Wilton Industries, Inc. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22425
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Wilton imported Stampin’ Up! decorative paper punches from Taiwan for scrapbooking; 39 models vary in size and shape and are hand-activated to cut shapes or holes in paper.
- Customs initially liquidated the punches under HTSUS 8203.40.60 as perforating punches with a 3.3% duty.
- Wilton protested classifications under HTSUS 8441.10.00 as cutting machines and filed suit.
- Parties later stipulared to classify 23 models under 8441.10.00 due to size; 16 models remained in dispute.
- The trade court granted summary judgment for the government, held that the punches are described eo nomine by 8203.40, and Wilton appealed to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper HTSUS heading for the punches | Wilton: 8441.10.00 covers cutting machines | United States: 8203.40.60 covers perforating punches | 8203.40 controls; eo nomine classification affirmed |
| Application of GRIs to determine classification | GRIs not fully addressing the issue; argue under 8441 | GRI 1 suffices; no genuine disputes of fact | GRIs 1 relevant; two-step process not needed beyond GRI 1 |
| Scope of heading 8203 for paper punches | “Perforating punches” limited to heavy-duty uses; not paper | Punches are handtools used to make holes in paper; description eo nomine | Punched items fall within 8203.40 as perforating punches; paper use contemplated |
Key Cases Cited
- Orlando Foods Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (GRIs guide HTSUS classification; two-step analysis)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (meaning of HTSUS terms; commercial meaning assumed)
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (classification depends on GRI sequence; law-based result)
- Millennium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (de novo review of tariff interpretation; fact-free when no dispute)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 281 (U.S. 2001) (agency interpretations with Chevron-like deference limited)
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (independent responsibility to interpret HTSUS terms)
- Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (HTSUS term meaning controls outcome)