United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WWRD US, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1945

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:11-cv-00238-MAB, Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

Decided: April 2, 2018 

______________________ 

 DANIEL J. GLUCK, Simon Gluck & Kane LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER M. KANE, MARIANA DEL RIO 

KOSTENWEIN. 

 BEVERLY A. FARRELL, International Trade Field 

Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, New York, NY, 

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD 

A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., JEANNE E.

DAVIDSON, AMY RUBIN; SHERYL FRENCH, Office of the 

Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Bureau of Cus-
2 WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES

toms and Border Protection, United States Department of 

Homeland Security, New York, NY. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. 

WWRD US, LLC (“WWRD”) appeals the United 

States Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) final decision denying WWRD’s motion for summary judgment and

granting the Government’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment. In doing so, the CIT agreed with the U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol’s (“CBP”) classification of 

WWRD’s subject imports, finding the articles were not 

eligible for duty-free treatment. WWRD U.S., LLC v. 

United States, 211 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017). 

We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Between October 2009 and February 2010, WWRD 

imported a series of decorative ceramic plates and mugs

from its “Old Britain Castles” dinnerware collections; 

decorative ceramic plates and gravy boats from its “His 

Majesty” dinnerware collection; and crystal flutes, punch 

bowls, and hurricane lamps from its “12 Days of Christmas” collection. All of the subject imports had festive 

motifs, such as Christmas trees, hollies, or turkeys, and 

were intended to be used during Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner. Upon arrival in the United States, the CBP

classified the articles based on their constituent materials, placing the various goods in subheadings 6912.00.39,1

 

1 All references to the HTSUS refer to the governing provision determined by the date of importation. See 

LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311, 1314 n.2 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). Because there were no material changes 
WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES 3

7013.22.50, 7013.41.50, and 9405.50.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 

WWRD filed multiple protests, arguing the articles should 

be classified in 9817.95.01, a duty-free subsection of the 

HTSUS covering certain festive goods. Specifically, 

HTSUS 9817.95.01 provides duty-free status for 

“[a]rticles classifiable in subheadings 3924.10, 3926.90, 

6307.90, 6911.10, 6912.00, 7013.22, 7013.28, 7013.41, 

7013.49, 9405.20, 9405.40, or 9405.50, the foregoing 

meeting the descriptions set forth below: Utilitarian 

articles of a kind used in the home in the performance of 

specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations for religious or cultural holidays, or religious festive occasions, 

such as Seder plates, blessing cups, menorahs or kinaras.” 

After the CBP denied WWRD’s protests, WWRD filed a 

complaint with the CIT, challenging the denials. WWRD 

argued that Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners are 

specific cultural ritual celebrations, its articles are used in 

the performance of such celebrations, and thus its articles 

belong in HSTUS 9817.95.01.

When presented with cross-motions for summary 

judgment, the trial court began by discussing the history

of subheading 9817.95.01. Specifically, the court noted 

that, before the creation of subheading 9817.95.01, utilitarian items associated with holiday or festive occasions 

were classified within Chapter 95, under heading 9505. 

This heading provided broad duty-free coverage for

“[f]estive, carnival or other entertainment articles,” as 

interpreted by our line of cases beginning with Midwest of 

Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). However, in 2007, Chapter 95 was amended to 

add Note 1(v), which removed “[t]ableware, kitchenware, 

toilet articles, carpets, and other textile floor coverings, 

 

to the relevant 2009 and 2010 provisions here, we cite to 

the 2009 version for convenience.
4 WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES

apparel, bed linen, table linen, toilet linen, kitchen linen 

and similar articles having a utilitarian function (classified according to their constituent material)” from the 

scope of Chapter 95. But Note 1(v) also referred to subheadings 9817.95.01 and 9817.95.05,2 which provided

duty-free status to a select subset of articles that would 

have lost such status under the Note. Thus, while many 

festive utilitarian articles are no longer eligible for dutyfree status, those used “in the performance of specific 

religious or cultural ritual celebrations” are still eligible.

The parties disputed only whether WWRD’s subject 

imports are used “in the performance of specific religious 

or cultural ritual celebrations,” and therefore the trial 

court set about defining the scope of this phrase in subheading 9817.95.01. In assessing the phrase, the CIT 

analyzed the text of the subheading using the General 

Rules of Interpretation (“GRI”). But because the section 

and chapter of the HTSUS did not assist in defining the 

phrase, the court gave the terms in the subheading their 

ordinary meaning, with specific focus on the word “ritual.” 

The court concluded that Thanksgiving and Christmas are cultural holidays, and the associated dinners are 

cultural celebrations, but not specific rituals. The court 

found that “rituals generally encompass specific scripted 

acts or series of acts that are customarily performed in an 

often formal or solemn manner.” WWRD, 211 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1375. While these dinners occur annually during 

religious or cultural holidays, that alone is not sufficient; 

the dinners themselves lack specific formal or solemn 

acts. See id. (“[I]f subheading 9817.95.01 was intended to 

 

2 Subheading 9817.95.05 covers “[u]tilitarian articles in the form of a three-dimensional representation of a 

symbol or motif clearly associated with a specific holiday 

in the United States.” This subheading is not involved in 

this case.
WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES 5

cover utilitarian items used in the home during religious 

or cultural celebrations, whenever they routinely occur, 

and whatever they might entail, the term ‘ritual’ could 

have been omitted altogether.”).

The trial court then turned to the exemplars provided 

in the subheading – the Seder plates, blessing cups, 

menorahs or kinaras. Under the statutory construction 

rule of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind”), the trial court

reasoned that the subject imports must “possess the 

essential characteristics or purposes that unite the [example] articles enumerated . . . .” Id. at 1376 (quoting 

Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 

(Fed. Cir. 1994)). The court distinguished the exemplars, 

which served specific purposes to advance their respective 

rituals, from the subject imports, which were “merely 

decorative items used to serve food and beverages or 

provide lighting.” Id. According to the trial court, such 

general-purpose articles do not qualify as articles used in 

the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual 

celebrations.

The court denied WWRD’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the Government’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

“We review a grant of summary judgment by the 

[CIT] for correctness as a matter of law and decide de 

novo the proper interpretation of the tariff provisions as 

well as whether there are genuine issues of material fact 

to preclude summary judgment.” Millennium Lumber 

Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326, 1328 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009) (citing Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 

F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). CBP classifications are 

presumed correct, and an appellant bears the burden of 

proving otherwise. Id. at 1330.
6 WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES

Classifying articles under the HTSUS is a two-step 

process. The Court first determines the proper meaning 

of specific terms in the tariff provisions, which is a question of law. Id. at 1328. Once the proper meaning of the 

tariff provisions are ascertained, the Court then determines which HTSUS subheading the subject goods are 

most appropriately classified under, which is a question of 

fact. Id. “If we determine that there is no dispute of 

material facts, our review of the classification of the goods 

collapses into a determination of the proper meaning and 

scope of the HTSUS terms that, as a matter of statutory 

construction, is a question of law.” Aves. in Leather, Inc. 

v. United States, 317 F.3d 1399, 1402 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

“The HTSUS is composed of classification headings, 

each of which has one or more subheadings.”3 R.T. Foods, 

Inc. v. United States, 757 F.3d 1349, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). We construe the terms of a tariff provision by 

applying the GRI “in numerical order.” Wilton Indus., 

Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). Relevant here, the classification of subheadings is 

governed by GRI 6, which provides that “the classification 

of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and 

any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to 

the above [GRIs] on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable.” See Orlando Food 

Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 

1998). GRI 1, in turn, provides that “classification shall 

be determined according to the terms of the headings and 

any relative section or chapter notes.” See Millenium 

Lumber, 558 F.3d at 1328–29. Terms in the HTSUS are 

 

3 “The first four digits of an HTSUS provision constitute the heading, whereas the remaining digits reflect 

subheadings.” Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 

845 F.3d 1158, 1163 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES 7

given “their common commercial meanings.” Id. at 1329 

(citing Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 

1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

We begin our analysis by determining the proper 

meaning of the tariff provisions: what constitutes an 

article used “in the performance of specific religious or 

cultural ritual celebrations.” The trial court determined 

that the term “specific” modifies the term “ritual” (as 

opposed to “religious” or “cultural”), and that, consequently, “rituals generally encompass specific scripted acts or 

series of acts that are customarily performed in an often 

formal or solemn manner.” WWRD, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 

1375. We agree with the trial court that “specific” modifies the term “ritual,” but emphasize that formality and/or 

solemnity, while relevant, are not required characteristics 

of all specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations.

WWRD attempts to distinguish “religious” from “cultural” rituals, arguing that a “cultural ritual” does not 

require the same “specific scripted acts or series of acts 

that are customarily performed in an often formal or 

solemn manner.” The Government, on the other hand, 

argued below for a much narrower definition: that “rituals” require “formal actions and words that are repeated 

every year in the same fashion by everyone who celebrates these events.” We find neither of these interpretations compelling. 

While the parties provided numerous definitions of 

“ritual” from a variety of sources, we can derive two 

underlying requirements for religious or cultural rituals. 

First, a ritual must have some prescribed acts or codes of 

behavior. See Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1661 (New rev. ed. 1996) 

(“Webster’s”) (defining “ritual” as: “1. an established or 

prescribed procedure . . . 2. a system or collection 

of . . . rites . . . 6. a prescribed or established rite, ceremony, proceeding, or service . . . 7. prescribed, established, or 
8 WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES

ceremonial acts . . . 8. any practice or pattern of behavior 

regularly performed . . . 9. a prescribed code of behavior . . . ”); see also Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1011 (10th ed. 1993) (“Merriam”) (defining “ritual” as 

“1 : the established form for a ceremony; specf: the order 

of words prescribed . . . [2]b : a ceremonial act or action). 

Second, a ritual, in the context of this subheading, must 

have some cultural or religious meaning. See Webster’s 

(defining “ritual” as involving “[1.] a religious or other 

rite . . . [3.] public worship . . . [7.] religious services . . . [9.] regulating social conduct . . . .”); see also 

Merriam (defining “ritual” as involving “religious law or 

social custom.”). The trial court may then weigh other

suggestive but non-dispositive factors, such as whether 

the prescribed acts or codes of behavior are performed in a 

formal or solemn manner, how widely recognized the 

prescribed acts or underlying meanings are, how established the organization performing the ritual is, what 

purpose the prescribed acts have in serving the organization or representing the cultural or religious meaning, 

among other considerations.

In this light, it appears WWRD presents a compelling 

argument that Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners are 

religious or cultural ritual celebrations, but that is not the 

end of our analysis. Subheading 9817.95.01 also requires 

“specific” ritual. “Specific” is defined as “free from ambiguity,” Merriam, at 1128, or “[o]f, relating to, or designating a particular or defined thing; explicit,” Black’s Law 

Dictionary 1616 (10th ed. 2014). Thus, the court must 

look for specific, well-defined prescribed acts or codes of 

behavior having an unambiguous cultural or religious 

meaning.

Generally, WWRD argues that Thanksgiving and 

Christmas dinners involve “prescribed and specific acts 

and series of acts and their own particular cultural rituals 

and sub-rituals, which go beyond the gathering for and 

consumption of ordinary meals.” For specificity, WWRD 
WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES 9

argues the prescribed acts in Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner are: “gathering together at one location, not 

simply to enjoy a meal, but to celebrate in a traditional 

family or communal way; a holiday; the consumption of 

special food and drink . . . ; more formal table settings 

decorated with seasonable displays . . . ; and, at the heart 

of the event, the common, shared intent to continue to 

celebrate the particular holiday in a familiar and time 

honored way.” But the last item concerning “intent” is not 

an act at all. The correct focus is on the acts that WWRD 

uses to define the ritual, and as the trial court found,

those acts do not rise to the level of specificity required by 

subheading 9817.95.01. 

The exemplars provided in the subheading illuminate 

what level of specificity is required. For instance, as the 

trial court noted in part, a Seder plate is used during 

Passover to hold six symbolic foods, where each food has a 

particular meaning and is generally accompanied by 

scripted prayer. In Christian teachings, a blessing cup 

holds wine that symbolizes or becomes the blood of Christ, 

and invokes scripted Communion liturgy. A menorah is a 

candelabrum having nine holders for nine symbolic candles, where a candle is lit for each night of Hanukkah, 

and is generally accompanied by scripted prayer. And 

finally, a kinara is a candelabrum having seven holders 

for seven symbolic candles: three green candles, three red 

candles, and one black candle. A candle is lit on each day

of Kwanzaa, and each candle represents a particular 

“principle” of Kwanzaa. 

Based on the terms of the subheading and the exemplars, we conclude that “gathering together” and “enjoying 

a meal” are too ambiguous. The proposed acts say nothing about the types of food or drink served, the types of 

settings or displays required, whether all families celebrate in the same or similar way, or what underlying 

cultural or religious meaning the specific acts represent. 

Families celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas din-
10 WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES

ners do so in a variety of ways, using a variety of foods, 

and even at a variety of times in the day. The “prescribed 

and specific acts” promised by WWRD’s general description of Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners are missing.

But even if the acts were specific enough, there is one 

further requirement presented by subheading 9817.95.01: 

the subject import must be “used . . . in the performance”

of the ritual. WWRD would have us hold that an article 

that is used only for its utilitarian purpose, but also adds 

to the ambience of the event, constitutes use in the performance of the ritual. But it is not enough that a utilitarian article is merely used during the ritual. Instead,

the use must advance or serve a particular purpose in the

ritual. The exemplars make this clear: a Seder plate is 

used to present the six symbolic foods, a blessing cup 

holds the symbolic blood of Christ, a menorah is used to 

hold the nine symbolic candles, and a kinara is used to 

hold the seven symbolic candles. Assuming arguendo that 

Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners are specific rituals, 

the ritual of dinner will continue whether the serving 

trays and cups have festive motifs or not; the motifs 

themselves do nothing to further the ritual of dinner. 

Unless WWRD can point to specific prescribed acts having 

underlying religious or cultural meaning, where the 

subject imports are used in the performance of those acts, 

its imports are not eligible for duty-free status under 

subheading 9817.95.01.

The legislative history supports our conclusion that 

WWRD’s subject imports do not fall within the scope of 

subheading 9817.95.01. This court’s decisions before 2007 

provided that similar utilitarian items associated with 

holiday or festive occasions would be classified as dutyfree. See, e.g., Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 

F.3d 922, 928–29 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The addition of Note 

1(v) in February 2007 rejected that broad scope of dutyfree treatment of utilitarian holiday items, choosing 

language that preserved duty-free status only for a subset 
WWRD US, LLC v. UNITED STATES 11

of items that are used “in the performance of specific 

religious or cultural ritual celebrations.” WWRD’s interpretation of the new language would recreate much the 

same scope of duty-free treatment in this area that Congress abandoned in 2007.

CONCLUSION

While we adopt a more flexible definition of “ritual”

than the trial court, the trial court correctly determined 

that WWRD’s subject imports do not fall within the scope 

of subheading 9817.95.01. Because WWRD failed to 

allege any disputes of material fact or dispositive errors of 

law, we affirm the trial court’s decisions to deny WWRD’s 

motion for summary judgment, and to grant the Government’s cross-motion. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.