Kahrs International, Inc. v. United States
33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1737
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- CBP classified Kahrs' engineered hardwood flooring under HTSUS 4412.14.31 and 4412.29.36 as plywood; Kahrs seeks 4412.29.56 (veneered panels) duty-free.
- Kahrs III held 14mm and 15mm flooring fall within the common meaning of plywood, supporting the government subheadings.
- Kahrs asserted a fifth, commercial-designation claim that a universal pre-1988 trade designation excluded Kahrs' product from plywood.
- Plaintiff sought to amend to argue the common meaning of plywood was clearly erroneous, invoking Schott Optical Glass as a guide to reexamine CAFC rulings.
- Court granted amendment and subsequently granted summary judgment for defendant on both the fifth and eighth (common meaning) causes of action.
- Court discussed CamelBak in relation to eo nomine analysis but held Kahrs’ product wholly within the plywood eo nomine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether eighth action should be dismissed or allowed under Boen/Kahrs III. | Plaintiff argues Boen's definition is clearly erroneous and should be reconsidered. | Boen/Kahrs III binding; no clear error; expert evidence insufficient to overturn. | No genuine issue; defendant entitled to judgment. |
| Whether balanced construction or core gaps exclude Kahrs' flooring from plywood. | Balanced construction required; gaps in core negate plywood status. | Balanced construction not part of plywood definition; gaps do not defeat plywood class. | Balanced construction not part of definition; gaps do not preclude plywood. |
| Whether expert declarations may be used to support the eighth action and how they are weighed. | Experts provide persuasive definitions of common meaning. | Discovery and evidentiary rules limit reliance on expert declarations for a pure question of law. | Expert declarations admitted as advisory; texts control; not binding. |
| Whether the fifth action (commercial designation) states a provable claim for uniform and definite designation. | There existed a uniform pre-1988 commercial designation excluding Kahrs' product. | Industry standards before 1988 reflect common meaning, not a uniform designation. | No uniform/definite commercial designation; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boen Hardwood Flooring, Inc. v. United States, 357 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (defines common meaning of plywood; three-layer, orthogonal grain, bonded)
- Kahrs Int'l. Inc. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (CIT 2009) (court applied Boen in classifying engineered flooring as plywood)
- Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States, 750 F.2d 62 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reexamines CAFC rulings; exception to stare decisis in clearly erroneous decisions)
- Timber Products Co. v. United States, 515 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (commercial designation requires uniform trade understanding; contradiction suffices)
- Medline Industries, Inc. v. United States, 62 F.3d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (definition of terms is a question of law; relies on textual sources)