ADC Telecomms., Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 144
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- This case tests the proper customs classification of three Value Added Modules (VAMs) imported from Mexico in June 2012.
- Plaintiff seeks HTSUS 8517.62.00 as duty-free (machines for transmission/reception of data).
- Customs classified the VAMs under HTSUS 9013.80.90; plaintiff protested; protest denied and suit filed under 28 U.S.C. §1581(a).
- Merchandise is fiber optic telecommunications network equipment with no electronic components; operates in infrared; designed to ease installation in networks.
- VAMs fall into splitter, monitor, and WDM modules, each facilitating data transmission or network monitoring; NYRL L80881 (2004) previously classified them under 9013.80.90.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper HTSUS heading for VAMs | VAMs are Optical devices; should be under 8517.62.00. | VAMs are optical appliances/instruments under 9013.80.90; excluded from 85 by Note 1(m). | 9013.80.90 is correct classification. |
| Meaning of optical in heading 9013 for fiber optics | Optical requires aiding human vision; fiber optics operate beyond visible spectrum. | Optical includes infrared; EN 90.01(D) supports broader optical elements beyond visible light. | Heading 9013 applies; optical elements include infrared, not limited to visible spectrum. |
| Note 1(m) to Section XVI impact on GRI 3 | Note 1(m) does not preclude 9013 when arguing relative specificity. | Note 1(m) excludes optical devices of Chapter 90 from Chapter 85; GRI 3 not applicable. | Note 1(m) excludes from Chapter 85; 9013 remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celestaire v. United States, 120 F.3d 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (defined optical instrument criteria for HTS optical heading)
- Ataka Am., Inc. v. United States, 550 F.2d 33 (CCPA 1977) (early optical instrument criteria; pre-1985 TSUS changes)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court 2001) (Skidmore deference; framework for classification weight)
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (GRI 3 and relative specificity considerations)
- Sharp Microelectronics Tech., Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relative specificity and Note 1(m) considerations in classification)