Opinion ID: 213695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court of International Trade's Definition of Unit Furniture

Text: StoreWALL argues that the Court of International Trade erred by defining unit furniture to exclude other wall fixtures such as coat, hat and similar racks, key racks, clothes brush hangers, and newspaper racks. For ease of reference, we will refer to this express language in part (d) of the Court of International Trade's definition of unit furniture as the rack exclusion. StoreWALL proposes the following definition of unit furniture: [A]n article or articles of convenience or decoration, used to furnish living quarters or other spaces, composed of more or less repetitive sections which are combined to form either a single article or a larger system of articles (Chapter 94 Note 2 makes clear that such unit furniture includes articles designed for placing on the floor or ground, to be hung, to be fixed to the wall, or to stand one on the other). Appellant's Br. 16. Although storeWALL admits that it generally agrees with the Court of International Trade's definition of unit furniture, it argues that the addition of the rack exclusion based solely on the Explanatory Notes is improper because it is inconsistent with the broad common and commercial meaning of the term `unit furniture.' Id. at 16-17. StoreWALL argues that under our precedent, the Explanatory Notes cannot be used to contradict or artificially limit the broad common and commercial meaning of [`unit furniture.'] Id. at 22-23 (citing Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 561 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2009); Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir.2008)). The government argues that the Court of International Trade properly relied on the Explanatory Notes to define unit furniture. The government contends that Chapter 94, Note 2 creates exceptions to the general rule that furniture must be designed to be placed on the floor or the ground, including unit furniture that is designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall or to stand one on the other. Appellee's Br. 22. The government argues that although the Explanatory Notes are not binding, the Court of International Trade appropriately consulted the Explanatory Notes for further detail regarding the scope of unit furniture. Id. at 23-24. Note 2 to Chapter 94 makes clear that articles are classifiable as furniture under Heading 9403, HTSUS, only if the article is designed to be placed on the floor or the ground, or it falls under specified exceptions. Chapter 94 Notes, Note 2, HTSUS. Note 2 explicitly identifies cupboards, bookcases, other shelved furniture, and unit furniture that are designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall or to stand one on the other as such excepted articles. Id. The HTSUS does not define the term unit furniture or provide any clarification regarding the scope of the term. Where the HTSUS does not define a tariff term, the correct meaning of the term is its common commercial meaning absent contrary evidence. Airflow Tech., 524 F.3d at 1291. In order to determine the common commercial meaning of a tariff term, courts may consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources. Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed.Cir.2005). This is precisely what the Court of International Trade did here. The Court of International Trade first reviewed the Headings and Subheadings at issue and the corresponding Chapter Notes to clarify what fell under the definition of furniture. storeWALL, 675 F.Supp.2d at 1203-04. The Court of International Trade then consulted both the 1971 Brussels Nomenclature Committee Report and dictionaries to properly define unit furniture in light of the Chapter Notes. Id. at 1204. Furthermore, the Court of International Trade did not err in consulting the Explanatory Notes. Although not binding, where a tariff term is ambiguous the Explanatory Notes may provide persuasive and clearly relevant guidance to the meaning of the term. Agfa Corp. v. United States, 520 F.3d 1326, 1330 (Fed.Cir. 2008). In making this determination, we recognize that in Airflow Technology, we cautioned against the use of Explanatory Notes that contradict the plain language of an unambiguous heading. Airflow Tech., 524 F.3d at 1293 ([W]hen the language of the tariff provision is unambiguous and the Explanatory Notes contradictory, `we do not afford [the Explanatory Notes] any weight.'). We later reaffirmed this holding in reaching our decision in Archer Daniels. 561 F.3d at 1315. Here, however, the Court of International Trade's importation of the rack exclusion from the Explanatory Notes into its definition of unit furniture does not contradict the common commercial meaning of unit furniture, but instead clarifies the scope of the term. Therefore, the Court of International Trade appropriately looked to the Explanatory Notes for clarification and in doing so properly defined unit furniture.