Moen Inc. v. United States , 294 F. Supp. 3d 1337 ( 2018 )

Slip Op. 18-17
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MOEN INC.,
Plaintiff,
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
v.
Court No. 15-00145
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION
[Granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying Defendant’s cross-motion for
summary judgment with respect to the classification of certain models of toilet paper holders.]
Dated: March 7, 2018
William Randolph Rucker and Mollie D. Sitkowski, Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, of Chicago,
IL, argued for Plaintiff Moen Inc.
Jamie L. Shookman, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice,
of New York, N.Y., argued for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Chad A.
Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director,
International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Sheryl A. French, Attorney, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This case addresses the proper classification of various models of
toilet paper holders under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).1
Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., July 27,
2017, ECF No. 25; Mem. L. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., July 27, 2017, ECF No. 25 (“Pl.’s Br.”);
1
Although Plaintiff imported its entries between 2013 and 2014, all citations to the HTSUS are
to the 2013 version. The relevant provisions and accompanying notes are identical to the 2014
version.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 2
Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J., Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 28; Mem. Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. &
Supp. Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J., Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 28 (“Def.’s Br.”). Both parties filed
timely responses. See Pl.’s Resp. Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J., Sept. 27, 2017, ECF No. 31;
Mem. L. Further Supp. Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J., Oct. 11, 2017, ECF No. 32. The court held
oral argument in this matter on December 13, 2017. See Oral Argument, Dec. 13, 2017, ECF
No. 40.
Moen Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Moen”) argues that U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(“Customs”) improperly denied its protests challenging the classification of its subject
merchandise. See Pl.’s Br. 1. Plaintiff contends that all of its toilet paper holders are entitled to
duty-free treatment because the products are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8302.50.00,
which encompasses “[b]ase metal mountings,” including “hat-racks, hat pegs, brackets and
similar fixtures, and parts thereof.” See id. at 2. The United States (“Defendant” or
“Government”) maintains that Customs properly classified the imported toilet paper holders
under HTSUS subheading 7907.00.10, which covers “[o]ther articles of zinc” including “[t]oilet
and sanitary wares.” See Def.’s Br. 1. The Government argues, in the alternative, that Moen’s
“Sienna” product should be classified under HTSUS subheading 7324.90.00, which encompasses
other products, including parts, of “[s]anitary ware and parts thereof, of iron or steel.” See id. at
1–2.
For the reasons discussed below, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment and denies Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to the
classification of the subject imports of toilet paper holders, which are classifiable under HTSUS
subheading 8302.50.00 and will receive duty-free treatment.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 3
UNDISPUTED FACTS
As required by USCIT Rule 56.3, Plaintiff and Defendant submitted separate statements
of material facts and responses thereto. See Pl.’s Statement of Material Facts Not in Issue, July
27, 2017, ECF No. 25 (“Pl.’s Facts”); Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Statement of Material Facts Not in
Issue, Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 28-1 (“Def.’s Facts Resp.”); Def.’s Statement of Additional
Undisputed Material Facts, Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 28-2 (“Def.’s Facts”); Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Sept. 27, 2017, ECF No. 31 (“Pl.’s Facts Resp.”). The
following facts are not in dispute.
A. Jurisdictional and Procedural Facts
Plaintiff imported the subject toilet paper holders into the United States at the Port of Los
Angeles in California between December 2013 and March 2014. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 2; Def.’s Facts
Resp. ¶ 2. The entries were liquidated by Customs. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 3; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 3.
Customs classified the merchandise under HTSUS subheading 7907.00.10, dutiable at 3% ad
valorem. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 7; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff filed timely protests contesting the classification of its imports and seeking duty-
free treatment of its merchandise, which Customs denied. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 3; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff paid all liquidated duties and fees according to Customs’ classification of the
merchandise. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 4; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 4. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced this
action. See Summons, May 13, 2015, ECF No. 1; Compl., July 31, 2015, ECF No. 7.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 4
B. Facts Regarding the Imported Toilet Paper Holders
There are twenty-three different product models at issue with the following stock keeping
unit (“SKU”) numbers and names:
x YB8808BN 90 degree brushed nickel pivoting paper holder;
x YB0408BN Align brushed nickel paper holder;
x YB0408CH Align brushed chrome paper holder;
x YB0409BN Align brushed nickel paper holder;
x YB0409CH Align chrome paper holder;
x DN7908BN Ashville brushed nickel pivoting paper holder;
x YB2208BN Brantford brushed nickel spring loaded paper holder;
x YB2208CH Brantford chrome spring loaded paper holder;
x YB2208ORB Brantford oil rubbed bronze spring loaded paper holder;
x YB2808BN Eva brushed nickel European paper holder;
x YB2808CH Eva chrome European paper holder;
x YB2808ORB Eva oil rubbed bronze European paper holder;
x YB9208BN Fina brushed nickel pivoting paper holder;
x YB5408BN Kingsley brushed nickel pivoting paper holder;
x YB5408CH Kingsley chrome pivoting paper holder;
x YB5408ORB Kingsley oil rubbed bronze pivoting paper holder;
x DN8308BN Retreat brushed nickel pivoting paper holder;
x DN8308CH Retreat chrome pivoting paper holder;
x DN4408CH Vale chrome pivoting paper holder;
x DN4408ORB Vale oil rubbed bronze pivoting paper holder;
x DN4908BK Sienna matte black European paper holder;
x DN6808BN Sage brushed nickel spring loaded paper holder; and
x DN6808ORB Sage oil rubbed bronze spring loaded paper holder.
Pl.’s Facts ¶ 8; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 8. The paper holders come in various styles and finishes.
Pl.’s Facts ¶ 11; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 11. Most of the products are made primarily of zinc. Pl.’s
Facts ¶ 24; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 24. One product, the Sienna matte black European paper holder,
Court No. 15-00145 Page 5
SKU DN4908BK, is made primarily of steel.2 Pl.’s Facts ¶ 25; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 25. Zinc
and steel are both base metals. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 27; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 27.
All of the subject paper holders are designed to be mounted on a wall and used to hang a
roll of toilet paper. Pl.’s Facts ¶¶ 10, 22; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶¶ 10, 22. Moen distinguishes the
models into three types: pivoting, European (“Euro”), and spring-loaded. Pl.’s Facts ¶ 11; Def.’s
Facts Resp. ¶ 11. The pivoting paper holders have an arm that holds a toilet paper roll and a post
that either pivots for ease of changing out the roll, or has an attached pivoting head that performs
this role. Def.’s Facts ¶ 4; Pl.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 4. The Euro paper holders have an arm that holds
a toilet paper roll, which may swivel for ease of use. Def.’s Facts ¶ 5; Pl.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 5. The
spring-loaded paper holders have a spring-loaded tube that fits between two mounted posts.
Def.’s Facts ¶ 6; Pl.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 6.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012)3 and 19 U.S.C. § 1515
(2012).4 The court will grant summary judgment if “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
USCIT R. 56(a). To raise a genuine issue of material fact, a party cannot rest upon mere
2
Defendant avers that some cited testimony in the record indicates that Moen’s Sienna model is
made primarily of steel, while other evidence states that the product is made of wrought iron.
Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 25. Defendant correctly notes that whether the Sienna model is made of
steel or iron is not material to this dispute because HTSUS subheading 7324.90.00 encompasses
both metals. Id. Plaintiff clarified at oral argument that its Sienna product is made primarily of
steel. See Oral Argument at 0:46:55–0:47:27, Dec. 13, 2017, ECF No. 40.
3
Further citations to Title 28 of the U.S. Code are to the 2012 edition.
4
Further citations to Title 19 of the U.S. Code are to the 2012 edition.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 6
allegations or denials and must point to sufficient supporting evidence for the claimed factual
dispute to require resolution of the differing versions of the truth at trial. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986); Processed Plastics Co. v. United States, 473
F.3d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd.,
731 F.2d 831, 835–36 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
A two-step process guides the court in determining the correct classification of
merchandise. First, the court ascertains the proper meaning of the terms in the tariff provision.
See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Sigma-Tau HealthScience, Inc. v. United States, 838 F.3d 1272, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Second,
the court determines whether the merchandise at issue falls within the parameters of the tariff
provision. See id. The former is a question of law and the latter is a question of fact. See id.
“[W]hen there is no dispute as to the nature of the merchandise, then the two-step classification
analysis ‘collapses entirely into a question of law.’” Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d
962, 965–66 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
The court reviews classification cases de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1). Customs is
afforded a statutory presumption of correctness in classifying merchandise under the HTSUS,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1), but this presumption does not apply to pure questions of law. See
Universal Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 488, 492 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court has “an
independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the proper meaning and scope of HTSUS
terms,” Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)), and therefore
Court No. 15-00145 Page 7
must determine “whether the government’s classification is correct, both independently and in
comparison with the importer’s alternative.” Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873,
878 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Framework
The classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of
Interpretation (“GRIs”) and, if applicable, the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation, which are
both applied in numerical order. BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (citing N. Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
GRI 1 instructs that, “for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms
of the headings and any [relevant] section or chapter notes.” GRI 1. “Absent contrary legislative
intent, HTSUS terms are to be ‘construed [according] to their common and popular meaning.’”
Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 530, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
In construing the terms of the headings, “[a] court may rely upon its own understanding
of the terms used and may consult lexicographic and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other
reliable information sources.” Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (citing Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R., 182 F.3d at 1337). The court may also consult the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System’s Explanatory Notes (“Explanatory
Notes”), which “are not legally binding or dispositive,” Kahrs Intern., Inc. v. United States, 713
F.3d 640, 645 (Fed. Cir. 2013), but “provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the
Harmonized System . . . and are generally indicative of proper interpretation of the various
Court No. 15-00145 Page 8
provisions.”5 H.R. Rep. No. 100–576, 549 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1582;
see also E.T. Horn Co. v. United States, 367 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Len-Ron
Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Tariff terms are defined
according to the language of the headings, the relevant section and chapter notes, the
Explanatory Notes, available lexicographic sources, and other reliable sources of information.
B. Analysis of the Terms Under HTSUS 8302.50.00
The court must first ascertain the proper meaning and scope of the terms under HTSUS
subheading 8302.50.00 before determining whether Plaintiff’s products are classified under that
provision. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 845 F.3d at 1162 (citing Sigma-Tau HealthScience,
Inc., 838 F.3d at 1276). HTSUS subheading 8302.50.00 reads as follows:
8302: Base metal mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture, doors,
staircases, windows, blinds, coachwork, saddlery, trunks, chests, caskets or the like; base
metal hat-racks, hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures; castors with mountings of base
metal; automatic door closers of base metal; and base metal parts thereof:
8302.50.00 Hat-racks, hat pegs, brackets and similar fixtures, and parts
thereof……………………………..………………………………..Free
Subheading 8302.50.00, HTSUS.
The court must assess whether HTSUS heading 8302 is an eo nomine provision or a use
provision at the outset, as that distinction guides the analysis. See Schlumberger Tech Corp.,
845 F.3d at 1164. An eo nomine provision describes articles by specific names, while a use
provision characterizes products based on their principal or actual use. See id.; see also R.T.
Foods, Inc. v. United States, 757 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Heading 8302 is an eo
5
All citations to the Explanatory Notes are to the 2013 version. The relevant portions are
identical to the 2014 version.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 9
nomine classification provision because it names specific products. Because the provision is eo
nomine, the court’s analysis begins with the heading’s terms. See Schlumberger Tech Corp., 757
F.3d at 1164 (citation omitted). Pursuant to Plaintiff’s proposed classification, the court’s
analysis will focus on the phrase “base metal hat-racks, hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures”
within HTSUS heading 8302.
First, the court looks to the term “base metal.” Chapter 82 is titled “miscellaneous
articles of base metals.” Chapter 82, HTSUS. All chapters at issue in this case—Chapters 73,
79, and 82—fall under Section XV of the HTSUS. Note 3 of Section XV clearly states that
“base metals,” as used throughout the section, include steel and zinc. Note 3 to Section XV,
HTSUS. Because the controlling section note provides an unambiguous definition, the court
concludes that the base metal fixtures referred to in HTSUS heading 8302 encompass products
made of steel and zinc.
The phrase “similar fixtures” within HTSUS heading 8302 requires, however, a deeper
analysis. It evokes the interpretive principle of ejusdem generis, which necessitates a “common-
sense assessment of the particular list and what unifies the items in that list.” Victoria’s Secret
Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The unifying principle
“may be the presence of certain properties and the absence of others.” Id. In other words, the
shared characteristics may either be “affirmative features or limitations.” Id. When analyzing
whether a particular import falls within the scope of a list, “[t]he first step is to consider the
common characteristics or unifying purpose of the listed exemplars in a heading.” Id. (citing
Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1241, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (internal
quotations omitted). The second step “is to consider the merchandise at issue with the identified
Court No. 15-00145 Page 10
unifying characteristics (or purpose) in mind.” Id. Classification is appropriate “only if the
merchandise shares the heading’s unifying characteristics.” Id. If the product has “a more
specific primary purpose that is inconsistent with the listed exemplars,” then the classification
fails. Id.
Plaintiff proffers multiple definitions of “hat rack,” “hat-peg,” and “bracket” in its
briefing, see Pl.’s Br. 15, which Defendant does not dispute. See Def.’s Br. 14. A “hat rack” is
defined as “a wooden framework with several projecting pegs that hangs against a wall and is
used to hold hats and other articles of clothing.” Hat Rack, Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hat%20rack (last visited Mar. 2,
2018). A “hat-peg” is “a peg on which to hang a hat.” Hat-Peg, Collins Dictionary, available at
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/hatpeg (last visited Mar. 2, 2018). A
“bracket” is defined as either “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a
wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or to straighten an angle” or “a fixture (as
for holding a lamp) projecting from a wall or column.” Bracket, Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bracket (last visited Mar. 2, 2018).
The dictionary definitions imply that all of the listed exemplars in HTSUS heading 8302 are
affixed to a wall and are used to hang, hold, or support another article.
Subsection (G) of the Explanatory Note for HTSUS heading 8302 provides further
guidance for determining the unifying characteristics. It defines “similar fixtures” by listing
exemplars “such as coat racks, towel racks, dish-cloth racks, brush racks, [and] key racks.”
Explanatory Note to Heading 8302, HTSUS. Based on this note, it is reasonable to conclude that
the phrase “similar fixtures” references various types of racks. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Court No. 15-00145 Page 11
defines “rack” as “a framework, stand, or grating on or in which articles are placed.” Rack,
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rack
(last visited Mar. 2, 2018). Oxford Dictionary similarly defines the word as “[a] framework,
typically with rails, bars, hooks, or pegs, for holding or storing things.” Rack, Oxford
Dictionary, available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/rack (last visited Mar. 2,
2018). Based on these definitions, “similar fixtures” refers to items that are mounted on a wall
and hold other articles. The unifying characteristics of the listed products in HTSUS heading
8302 are, therefore, that they (1) are affixed to a wall and (2) hang, hold, or support other items.
HTSUS heading 8302, in sum, encompasses objects made of base metal that are affixed
to a wall and are used to hang, hold, or support other items. The subject entries should share
these three features to be classifiable within the scope of this heading.
C. Classification of Plaintiff’s Toilet Paper Holders
After the court ascertains the proper meaning of the terms in the tariff provision, the court
must determine next whether Plaintiff’s toilet paper holders fall within the parameters of the
tariff provision. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 845 F.3d at 1162 (citing Sigma-Tau
HealthScience, Inc., 838 F.3d at 1276).
Plaintiff argues that its toilet paper holders fall clearly within the scope of HTSUS
heading 8302 because the products are made of base metal, are designed to be affixed to a wall,
and are used to hold or hang an item. See Pl.’s Br. 18. The Government disagrees, contending
that the toilet paper holders at issue are distinguishable from the other items encompassed by
HTSUS heading 8302 based on the manner in which the products support other articles. See
Def.’s Br. 15–16. The Government asserts that the imported toilet paper holders “do not support
Court No. 15-00145 Page 12
articles in the same way” as the listed exemplars in HTSUS heading 8302 and Explanatory Note.
Id. at 15. In the Government’s view, the enumerated products “are used to hold discrete items
that are not secured to the ‘rack’ and may be easily removed.” Id. at 17. For instance, “hats are
removed by simply grabbing the hat and pulling it away.” Id. at 15. The subject holders contain,
in contrast, a movable piece “that pivots, swivels, or springs open and shut” to secure a roll of
toilet paper. Id. Defendant avers further that the listed items “hold articles that are removed and
returned as an entirety,” whereas the subject holders support a good that is dispensed sheet-by-
sheet and then discarded. Id. at 15–16. The court treats Defendant’s argument as a distinction
that is not dispositive. Not all of Moen’s products contain moveable pieces, as demonstrated by
Plaintiff at oral argument. See Oral Argument, Dec. 13, 2017, ECF No. 40. The chrome Align
paper holder (SKU YB0409CH) and the black Sienna paper holder (SKU DN4908BK), for
example, do not have moveable pieces. They are simply affixed to the wall, and customers can
easily secure a roll of toilet paper on them by sliding the roll onto the bar. Subsection (G) of the
Explanatory Note for HTSUS heading 8302 does not distinguish between reusable and
disposable goods. See Explanatory Note to Heading 8302, HTSUS. “Towel racks” could
reasonably be a reference to both cloth towels and paper towels, which are dispensed sheet-by-
sheet and discarded in a similar manner to toilet paper. The court finds unpersuasive the
Government’s attempt to distinguish the paper holders from the listed exemplars in HTSUS
8302.
Plaintiff has placed on the record undisputed material facts. The subject paper holders
are made of base metal. See Pl.’s Facts ¶¶ 24–25, 27; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶¶ 24–25, 27. The
products are also designed to be mounted on a wall and are used to hold, hang, or support an
Court No. 15-00145 Page 13
object, such as toilet paper. See Pl.’s Facts ¶ 22; Def.’s Facts Resp. ¶ 22. These facts establish
that the subject paper holders fall under the scope of HTSUS heading 8302, and thus are
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8302.50.00.
D. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
The court now turns to Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendant
claims that the subject toilet paper holders are properly classified under HTSUS subheadings
7907.00.10 and 7324.90.00, depending on their constituent material. See Def.’s Br. 1–2. The
full text of HTSUS subheading 7907.00.10 reads:
7907: Other articles of zinc:
7907.00.10 Articles of a type used for household, table or kitchen use; toilet and
sanitary wares; all of the foregoing and parts thereof of zinc………3%
Subheading 7907.00.10, HTSUS.
The Government concedes that one model of toilet paper holder, the Sienna, “was entered
and liquidated incorrectly, as it is not an article of zinc.” Def.’s Br. 2. Defendant asserts that the
Sienna is classified properly under HTSUS subheading 7324.90.00 because it is made of iron or
steel, and thus merits duty-free treatment.6 See id. The full text of HTSUS subheading
7324.90.00 reads:
7324: Sanitary ware and parts thereof, of iron or steel:
7324.90.00 Other, including parts……………………….……….....Free
Subheading 7324.90.00, HTSUS.
6
The practical outcome of the Government’s position is that Moen’s Sienna model will receive
duty-free treatment regardless of classification under HTSUS subheading 8302.50.00 or HTSUS
subheading 7324.90.00. The court will consider the Government’s legal arguments nevertheless
with respect to HTSUS heading 7324.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 14
As stated before, Section XV of the HTSUS encompasses Chapters 79 and 73. The
Notes for Section XV provide authoritative guidance, therefore, when interpreting the heading
terms contained therein. Note 2 explains, in relevant part, that “the articles of chapter 82 or 83
are excluded from chapters 72 to 76 and 78 to 81.” Note 2 to Section XV, HTSUS. The
Explanatory Notes for the Government’s preferred classifications build further on this sentiment.
The Explanatory Note for HTSUS heading 7907 states, “This heading covers all articles of zinc
other than those . . . articles specified or included in Chapter 82 or 83 or more specifically
covered elsewhere in this Nomenclature.” Explanatory Note to Heading 7907, HTSUS. The
Explanatory Note for HTSUS heading 7324 reads, “This heading comprises a wide range of iron
or steel articles, not more specifically covered by other headings of the Nomenclature, used for
sanitary purposes.” Explanatory Note to Heading 7324, HTSUS. In sum, if the subject
merchandise is classifiable within other categories of the tariff schedule, then it is excluded from
HTSUS headings 7907 and 7324.
Because the court finds that Plaintiff’s subject toilet paper holders fall under another
tariff provision, HTSUS heading 8302, the merchandise cannot be classified under Defendant’s
preferred provisions, HTSUS headings 7907 and 7324.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that all twenty-three models of toilet paper
holders are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8302.50.00. Customs erred in classifying the
entries under HTSUS subheading 7907.00.10. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
granted and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Court No. 15-00145 Page 15
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: March 7, 2018
New York, New York