La Crosse Technology, Ltd. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15107
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- La Crosse imports electronic devices that measure indoor/outdoor temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, display time/date, and produce a short‑term weather forecast (icons, tendency arrow, or "Oscar outlook").
- Customs initially liquidated the imports as "other clocks" under HTSUS 9105.91.40; La Crosse sued in the Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging classification.
- The CIT divided models into three groups (Professional, Weather Station, Clock) and applied GRI 3(b) to find essential character: Professional → 9015.80.80; Weather Station → 9025.80.10; Clock → 9105.91.40.
- On appeal La Crosse argued many challenged models are classifiable under GRI 1 as meteorological instruments (9015.80.80); the government defended the CIT's GRI 3(b) classifications.
- The Federal Circuit held GRI 3(b) applies, found the devices’ meteorological/forecasting features give their essential character, and reversed as to the appealed models, ordering reliquidation under 9015.80.80.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether devices are eo nomine classifiable under HTSUS Heading 9015 (GRI 1) | La Crosse: devices are "meteorological instruments and appliances" described in whole by 9015 because of forecasting features | Government: devices are composite goods with significant timekeeping functions; GRI 1 inapplicable | GRI 1 inapplicable — devices also have substantial timekeeping features, so proceed to GRI 3(b) |
| Under GRI 3(b), whether essential character is meteorological (9015.80.80), combination instruments (9025.80.10), or clocks (9105.91.40) | La Crosse: forecasting capability is central; devices are meteorological appliances under 9015.80.80 | Government/CIT: some models (Clock group) have predominant clock functions and marketing, so classifiable as clocks; Weather Stations fit 9025 | Court: forecasting function defines essential character for the appealed models; they are not mere 9025 combinations and should be classified under 9015.80.80; reversed CIT as to those models |
Key Cases Cited
- CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (2011) (GRI 1 applied when an article is described in whole by a single HTSUS heading)
- Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095 (1996) (goods are not eo nomine under GRI 1 when they differ significantly in character or function)
- Marcel Watch Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1054 (1993) (two-step tariff classification framework: meaning of terms and whether merchandise fits)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (1999) (HTSUS terms construed by common and commercial meaning absent contrary intent)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 491 F.3d 1334 (2007) (essential character analysis under GRI 3(b) is fact‑intensive)
- The Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 431 F.3d 1377 (2005) (marketing materials bear on essential character)