GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United States
34 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2489
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- GRK Canada, Ltd. challenges CBP’s protest denial/classification of GRK R4 Screws and Trim Head Screws under HTSUS.
- CBP classified the screws as 7318.12.00 (other wood screws) with 12.5% duty; GRK seeks 7318.14.10 (self-tapping screws) with 6.2% duty.
- The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a); cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- The dispute centers on eo nomine vs use provisions; two-step GRI framework governs the classification decision.
- GRK’s screws exhibit both wood screw and self-tapping screw features, leading the court to apply GRI 3(c) to resolve the correct subheading.
- The court ultimately classifies the screws under 7318.14.10 (self-tapping screws).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What HTSUS subheading governs GRK’s screws | GRK: screws are self-tapping | Customs: use-based distinction; wood screws vs self-tapping screws | GRK screws fall under 7318.14.10 |
| Definition of self-tapping screws for HTSUS | Self-tapping defined by physical traits (case hardened, no tapping operation) | Self-tapping defined by use in non-wood materials | Explanatory Notes do not limit self-tapping to non-wood use; use not controlling |
| Use vs eo nomine provisions in HTSUS | eo nomine provisions govern; not limited by use | Use considerations should inform classification | EO nomine provisions prevail; court uses GRI 3(c) when equally meritorious |
| Which GRI governs when two subheadings equally meritorious | GRI 3(c) applies; select the last in numerical order, 7318.14.10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construction of HTSUS terms; eo nomine provisions; use cannot override EO terms)
- CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (eo nomine provisions include improved forms)
- Orlando Foods Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (taxonomy of specificity in HTSUS classifications)
- Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (HTSUS terms construed by common meaning; Explanatory Notes guidance)
- Faus Group, Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (principles for interpreting tariff provisions; GRIs-based approach)
- Telebrands Corp. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (2012) (summary judgment framework for tariff classifications)
- Honda of America Mfg. v. United States, 607 F.3d 771 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GRI1 paramount in HTSUS interpretation)