Dell Products LP v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8898
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Dell Products LP manufactures secondary batteries for laptops, used as an additional power source.
- Secondary batteries at issue were admitted separately into Dell's Foreign Trade Sub-Zone with non-privileged foreign status awaiting tariff appraisal.
- Laptop computers were offered for sale with a primary battery, power cord/adapter, and manuals; secondary batteries were offered separately as optional items.
- If a customer chose a secondary battery at purchase, Dell would package all items together for shipment from the FTZ to the buyer.
- Customs classified the batteries as 'other storage batteries' under HTSUS 8507.80.80, and not as 'put up in sets for retail sale' with the laptops.
- Dell appealed to the Court of International Trade, arguing batteries were either put up in sets for retail sale or were functional units of the laptops; the court affirmed Customs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are secondary batteries 'put up in sets for retail sale' with laptops under GRI 3(b)? | Dell: batteries packaged with laptops constitute a set for sale. | Dell's packaging does not create a set; batteries offered separately, not a specified retail set. | Batteries not put up as a retail set; ITC upheld Customs. |
| Should the batteries be treated as functional units under GRI 1? | Dell: batteries are functional units of the laptops. | Government did not rely on GRI 1 for this decision; focus is GRI 3(b). | Court did not decide GRI1 issue; affirmed GRI3(b) result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citroen v. United States, 223 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1912) (imported article's condition matters for classification; pre-importation packaging can be relevant to sets)
- United States v. Irwin, 78 F. 799 (2d Cir.1897) (stocks and barrels classified with article despite separate packaging)
- Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citations on classification principles under HTSUS)
- Samsung Elecs. Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discusses GRI interpretation and set packaging considerations)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 491 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explanatory notes on GRI 3(b) analysis and 3-part test guidance)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011) (agency interpretation weight in statutory terms acknowledged)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (agency interpretations and Chevron deference considerations)