s tho se ind us tr ia l ro bo ts s pe c if

ic a lly de sig ne d to pe rf or m a sp e c if ic fu nc tio n; th ese ind

us tr ia l r ob ots are c la ssi fi e d in the he a din g c ov e ri ngthe ir function . . . .”) . Ag ain the Court does not agr ee. The main problem wit h this arg ument is that, even
wer e it established that the c hip placer s are industrial robots (a point with which de fe ndant dis a g re e s) , a

ne c e ssa ry pr e re qu isi te to c la ssi fy ing an a rt ic le un de r h e a din g 84 28 is that it ha s a s it s primary function the pa ssive lifting and handling of m ater ial and, as discussed, t his simply is not the
case with chip place rs. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 341, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1007. Fur thermore , wer e it ag ree d that the chip plac ers a re i n d u s trial robots, this fact a lone would not exclude them from classification under hea ding 8479, a s that headingspecific ally provides for the classific ation of industrial robots. SeeHTSUS subheading 8479.50 (“Industrial robots, not elsewhe re spe cified or included . . . .”)
. Finally , plaintiff argues that the Court should not g ive defe renc e to the ruling let t er t hat addre sses the classification of the chip plac ers. See Pl.’s Mem. at 40 (c iting HRL 965608). Plaintiff
c on te nd s th a t th is r

uli ngle tte r i s n ot e nti tle d to def e re nc e be c a

us e it is “ne ith e r tho ro ug h n or we ll-Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 15

The Court n o te s th a

t w e r e th e c h ip pla cer s not properly classified w ithin heading 8479 10 pla int if f’ s argume nt m ig ht h ave so me me ri t, a s an e xami natio n o f t he ru lin g le tte r r e ve a ls that at le a st o n e of i t s m ai n p re m i s es i s i n co rr ec t
. S p ec i fi ca l l y , t h e r u l i n g l et t er , ci t i n g Mi tsu bis hi I , states that “Customs has maintained t hat Heading 8428, HTSUS, covers material ha ndling e quipment[ ,] which are device s t h at t ra nsport, position and store raw materia ls and finished g oods for industrial and commerc ial operations.” See HR L9 6 5 6 0 8 (c i t i n g Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 339, 5 F . Supp. 2d 1005). A re view of Mi tsu bis hi I

, howeve r, shows that this was not, in fac t, Custom s’ “position” in that ca se. I nstead, the cited langua g e is a sy nthesis of two quotations from the plaintif f’s brief. See M

itsubishi I , 22 CI T at 339 nn.6 & 7, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 nn.6 & 7. Nowher e in Mi tsu bis hi I is it i ndicated that Customs either a dvocate d or adopte d these de finitions. Se e ge ne ra lly id
. re as o n ed. [I t is] also not consistent with Cust oms’ prior interpr etation of He ading8428.” Id
. Plaintiff rea sons that t h e ru l i n g letter “ lack[s] power to persuade ” and, the ref ore, is not to be
a c c o r d e d d e f

ere nce. Id
. (c i t i n g Skidmore v . Swift & Co. , 3 23 U. S. 1 34 (1 93 4) ; United States v. Mead , 533 U.S. 218, 235 (2001) ( “ Mead ” )) ; see also Roc knel Fastene r v. United States , 267 F.3d 1354, 1357 (F ed. Cir. 2001) (“ Rock nel ”) (c i t i n g Mead, 533 U.S. at 235). As the chip pl ace rs ar e
corr ectly classified under heading 8479 the Court does not addre ss the question of whethe r the ruling letter ha s the “powe r to persua de.” 10 F or a ll the fo regoi ng reas on s th e Cou rt fi nd s th a t th e c hip pla c e rs c ann ot b e pr op e rl y classified unde r HTSUS heading8428. 2 The Court next turns to the cor rec t classification of the chip plac ers. As pr eviously noted, GRI1 provides that for

“leg al purposes, c lassification shall be de termined a ccor ding to the terms of the he a di ngs and

any re lativ e se c tio n o r c ha

pte r n ote s . . . .” GR I1; Nidec , 6 8 F .3 d at 13 35 ; see Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. United States , 22 CI T 115 5, 11 62 –6 3, 44 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 07 , 2 13 (1 99 8) (“ GR I 1 instructs that in addition to the plain languag e of the heading s themselves, cha pter notes a

re to be used in fully

deter mining the mea

ning of tariff heading s.”), aff’d , 223 F.3d 1367, 1372–73 ( Fe d. Cir.Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 16

Se c tio n X VI

no te 3 p ro vid e s: 11 Unless the c o nte xt o th e r w is e r e q u ir es, composite mac hines consisting of two or more machines f itted toge ther to fo rm a whole a nd other machines a dapted f

or t h e purpose of per formingtwo or more c omp le me nta

ry or alt ern a tiv e fu

nc tio ns are to b e c la ssi fi e d a s if consisting only

of that compone nt o r as being that mac hine which perf orms the principa l function. Cha pte r 8 4 n ote 2 p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : Subject to the operation of note 3 to section XVI , a mac hine or appl i an ce wh ich answe rs to a desc ription in one or more of the heading s 8401 to 8424 and at the s ame tim e to a desc ription in one or mor e of the heading s 8425 to 8480 is to be classified under the appropr iate hea ding of

the forme r g roup and not the latter. . . . 20 00 ) ( “ Th e pla in langua g e of No te 1( a ), re a d in con jun c tio n with No te 2( f) of Cha pte r 29, c an o nly be int e rp re te d to me an th a t H e a din g s 3 20 3 a nd 32 04 are the on ly

a c c e pta ble c la ssi fi c a tio ns wi thi n Cha pte r 3 2 f or a ‘s e pa rate c he mic a lly de fi ne d c omp ound .’ ” ). Thus , to c la ssi fy the c hip pla c e rs , G RI 1 must be rea d “in conjunction” w ith the releva nt notes for chapte r 84. The c hapter notes provide that A mach i n e wh i ch is used for more than one purpose is, for the purp os e s of cla ssif

ic a tio n, to b e tr e a te d a s if its pr inc ipa l pu

rp os e wer e its sole purpose. Subject to note 2 to this chapter and note 3 to se ction XVI , a mac hine the principa l purpose of which is not descr ibed in a ny headingor for w h ic h n o o n e p u r

p o s e is th e p r in c ip a l p u r

p o s e is , u n le s s th e c o n te xt otherwise r equire s, to be classified in he ading8479. . . . Cha pte r 8 4 n ote 7. He re , th e c hip pla c e rs ’ p ri mary fu nc tio n is to p e rf

or m an a c tiv e and

int e g ra l r ole 11 in making PCAs. Se e Mi tsu bis hi I , 22 CI T at 341, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 1007. A re view of c hapter 84 shows that none of the headings describe this primary function and, the ref

ore, pur suant to note 7, theCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 17

chip place rs ar e prope rly

classified unde r hea ding 8479. T he fa ct t h at t h e chip placer s are to be classified unde r hea ding 8479 does not conc lude the cla ssification proce ss, however , as there are
sever al subheading s within that heading
. Rollerblade , 1 12 F .3 d at 48 4; see Diachem Indus., Ltd., v. United States , 2 2 C I T 8 8 9 , 8 9 3 (1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Alcan Alumi nium Corp. v. United States , 2 1 C IT 1238, 986 F. Supp. 1436, 1443 ( 1998), rev’d on other grounds , 1 6 5 F
. 3 d 8 9 8 ( F e d
. C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ) ( “ If the cha pter notes a

nd h ea dings a

re dispostitive, the Court need not e ng ag e in the ana ly sis of subordinate r

ules and other

interpre tation.”). Pursuant the G ener al Rules of Interpre tation: For leg al purposes, the classification of g oods in the subheading s of a he a din g sh a ll b e de te rm ine d a c c or dingto t he te rm s o f t

ho se subheading s and any related subheadingnotes and, mu tat is m uta nd is , to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheading s at the same leve l are compar able. F or the purposes of t his rule, the r elative s e c ti o n , c h a

p te r an d s u b c h a p te r n o te s a ls o a

p p ly , u n less the c o n te xt oth e rw ise re qu ir e s. GR I 6. A re vie w of he a din g 84 79 sh ow s th a t no ne of the te rm s o f t

he su bh e a din g s d e sc ri be the c hip place rs or their pr imary

function, and, the ref

ore, c lassification of the subje ct merc handise unde r the “other ” subhea ding of

8479.89.9797 is proper. For all the fore g oing reasons, the Court finds that chip place rs ar e not “lifting , handling loading or unloadingmachiner y ” that ca

n be cla ssified under he ading8428 but are , rathe r, “Mac hines and mec hanica l appliance s having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhe re in this chapte r . . .” that are proper ly classified unde r hea ding 8479. B The Court next turns to t he cla ssification of the f eede rs. Plaintiff ar gues that the fe eder s sh ou ld b e c la ssi fi e d und e r h e a din g 84 31 , w hic h co ve rs “ Part s su ita ble fo r u se so le ly

or pr inc ipa llyCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 18

with the machiner

y of hea ding 8425 to 8430 . . . .” SeePl.’s M em . at 3 3
. I n response , defe ndant argues that cla ssification of the f eede rs under

heading8431 is inappropriate “ina s m u ch as the machine of

whi ch t h es e fe ed ers a

re pa rts of is not a Hea ding 8428 ma chine.” Def .’s Mem. at 22. The Court ag ree s that classification of the fee ders within hea ding 8431 is not appr opriate a s they are not “par ts” of a ma chine of

one of the heading s listed therein. The que stion then become s the proper classification of t he feede rs. Def endant argues that Customs ’ c l as s i fi ca t i o no f t h e f ee d er s u n d er

t h e s am e s u

b h ea d i n g as t h e chip plac ers—8479.89—wa s proper . See Def

.’s Mem. at 22. The Court doe s not ag ree . As a pre liminary matter, while the parties dif fe r a s to the pr e c ise c ha ra c te ri zat ion o f th e feed ers ( i.e ., whether or not they

perf orm an insepara ble function of the c hip placer s, see DRPF, sec. 2, para . 8; Pl.’s R eply to DRPF, sec. 2, pa

ra. 8), they ag ree that the fe eder s ar e “par ts” to be used with the c hip placer s. SeePl.’s Mem. at 33 (c i t i n g Bauerhin Techs. Ltd v. United States , 1 1 0 F.3d 774 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997)); Def .’s Mem. at 22 (citing section XVI

note 2(a )). Thus, to properly classify these “ parts,” the Court turns to the HTSUS
no te s f or g uid anc e . G RI

1; Mitsubishi II

, 182 F. 3d at 886. The se ction notes provide, in re levant pa rt : [P ]arts of machines . . . a re to be classified a ccor ding to the f ollowing ru le s: (a) P ar t s which ar e g oods included in any of the h ea d i n gs o f c h ap t e r s 8 4 an d 8 5 (o t h er t h an h ea d i n gs 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8485 , 8 5 0 3, 8522, 8529, 8538 and 8548) a

re in a ll cases to be c lassified in t he ir re sp e c tiv e he a din g s; (b ) O the r p art s, if

su ita ble fo r us e so le ly

or pr inc ipa lly with a particula r kind of mac hine, or with a numbe r of machines of the same heading (including a mac hine ofCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 19 heading8479 or 8543) a re to be classified with the machines of

that kind or in heading8409, 8431, 8448, 846 6 , 8 4 7 3 , 8 5 0 3 , 8 5 2 2 , 8 5 2 9 o r 8 5 3 8 as appropr iate. . . . Section XVI

note 2. Def

endant a rgues that section note 2(a) i s controlling beca use the fe eder s are machines that can pe rfor

m their function indepe ndently from the chip placer s. SeeDe f. ’s F a c ts, p ar a. 1 4 (c i t i n g De f

. ’ s R es p . t o P l
. ’s I n t erro gs . ; Af f. o f D av i d

L o s ch e) (“ T h e f

u n ct i o no f f

ee d i n g, which is perf

ormed by

the Fe eder s[,] is separate from the f unction of mounting e l ec t rica l
c omp on e nts on to a

pr int e d c ir c uit

bo ard , w hic h is pe rf

or me d by th e Chip Pl a c e rs .” ). I n c on tr a st, pla int if f a rgue s th at se c tio n n ote 2( b) is c on tr oll ingbe c a us e the feeders’ de sig n a nd fu nc tio n is inexorably i n t er t wi ned with that of the c hip placer s. SeePRD F , p ara . 1 4 ( “ [A]ve rs that, t he Chi p Placer s cannot ope ra t e without havingcomponents in place . The c omponents are supplied to the chip place r by fee ders in a manner t hat allows the C hip Placer to function as desig ned.”) . Plaintiff contends that, followingCourt of Appea ls f or the F eder al Circuit prec edent, the f eede rs should be considere d integ ral “ parts” of the chip plac ers. Pl.’s Br
. I n Reply to Def.’ s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for S u m m . J
. an d

De f. ’s C ro s s - M o t
. f

o r S u m m . J
. (“ P l
. ’s R ep l y ”) at 2 8 (c i t i n g Bauerhin Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. United States , 110 F.3d 774 ( 1997) (“ Ba ue rh in ”)) . As pointed out by plaintiff, in Ba ue rh in the Court of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit

state d that “ an im

po rt e d it e m de dic a te d s ole ly fo r u se with a nother a rticle is a ‘ part’ of

that article within the meaningof the HTSUS.” Ba ue rh in , 110 F.3d at 7 7 9 (c i t i n g United States v. Pompe o , 43 CCP A 9 (1955))
. Her e, plainti ff ex plains that the fee ders
are “ so le ly ” de sig ne d to be us e d w iththe c hip pla c e rs be c a us e the motor fee ders and powe r fe eder s are specia lly desig ned to attac h to a Chip Plac er and communicate with its prog rammable controller i no r d e r t o s yn c h r o n i z e o p e r a t i o n w i t ht h e C h i p P l a c e r e x c l u s i v e l y.Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 20

Whi l e n e i t h e r a l l e g e d i n i t s c o mp l a i n t n o r ar g u e d i n i t s p a p e r s , p l a i n t i ff

, b y its 12 summons, raises the possibilit y that the feeder s are proper ly classified unde r subhea ding 8479.90. See summons. I ndeed, plaintiff identified 8479.90 as the prope r subhea ding f or cla ssification of the fee ders in its entry

paper s. SeeHRL 965394 (Sept. 10, 2002). These f eede rs ca nnot be sold for use w ith any other mach i n e, and more importantly , perf

orm no function other

than to fee d parts to a Chip Placer
. The fe eder s are not ge nera l equipment which could be sold independently

for use with other mac hines. Pl. ’s Re ply

a t 29 (c iti ngSup pl. Wisc ho ff e r A ff ., ¶ 1 0) ; s e e als o Vi d eo at 9: 54:58–:55:29; 10:01:24–:02:30; 10:10:14–:16:12 (ex plai n i n g function of f eede rs). The Court ag ree s that the fe e de rs are int e g ra l par

ts of c hip pla c e rs be c a

us e the y are “ an im

po rt e d it e m de dic a te d s ole ly fo r u se with a nother article . . . .” Ba ue rh in , 110 F .3 d at 77 9. Th e re fo re , a s th e y are “ su ita ble fo r u se so le ly or principa lly

with a par

ticular kind of mac hine . . . ,” the f eed er s “a re to be classified with the machines of

that kind or in heading8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropr iate.” Section XVI note 2(b). Be cause the fe eder s cannot be classified unde r hea ding 8431
a s p art s o f m a c hin e s o f h e a din g 84 28 , an d as no oth e r he a din g de sc ri be s the fe e de rs , th e y are , th us , proper ly classified under the same heading as the c hip placer s—8479. As previously noted, hea ding 8479 is divided into sever al s ubheading s and, therefor e, consideration of each is nec essar y . GRI6;

see Rollerblade , 1 12 F .3 d at 48 4 (st ati ng it i s th e Court ’s duty “ to ‘ re a c h th e c or

re c t de c isi on

in classification cases . .
. . ’”). An examination of the subheading s of hea ding 8479 show s that subheading8479.90 specific ally provides for

the classif

i ca tion of “par

ts.” A furthe r re view of 12

su bh e a din g 84 79 .9 0 s ho ws tha t c la ssi fi c a tio n o f t

he fe e de rs is not sp e c if

ic a lly pr ov ide d f

or the re in and, ther efor e, they

are proper ly

classified unde r subhea ding 8479
. 9 0.9595 as “Ma chines a nd
me c ha nic a l a pp lia nc e s h aving i nd iv idu a l f un c tio ns , n ot s pe c if

ie d o r i nc lud e d e lse wh e re in t hisCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 21

Be cause defe ndant ag ree s that the fee ders a re “ parts” of the chip place rs, and since 13 subheading8479.90 specific ally provi d es for the classifica tion of “par

ts,” classification of the fe eder s under pr ecise ly

the same subhe adingas the c hip placer s—8479.89—is not proper. See Rollerblade , 112 F.3d at 484. chapte r; parts ther eof .
. . Parts
. . . Other . . . .” The Court, there fore , denies both plaintiff’s a nd 13 defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt as to the classific ation of the fe eder s, and finds that they
are proper ly

classified unde r HTSUS subheading8479.90.9595. Rollerblade , 112 F.3d at 484. Conclu sion For all the fore g oing r easons, the Court f inds that the chip place rs ar e prope rly classified under H TSUS subheading 8479.89.9797 as “Ma chine s a n d me c h anica l appliance s having individual functions, not specifie d or included elsewhe re in this cha pter; par ts thereof . . . Other ma chines a

nd
me c ha nic a l a pp lia nc e s . . . Othe r: El e c tr ome c ha nic a l a pp liances wi th s e lf

-c on ta ine d e le c tr ic motor . . . Other . . . Othe r . . . Other . . . ,” and that the fee ders a re pr operly

classified unde r HTSUS
s u b h e a d i n g 8 4 7 9
. 9 0
. 9 5 9 5 a s “ p art s ” o f s u c hm a c h i n e s . J u d g m e n ts h a l l e n t e r a c c o r d i n g l y. /s/ R. Kenton Musgra ve R
. Ke n t o nM u s gra v e, J u d ge Dated: J uly

26, 2006 New Y ork, Ne w York