Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States
2013 WL 1136805
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Link Snacks challenges CBP's classification of imported beef jerky under HTSUS 1602.50.09 (cured) vs 1602.50.2040 (other).
- Beef jerky at issue is produced from boneless beef, cured with nitrite, and dried; it is shelf-stable for 18-20 months.
- Imports originated from related entities in New Zealand and Brazil; multiple ports involved (Long Beach, JFK).
- The production process includes nitrite curing, dehydration steps, smoking, cooking, cooling, packaging, and vacuum sealing.
- The dispute centers on whether the product is classified by its curing status or by its final dehydrated state, under the HTSUS terms.
- Court conducts de novo review of CBP protest decisions and applies General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) to classify merchandise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jerky is cured under 1602.50.09 | Link Snacks asserts jerky is defined by dehydration and not simply cured meat. | United States argues jerky fits the eo nomine 'cured' beef under 1602.50.09 because curing is a broad category including cured meats. | Jerky is classified as cured under 1602.50.09. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (GRI 1 governs when a single heading applies)
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (GRIs and tariff interpretation framework)
- CamelBak Prods. LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (GRI 1 paramount when single heading applies)
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts independently interpret HTSUS terms)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (S. Ct. 2001) (Skidmore deference framework for agency rulings)