Opinion ID: 2681860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Competing Headings

Text: Customs classified the subject merchandise under HTSUS 2004, which provides for “Other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US 7 acid, frozen, other than products of heading 2006.” 6 This heading is an eo nomine provision, or one that “describes an article by a specific name.” CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1364 (citing Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379). “[A]n eo nomine provision includes all forms of the named article, including improved forms.” Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640, 646 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1364–65). However, “when an article ‘is in character or function something other than as described by a specific statutory provision—either more limited or more diversified—and the difference is significant,’ it is not properly classified within an eo nomine provision.” CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1365 (emphasis added) (quoting Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). To determine whether such a difference is significant enough to remove an article from an eo nomine provision, this court has looked to “‘whether the item possess[es] features substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of the term,’” or whether the subject article is “a change in identity of the article described by the statute.” Id. (alteration in original) (citations omitted). R.T.’s proposed heading is HTSUS 2106, which pro- vides for “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.” This heading is a “basket provision” as indicated by the terms “not elsewhere specified or included.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States, 152 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1998); HTSUS 2106. “A basket provision is not a specific provision.” Int’l Bus. Machs., 152 F.3d at 1338. Therefore, “[c]lassification of imported merchandise in a basket provision is only appropriate if there is no tariff category that covers the merchandise more specifi- 6 HTSUS 2006 concerns “[v]egetables, fruit, nuts, fruit-peel and other parts of plants preserved by sugar” and therefore is inapplicable here. 8 R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US cally.” Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1251 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000), aff’d, 282 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In other words, because HTSUS 2106 is a basket provision, any products that are “specified or included” in another tariff heading cannot be classified in HTSUS 2106. III. The Subject Merchandise Was Properly Classified in HTSUS 2004 The CIT found the subject merchandise fell under the eo nomine heading of HTSUS 2004, stating “[t]o prima facie fall under heading 2004 . . . five criteria must be met: the products must be (1) vegetables that are (2) prepared or preserved, (3) otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, which are (4) frozen, and are (5) other than products of heading 2006.” R.T. Foods, 887 F.2d at 1358. The CIT explained that both the “Vegetable Bird’s Nests” and the “Tempura Vegetables” satisfied all five criteria because “they are (1) vegetables that are (2) prepared (3) in tempura batter, not in vinegar or acetic acid, which are (4) flash frozen, and are (5) not products preserved by sugar as provided for by heading 2006.” Id. After finding the subject merchandise prima facie fell within HTSUS 2004, the CIT then “review[ed] . . . the possible subheadings” and determined “the proper subheading is 2004.90.85,” which provides for “Other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen, other than products of heading 2006: Other vegetables and mixtures of vegetables: Other: Other, including mixtures.” Id. at 1359; HTSUS 2004. In doing so, the CIT rejected R.T.’s proposed heading, HTSUS 2106, which it described as “an expansive basket heading that only applies in the absence of another applicable heading.” R.T. Foods, 887 F.2d at 1358 (“To prima facie fall under [HTSUS] 2016 . . . two criteria must be met: the products must be (1) a food preparation, which is (2) not elsewhere specified or included. Both Bird[’s] R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US 9 Nests and Vegetable Medley satisfy the first criterion, but not the second: they are (1) a food preparation by common meaning, but they are (2) elsewhere specified or included.”). The CIT also noted “Customs has consistently classified tempura-coated products by the underlying main food dipped into the tempura batter, not as a food preparation.” Id. R.T. argues the CIT erred in classifying the subject merchandise under the eo nomine provision of HTSUS 2004 because “[t]here is a significant difference between eo nomine vegetables in heading 2004 . . . and RT’s products which changed the identity of the vegetables to premade ready-to-eat meals.” Appellant’s Br. 3. In other words, according to R.T., because its manufacturing process changed the identity of the vegetables, the products were removed from the eo nomine provision. Id. at 1, 7–8; Reply 2–3 (“[T]he processing of the original vegetables . . . transforms the vegetables into a ‘food preparation’ distinct from vegetables that are simply prepared or preserved. It is that transformation—a change in identity—that precludes the use of subheading 2004.90.85.”). In support, R.T. points to Note 1 to Chapter 20, which specifies that Chapter 20, under which HTSUS 2004 falls, does not cover vegetables prepared or preserved by the processes described in Chapter 7, which “covers vegetables, . . . whether fresh, chilled, frozen (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water), provisionally preserved or dried (including dehydrated, evaporated or freeze-dried).” HTSUS ch. 20, note 1; HTS ch. 7, Explanatory Note 1 (J.A. 186). To Appellant, because its products “have been cut, wrapped in tempura batter, deep-fried and frozen in a process as specified under Chapter 7, they cannot be classified under Chapter 20.” Appellant’s Br. at 8–9. R.T. also argues that, because classification under heading 2004 is incorrect, the CIT erred in failing to perform a “principle use” analysis, which R.T. contends 10 R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US would have led the CIT to conclude that classification pursuant to R.T.’s proposed basket provision was proper. A “principle use” analysis is only used for those headings “controlled by use,” as opposed to eo nomine headings. See HTSUS ARI 1(a). Such an analysis involves determining “the use which exceeds any other single use” of the merchandise in the United States. Aromont USA Inc. v. United States, 671 F. 3d 1310, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012); HTSUS ARI 1(a). Appellant argues, under such an analysis, “RT’s food preparations are not principally used as vegetables. RT’s consumer’s expectation is to buy a premade meal that ‘makes even the worst cook look like a pro.’” 7 Appellant’s Br. 3 (citation omitted). According to Appellant, the manufacturing process of the subject merchandise transforms the vegetables into a product that is principally used as a pre-made meal. The subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS 2004. As noted, the identity of the subject merchandise is not in dispute; the only issue is whether the products are named by the eo nomine provision or whether they differ so significantly they can no longer be properly classified within this provision. See CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1365 (“In order to determine whether the subject article is classifiable within an eo nomine provision, we look to whether the subject article is merely an improvement over or whether it is, instead, a change in identity of the article described by the statute.” (emphases added)). The merchandise named by HTSUS 2004 in- 7 R.T.’s record citations do not at all show the subject products are pre-made meals. See J.A. 52, 106. Indeed, at oral argument, R.T.’s counsel conceded the subject merchandise was not “referenced at all” in the portion of the record cited by R.T. for that proposition. Oral Arg. at 28:37–29:00, available at http://www.cafc. uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2013-1188/all. R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US 11 cludes “Other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen, other than products of [HTSUS] 2006.” This court agrees with the CIT that the subject merchandise prima facie falls into this heading because the products are (1) vegetables, (2) that are prepared, (3) in tempura batter (and not in vinegar or acetic acid), (4) flash frozen, and are (5) not products preserved by sugar as provided for by HTSUS 2006. R.T.’s argument that its manufacturing process transformed the vegetables into pre-made ready-to-eat meals is unsupported by any evidence and is unpersuasive. This court has noted there are “several analytical tools or factors [used] to assess whether the subject articles are beyond the reach of [an] eo nomine . . . provision,” which include the design, use, and function of the subject articles. CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1367. R.T. has not identified a feature or component of the subject merchandise that so substantially transforms the vegetables so as to remove them from the eo nomine provision. Furthermore, R.T. has not shown how tempura battering and frying does not fall within the eo nomine provision’s specification that the frozen vegetables be “prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid.” Absent such a substantial transformation, it is clear the merchandise falls within the scope of heading 2004. Additionally, there is no basis for interpreting the heading so as to exclude merchandise prepared in this manner. This court has cautioned that “we should not read a use limitation into an eo nomine provision unless the name itself inherently suggests a type of use.” Kahrs Int’l, 713 F.3d at 646 (“While Kahrs’ merchandise possesses some unique features related to its intended use . . . , we disagree with Kahrs that these features are sufficiently significant to transform its identity . . . and we see no reason to read additional limitations into the tariff schedule.”). There is no such suggestion in this eo nomine provision that a use limitation is appropriate, nor 12 R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US is there any indication that the identity of the goods was so significantly transformed so as to remove the goods from this provision. See CamelBak Prods., 649 F.3d at 1365. Accordingly, R.T. has failed to show that its products possess a feature or component that endows them with a unique identity substantial enough to justify removal from the scope of the eo nomine provision in which they prima facie fall. As to R.T.’s argument that classification under HTSUS 2004 is precluded by Note 1(a) to Chapter 20, R.T. is correct that HTSUS 2004 is qualified by Note 1(a), which provides: “This chapter does not cover: (a) Vegetables, fruit or nuts, prepared or preserved by the processes specified in chapter 7, 8 or 11.” However, Chapters 8 and 11 do not encompass vegetables, and Chapter 7 covers various vegetables that are “fresh, chilled, frozen (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water), provisionally preserved or dried (including dehydrated, evaporated or freeze-dried).” J.A. 186 (emphasis added). R.T. has offered no record evidence that the subject merchandise is prepared or preserved by the processes included within HTSUS Chapter 7. Indeed, while the “Vegetable Bird’s Nests” and the “Tempura Vegetables” are comprised of frozen vegetables, they are not “uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water,” nor are they “provisionally preserved or dried.” Because Chapter 7 does not include processes such as dipping in batter and frying, the subject merchandise is not excluded from HTSUS 2004 by virtue of Note 1(a) to Chapter 20. Finally, because the subject merchandise is “specially provided for” elsewhere, Int’l Bus. Machs., 152 F.3d at 1338, classification under R.T.’s proposed basket provision is inappropriate. R.T.’s proposed “principal use” analysis has no bearing on the proper classification of the subject merchandise because the products are named by an eo nomine provision. R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US 13 IV. The Subject Merchandise Was Properly Classified in Subheading 2004.90.85 Having determined the proper heading, this court must now determine the proper subheading for the subject merchandise. Upon independent review of HTSUS 2004’s subheadings, this court finds the subject merchandise is properly classified under subheading 2004.90.85. The subheadings of HTSUS 2004 are as follows: 2004 Other vegetables prepared or pre- served otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen, other than products of heading 2006: 2004.10 Potatoes 2004.10.40 Yellow (Solano) potatoes 2004.10.80 Other French fries Other 2004.90 Other vegetables and mixtures of vegetables: 2004.90.10 Antipasto 2004.90.80 Beans 2004.90.85 Other Carrots Sweet corn Peas Other, including mixtures HTSUS 2004 (emphases added). Because the subject merchandise is not “potatoes” it is properly classified under subheading 2004.90, which encompasses “mixtures of vegetables.” Furthermore, because the subject merchandise is not “antipasto” or “beans,” it is properly classified under subheading 2004.90.85 for “Other: Other, including mixtures.” 14 R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US