Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 128
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Irwin imported 46 entries (Nov 2012–Jun 2013) of five styles of "locking pliers" (large jaw, curved jaw, curved jaw with wire cutter, long nose with wire cutter, straight jaw); CBP liquidated them under HTSUS 8204.12.00 (adjustable hand wrenches).
- Irwin protested; CBP denied protests; Irwin sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking classification under HTSUS 8203.20.6030 (pliers) or alternatively 8205.70 (vises/clamps).
- The court previously defined key tariff terms: "wrench" as a single‑handled tool whose head fits and turns fasteners without damaging the head; "pliers" as a two‑handled pivoting tool with flat/serrated jaws squeezed together to grasp; "vises/clamps" as frame tools tightened by screw/lever to hold objects firmly.
- The court denied CBP's motion for summary judgment because CBP failed to show the tools were wrenches and not pliers/vises; samples suggested the tools could be pliers or clamps but factual issues remained.
- On remand Irwin moved for summary judgment (arguing the tools undisputedly meet the court’s pliers definition). CBP moved to reconsider the court’s prior definitions and resisted classification as pliers, but conceded the tools meet the court’s physical definition of pliers while arguing that the definition is overly broad and that "use" could control.
- The court found the undisputed facts show each model has two handles, two serrated jaws on a fulcrum, and functions by squeezing the handles to grasp (and sometimes lock); they do not meet the court’s definition of vises/clamps. Court granted Irwin’s summary judgment and denied CBP’s reconsideration motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper HTSUS classification of the subject tools | Tools are pliers under 8203.20.6030 because they are two‑handled pivoting tools with serrated jaws that grasp when squeezed | Tools are wrenches (8204.12) or otherwise not pliers; court’s pliers definition is too inclusive; "use" may control classification | Held: Tools are pliers under 8203.20.6030 as a matter of law; summary judgment for plaintiff granted |
| Whether the court should reconsider its prior definitions (wrench/pliers/vises) | N/A (Irwin opposed reconsideration implicitly by moving for SJ on prior definitions) | Seeks reconsideration under USCIT R.54(b), arguing prior definitions are overly inclusive/exclusive and should account for "use" | Held: Reconsideration denied—CBP failed to show changed law, clear error, or harm warranting reconsideration |
| Whether "use" can control eo nomine wrench term here | Irwin: physical characteristics control; mere capability to be used as a wrench does not reclassify if physical traits don’t match wrench definition | CBP: design/intended use support classification as wrench despite physical form | Held: The wrench tariff term is eo nomine and not controlled by use here; use is not paramount absent evidence that design/intended use outweighs physical characteristics |
| Whether the tools qualify as "vises, clamps and the like" (8205.70) | Tools lack required frame/opposing adjustable jaws tightened by screw/lever; therefore not vises/clamps | CBP suggested clamping/holding function could support classification as vises/clamps | Held: Tools do not meet definition—jaws are pivoted levers, not opposing adjustable jaws tightened by a screw/lever; not classifiable as vises/clamps |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (court must determine correct HTSUS classification regardless of parties’ labels)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (HTSUS terms construed by common and commercial meaning; courts may consult dictionaries and other sources)
- GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United States, 761 F.3d 1354 (when an eo nomine tariff term may nonetheless implicate use and when use can be "paramount")
- StoreWALL, LLC v. United States, 644 F.3d 1358 (Explanatory Notes and related interpretive aids)
- BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371 (GRI framework for tariff classification)