Storewall, LLC v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6604
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- StoreWALL imports Taiwan-made wall panels and HangUp locator tabs used with its storage system.
- Customs liquidated wall panels under 3916.20.00 and locator tabs under 3926.90.98.
- StoreWALL filed protests seeking reclassification under duty-free headings; Customs denied.
- Discovery revealed wall panels are “otherwise worked,” leading to reclassification under 3926.90.98 for both items.
- The Court of International Trade denied summary judgment for StoreWALL; the government prevailed on classification.
- Appellate court reverses and remands, holding the items are parts of unit furniture under 9403.90.50.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper meaning of 'unit furniture' including rack exclusion | Rack exclusion narrows unit furniture beyond common meaning | Explanatory Notes clarify scope; rack exclusion appropriate | Explanatory Notes properly clarify unit furniture and rack exclusion applies |
| Whether wall panels and locator tabs qualify as unit furniture or as parts | Panels may be unit furniture; accessories determine classification | Not solely or principally for unit furniture; classify as other | Wall panels and locator tabs are parts of unit furniture under 9403.90.50 |
| Use versus eo nomine nature of Heading 9403 | Heading 9403 governs eo nomine, not purely use | Heading 9403 is a use provision; principal use controls | Heading 9403 is a use provision; principal use governs classification |
| Principal use of the storeWALL system at importation | Versatility supports unit furniture as a system | Millennium Lumber limits principal-use inquiries | Principal use supports classification as parts of unit furniture under 9403.90.50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Explanatory Notes may guide interpretation when term ambiguous)
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 561 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Explanatory Notes not binding when language unambiguous)
- Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (use vs eo nomine provisions; chapter notes are binding)
- Processed Plastics Co. v. United States, 473 F.3d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (use provision defined by function; not explicit phrasing needed)
- Millenium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (principal-use analysis; parts identification requirement)
- Agfa Corp. v. United States, 520 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Explanatory Notes as guidance for ambiguous terms)
- Drygel, Inc. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (HTSUS interpretation; de novo review of legal questions)
- Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (chapter and section notes binding on interpretation)