CamelBak Products, LLC v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12385
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- CamelBak imports ten back-mounted packs designed for hydration during outdoor activities with cargo capacity and a hydration system.
- Customs liquidated these articles under HTSUS 4202.92.30 as travel, sports and similar bags at 17.8% duty, based on a prior ruling.
- CamelBak argued the packs are composite goods with a cargo component (a travel bag) and a hydration component (an insulated beverage bag).
- CamelBak urged applying GRI 3(b) essential character to classify as insulated beverage bags, rather than as eo nomine backpacks under 4202.92.30.
- Court of International Trade held that the articles are backpacks under 4202.92.30 and not composite goods requiring GRI 3(b).
- This appeal contends that the hydration component gives the articles a distinct identity, warranting remand for GRI 3(b) analysis; the panel reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4202.92.30 eo nomine backpack covers the articles | CamelBak argues eo nomine backpacks apply in whole to the articles. | United States contends articles are backpacks as a whole under GRI 1, no GRI 3(b). | Yes; classification held under 4202.92.30 as backpacks. |
| Whether the hydration component creates a composite under GRI 3(b) | CamelBak contends two components require GRI 3(b) essential character analysis. | Government maintains no GRI 3(b) because eo nomine backpack covers all forms. | Remanded for GRI 3(b) analysis; essential character disputed. |
| Whether essential character should determine classification | CamelBak asserts hydration feature alters identity away from backpack. | Government argues features are incidental; backpack remains eo nomine. | Court of Appeals finds essential character analysis appropriate on remand. |
| What is the proper approach on remand for GRI 3(b) | Remand unnecessary if GRI 3(b) resolved; intend to classify now. | Remand proper to resolve factual essential-character questions. | Remand to Court of International Trade for GRI 3(b) proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (change in identity may remove eo nomine classification)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (eo nomine provisions include all forms of the named article)
- Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 160 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (GRI 1 governs when single heading describes article)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 491 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (essential character is a fact-intensive GRI 3 analysis)
- Trans-Atlantic Co. v. United States, 471 F.2d 1397 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (use of product may be considered in classification)