Opinion ID: 2681860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Classification Pursuant to the HTSUS

Text: The HTSUS is composed of classification headings, each of which has one or more subheadings. Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The headings contain ‘general categories of merchandise,’ whereas ‘the subheadings provide a more particularized segregation of the goods within each category.’” Id. (quoting Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Along with the headings and subheadings, which are enumerated in chapters 1 through 99 of the HTSUS (each of which has its own section and chapter notes), the HTSUS statute also contains the “General Notes,” the “General Rules of Interpretation” (“GRI”), the “Additional United States Rules of Interpretation” (“ARI”), and various appendices for particular categories of goods. 5 See Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 3004(a) (1994)). The classification of merchandise is governed by the GRIs and the ARIs, which are applied in numerical order. BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The classification analysis always begins with GRI 1, which directs that “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.” HTSUS GRI 1 (emphasis added); see Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440 (“[A] court 5 The World Customs Organization’s “Explanatory Notes,” which accompany each chapter of the HTSUS, are “not legally binding, are ‘persuasive[,]’ and are ‘generally indicative’ of the proper interpretation of the tariff provision.” Lemans, 660 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Drygel, Inc. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 6 R.T. FOODS, INC. v. US first construes the language of the heading, and any section or chapter notes in question, to determine whether the product at issue is classifiable under the heading.”). “Absent contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed according to their common and commercial meanings, which are presumed to be the same.” Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Simod Am. Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Pursuant to GRI 1, the possible headings are to be evaluated without reference to their subheadings, which cannot be used to expand the scope of their respective headings. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440 (“Only after determining that a product is classifiable under the heading should the court look to the subheadings to find the correct classification for the merchandise. . . . [W]hen determining which heading is . . . more appropriate for classification, a court should compare only the language of the headings and not the language of the subheadings.”); EOS of N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1327–28 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013); BASF Corp. v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011). Finally, if the proper heading can be determined under GRI 1, the court is not to look to the subsequent GRIs. See CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 160 F.3d 710, 712 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (“We apply GRI 1 as a substantive rule of interpretation, such that when an imported article is described in whole by a single classification heading or subheading, then that single classification applies, and the succeeding GRIs are inoperative.”).