Specialty Commodities Inc. v. United States
190 F. Supp. 3d 1277
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Specialty Commodities imported shelled pine nuts from China (seeds of Pinus koraiensis) and declared them under HTSUS 0802.90.25 (Pignolia), duty $0.01/kg.
- U.S. Customs rejected that classification, citing the Explanatory Note limiting “pignolia” to seeds of Pinus pinea (Italian stone pine), and liquidated entries under HTSUS 0802.90.97 (Other), duty $0.05/kg.
- Plaintiff protested; Customs Headquarters denied the protest (HQ H114758). Plaintiff sued the United States in the Court of International Trade seeking reliquidation and refund.
- Parties agreed the merchandise is Pinus koraiensis seeds and that the dispute is legal: whether “Pignolia” in HTSUS 0802.90.25 includes those seeds.
- Court applied the GRIs, consulted dictionaries, industry sources, SOTI reports, Customs rulings, and Explanatory Notes; no material factual dispute remained, so summary judgment was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "Pignolia" in HTSUS 0802.90.25 covers seeds of Pinus koraiensis | Pignolia is a common/commercial term for pine nuts generally, so Pinus koraiensis seeds qualify | Explanatory Notes and industry sources narrow “pignolia” to Pinus pinea (Italian stone pine); Pinus koraiensis is not pignolia | Held for Defendant: “Pignolia” does not include Pinus koraiensis seeds; classify under HTSUS 0802.90.97 |
| Whether historical U.S. tariff practice (TSUS, SOTI reports, Census import labels) established a broader meaning of pignolia | The TSUS and older SOTI show pignolia historically meant pine nuts generally and that meaning carried forward | The term disappeared in intervening tariff acts; later SOTI and industry sources distinguish pignolia narrowly; Census entries reflect importer self-classification, not Customs determinations | Held for Defendant: plaintiff failed to show an established TSUS meaning that includes Pinus koraiensis |
| Persuasive weight of Customs ruling letters and prior practice | Two NY ruling letters using “pignoli/pignolia” for oil/vinegar sets show Customs used the term broadly | Rulings are narrowly tailored to their samples, not binding, and do not show considered classification of pine nut species | Held for Defendant: the prior ruling letters are unpersuasive and not controlling |
| Role of Explanatory Notes and international HS in interpreting HTSUS | Plaintiff urged common/commercial meanings over Note | Defendant relied on Explanatory Notes (HS) limiting pignolia to Pinus pinea; HTSUS must conform to HS scope absent contrary congressional intent | Held for Defendant: Explanatory Note is persuasive and supports limiting “pignolia” to Pinus pinea; classification under HTSUS 0802.90.97 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir.) (two-step tariff classification: legal construction then factual application)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (HTSUS terms construed by common and commercial meaning; courts may consult dictionaries and authorities)
- Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 481 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory presumption of correctness irrelevant where no factual dispute)
- Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (importer self-classifications in Census do not establish Customs treatment)
- Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir.) (HTSUS headings must remain consistent with the international Harmonized System)
- Drygel, Inc. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1129 (Fed. Cir.) (Explanatory Notes are persuasive in interpreting HTSUS absent persuasive reason to disregard)