Aromant Usa, Inc. v. United States
671 F.3d 1310
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Aromont imported finished flavoring products from France for classification under HTSUS.
- Customs initially classified them under Heading 2104 (soups and broths).
- Aromont protested and argued for Heading 2106 (food preparations not elsewhere specified).
- Trade Court granted summary judgment for Aromont, holding 2106 applies; found 2104 is a principal-use provision not met.
- Court applied ARI 1(a) and Carborundum factors to assess the principal use; concluded the products’ principal use is as flavor profiles not soups.
- This appeal followed; court affirming Trade Court’s ruling and classification under 2106.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heading 2104’s principal-use analysis applies | Aromont argues 2106 governs as principal use; 2104 is not principal-use. | Government argues 2104 applies as the article is a preparation for soups/broths under principal use. | 2106 governs; 2104 not the principal use. |
| Whether Aromont’s evidence shows the principal use is not for soups | Actual use as flavoring notes supports 2106 classification. | Actual use should be considered but does not establish principal use. | Evidence supports principal use as flavor profile, not soups. |
| Whether Carborundum factors support a 2106 classification | Factors show fungibility with flavorings, not soup preparations. | Some factors align with soup-preparation use. | Totality favors 2106 classification. |
| Whether the government proved the goods’ characteristics align with 2104 | Characteristics do not convert to soup/broth preparations. | Physical form could indicate soup/broth relevance. | Characteristics do not warrant 2104 classification. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the Carborundum framework | Summary judgment in favor of Aromont proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carborundum Co. v. United States, 536 F.2d 373 (CCPA 1976) (relevance of use to classify under principal-use provisions; Carborundum factors guide fungibility)
- Primal Lite, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (defines principal use as the group of commercially fungible goods; uses Carborundum framework)
- Lenox Collections v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 194 (200) (defines principal use concept under ARI 1(a))
- Clarendon Mktg., Inc. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (principles for principal-use classification)
- Pistorino & Co. v. United States, 607 F.2d 989 (CCPA 1979) (illustrates fungibility and classification principles)
- Maher-App & Co. v. United States, 418 F.2d 922 (CCPA 1969) (discusses use and classification considerations)