Case Name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics of America, Inc. and Samsung International, Inc., and Goldstar Co., Ltd., Goldstar Electronics International, Inc. and Goldstar of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, U.S. Department of Commerce, Malcolm T. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, Bruce Smart, Under Secretary of Commerce, Paul Freedenberg, Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration, Gilbert B. Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Customs Service and William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs, Defendants-Appellees, Zenith Electronics Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Independent Radionic Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and Industrial Union Dept., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1989-05-10
Citations: 873 F.2d 1427
Docket Number: Nos. 89-1023, 89-1042
Parties: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics of America, Inc. and Samsung International, Inc., and Goldstar Co., Ltd., Goldstar Electronics International, Inc. and Goldstar of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, U.S. Department of Commerce, Malcolm T. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, Bruce Smart, Under Secretary of Commerce, Paul Freedenberg, Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration, Gilbert B. Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Customs Service and William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs, Defendants-Appellees, Zenith Electronics Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Independent Radionic Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and Industrial Union Dept., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RICH and MAYER, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 1427–1431

Head Matter:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics of America, Inc. and Samsung International, Inc., and Goldstar Co., Ltd., Goldstar Electronics International, Inc. and Goldstar of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, U.S. Department of Commerce, Malcolm T. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, Bruce Smart, Under Secretary of Commerce, Paul Freedenberg, Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration, Gilbert B. Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Customs Service and William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs, Defendants-Appellees, Zenith Electronics Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Independent Radionic Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and Industrial Union Dept., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-1023, 89-1042.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 10, 1989.
Michael P. House, Dow, Lohnes & Al-bertson, Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs-appellants Goldstar Co., Ltd., et al. With him on the brief were William Silverman and R. Will Planert. Sukhan Kim, Thomas B. Wilner and Jeffrey M. Winton, Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for plaintiffs-appellants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
Elizabeth C. Seastrum, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for defendants-appellees. With her on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director. Also on the brief were Michael A. Levitt, Acting Gen. Counsel, Stephen J. Powell, Chief Counsel and Mark J. Sadoff, Atty.-Advisor, U.S. Dept, of Commerce, of counsel. Larry Hampel, of Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C., Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellee Zenith Electronics Corp. With him on the brief were Frederick L. Ikenson and J. Eric Niss-ley. Paul D. Cullen and Laurence J. La-soff, Collier, Skannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for defendants-appellees Independent Radionic Workers of America, et al.
Before RICH and MAYER, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
The judgment of the United States Court of International Trade, 692 F.Supp. 1382 (1988), upholding the determination of the Department of Commerce that separately imported color picture tubes and printed circuit boards, when subsequently assembled together, are within the scope of the antidumping duty order covering complete and incomplete color television receivers from Korea, 49 Fed.Reg. 18,336 (Dep't Comm.1984), is affirmed.
OPINION
Appellants Samsung and Goldstar raise an issue on appeal that was not expressly covered in the trial court's opinion. We address it here; on all other issues we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion, which we adopt.
Appellants assert that Commerce defined the scope of its antidumping duty order by reference to specific tariff classifications. Pointing out that the classifications under which color picture tubes and printed circuit boards are dutiable are not among those enumerated, appellants argue that they are not, therefore, properly within the scope of the order.
We have no reason to believe that Commerce did not intend to include items dutiable under the specified classifications within the scope of the order. Contrary to appellants' contention, however, we likewise have no reason to believe Commerce intended to limit the order to those items. Indeed, Commerce could not have been clearer that its intention was precisely the opposite: "This investigation is intended to cover all color television receivers regardless of tariff classifications." 49 Fed.Reg. at 18,337. In any event, it is eminently reasonable for Commerce to omit the separate classifications of tubes and boards: all parties agree that, when unassembled, these items do not constitute "color television receivers, complete or incomplete." Id.
All parties also agree that, "when assembled," ITC Final Determination at 3-4, tubes and boards do constitute incomplete receivers. Appellants would have us read "when assembled" as "when imported assembled," or at least "when covered on the same import entry," thus confining the temporal ambit of the word "when" to the moment of importation. But this construction artificially restricts the plain meaning. In classification cases a higher duty can be imposed where the importer's intention is to combine two separate components, after importation, to make an article that is classified at the higher duty. See Isaacs v. Jonas, 148 U.S. 648, 653, 13 S.Ct. 677, 679, 37 L.Ed. 596 (1892). The rule is that "[w]hen it is found that the article imported is in fact the article described in a particular paragraph of the tariff act," separate packaging of parts of the article "to avoid the specified duty on the article as a whole," "is simply a fraud on the revenue and cannot be permitted to succeed." United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407, 415, 416, 32 S.Ct. 259, 260, 260, 56 L.Ed. 486 (1912). We see no reason for a different rule here.
AFFIRMED.