Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1990
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Link Snacks, Inc. (LSI) imported sliced, cured, cooked, smoked, and dried beef jerky from New Zealand and Brazil; product is cured 24–48 hours, then cooked/smoked and packaged airtight with an 18–20 month shelf life.
- U.S. Customs classified the jerky under HTSUS subheading 1602.50.09 as "cured or pickled" bovine meat; LSI protested seeking classification under 1602.50.2040 ("other").
- The Court of International Trade granted the government’s summary judgment, holding the jerky is eo nomine covered by the HTSUS term "cured."
- LSI appealed, arguing dehydration changes the product’s character and pointing to USDA moisture-based distinctions; it also argued GRI 3(b) should control classification as "other."
- Government argued the HTSUS eo nomine description governs under GRI 1 and that non-tariff agency regulations (USDA) do not control tariff classification.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding no factual dispute precluded resolution under GRI 1 and that the jerky falls within the plain meaning of "cured" in 1602.50.09.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LSI's beef jerky is classifiable as "cured" (HTSUS 1602.50.09) or as "other" (1602.50.2040) | LSI: Dehydration and low moisture give jerky a distinct identity from conventional cured meats; USDA classifications support treating jerky as "other." | U.S.: HTSUS 1602.50.09 eo nomine covers cured beef regardless of subsequent dehydration; non-tariff USDA rules are not dispositive; GRI 1 controls. | Court affirmed classification under 1602.50.09: jerky is "cured" and eo nomine covered; no need to reach GRI 3(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (eo nomine provisions include all forms of the named article)
- CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (product features can remove goods from eo nomine scope)
- Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (two-step HTSUS classification framework)
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (when identity undisputed, classification can be purely legal)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (agency rulings receive "power to persuade," not binding deference)
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts have independent responsibility to interpret HTSUS terms)
- Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (review of tariff interpretation without deference to trial court)
- North Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (non-tariff agency regulations are not controlling for tariff classification)
- Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (agency regulations may be informative but not determinative)
- Arko Foods Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 654 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (substantial additional ingredients can remove product from eo nomine category)
- Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (GRIs applied in numerical order)