Grk Canada, Ltd. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14904
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- GRK imported R4, RT, and Fin/Trim screws between Jan and Aug 2008; CBP classified them as 7318.12.00 (other wood screws) with 12.5% duty; GRK protested seeking 7318.14.10 (self-tapping screws) with 6.2% duty; CIT held for GRK, remanding for use-based analysis; Government appeal argued based on physical characteristics only; Supreme issue concerns eo nomine provisions and use in HTSUS classification; opinion vacates CIT decision and remands.
- Court noted HTSUS lacks explicit definitions for the two subheadings and that use arguments risk converting eo nomine provisions into use provisions; trial court defined “other wood screws” and “self-tapping screws” via workable definitions; classification requires applying GRI and possibly ARI on remand.
- GRK model screws possess both wood screw and self-tapping features (case-hardened steel, cutting threads, specific head designs); CIT concluded under GRI 3(c) to classify as self-tapping screws; decision relied on use-related reasoning despite eo nomine framing.
- HTSUS terms are eo nomine provisions but may be informed by use where inherent in the name or when defining the article’s identity;Explanatory Notes discuss wood screws and self-tapping screws; prior TSUS cases and industry standards inform meaning of the terms.
- The opinion emphasizes remand to consider use-related context consistent with HTSUS framework; final disposition vacates and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intended use may inform eo nomine meaning | GRK argues use informs common meaning of headings | US argues eo nomine terms are defined by their names, not use | Remanded; use-based analysis permitted under HTSUS guidance |
| How to interpret ‘other wood screws’ and ‘self-tapping screws’ under HTSUS | GRK's screws fit mixed characteristics of both headings | Classification should rely on objective features without use | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
| Role of GRI 3(c) in tie-breaking between headings | GRK prevails if use places screws in latter heading | GTI procedure should rely on defined terms not use | Remanded; CIT’s GRI-based analysis to be revisited in light of use considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (test for substantial transformation; use within eo nomine context limited)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (eo nomine provisions may be limited by use if inherent in name)
- Quon Quon Co. v. United States, 46 C.C.P.A. 70 (1959) (use may guide commercial meaning under TSUS; not controlling under HTSUS)
- Len-Ron Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (use as element in determining eo nomine meaning (predominant use))
- R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States, 757 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir. 2014) (use in eo nomine analysis limited to ‘use-controlled’ headings)
- Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (illustrates eo nomine provisions require definition independent of use)
- Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640 (Fed.Cir. 2013) (discusses use considerations in HTSUS)