R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12589
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- R.T. Foods appealed a CIT ruling denying summary judgment and upholding Customs’ classification of twenty-four entries as HTSUS 2004.90.85.
- Merchandise at issue, “Vegetable Bird’s Nests” and “Tempura Vegetables,” are frozen, battered vegetable mixtures from Thailand.
- Customs classified ten Boston entries and three Long Beach entries under HTSUS 2004.90.85; eleven Long Beach entries were mistakenly liquidated under the same proposed subheading.
- CIT held jurisdiction limited to three entries; the rest resolved by protest/ liquidation timelines.
- The central issue is whether the merchandise is properly classified under eo nomine HTSUS 2004 or under HTSUS 2106 basket provision; the nature of the merchandise is undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HTSUS 2004 applies over HTSUS 2106. | RT argues product identity shifts to a food preparation. | Government/classification fits eo nomine 2004; basket 2106 inappropriate. | Yes; 2004 applies; 2106 inappropriate. |
| Whether the merchandise is within eo nomine 2004 as vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar. | Process transforms vegetables beyond identity, removing them from 2004. | No significant identity change; remains within 2004 scope. | Yes; falls within 2004 as frozen, tempura-dipped vegetables. |
| Whether Note 1(a) to Chapter 20 excludes the merchandise from 2004. | Note 1(a) excludes items prepared by Chapter 7 processes. | Chapter 7 processes do not cover tempura-dipped/fried items; exclusion not triggered. | No exclusion; note unchanged classification. |
| Whether the court should apply a principal-use analysis to justify basket classification. | Argues principal use supports basket 2106. | Principal-use analysis applies only to use-based headings, not eo nomine. | Not applicable; eo nomine provision governs. |
| Whether the proper subheading under 2004 is 2004.90.85 rather than another 2004 subheading. | Proposed subheading fits items as “Other, including mixtures.” | Under 2004.90; not antipasto or beans; 2004.90.85 appropriate. | Correct subheading 2004.90.85. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (de novo review of tariff classifications; two-step framework)
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (two-step HTSUS interpretation; scope and subheading analysis)
- CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (eo nomine vs. transformation; language of headings governs)
- Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (GRI application; comparison of headings not subheadings)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (common/ commercial meaning; interpretation of tariff terms)
- Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (do not read use limitations into eo nomine provisions)
- Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States, 152 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (basket provisions require no more specific heading exists)
- Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000) (basket provision proper only if no more specific heading)