WWRD U.S., LLC v. United States
2017 CIT 21
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- WWRD imported decorative ceramic dinnerware and lead crystal items (Christmas- and Thanksgiving-themed plates, mugs, gravy boats, flutes, punch bowls, hurricane lamps) and Customs classified them by constituent material at dutiable rates (3–6% or 4.5%).
- WWRD protested, claiming duty-free status under HTSUS subheading 9817.95.01 ("Utilitarian articles... used in the home in the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations... such as Seder plates, blessing cups, menorahs or kinaras").
- The contested merchandise entered in 2009–2010; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Facts about the items and their intended use (Christmas/Thanksgiving dinners) are undisputed.
- The sole legal question: whether the merchandise meets subheading 9817.95.01’s fourth requirement — used "in the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations."
- The court applied the HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation and ordinary meaning of "ritual," considering the exemplars in the subheading and ejusdem generis principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the imported items qualify under HTSUS 9817.95.01 (used in the performance of "specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations") | WWRD: Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners are "specific cultural ritual celebrations" and the items (festive tableware/lighting) are utilitarian articles used in performance of those rituals, so duty-free applies. | U.S.: Christmas/Thanksgiving dinners lack prescribed, formalized ritual acts; exemplars (Seder plates, menorahs, kinaras) are integral to the ritual sequence, unlike these decorative utilitarian items. | Court: Rejects WWRD. "Ritual" requires prescribed/formalized acts integral to the celebration; routine holiday meals do not meet the subheading’s requirement; Customs classification by constituent material is correct. |
| Proper interpretive scope of "ritual" in 9817.95.01 | WWRD: Advocates broader, social-science-informed definitions equating ritual with customary/traditional annual practices; urges use-based analysis (AUSIR/Carborundum factors). | U.S.: Advocates narrower, ceremony-focused definition consistent with exemplars and Federal Circuit precedent for festive articles. | Court: Adopts a narrower meaning tied to prescribed ceremonial acts and relies on exemplars/ejusdem generis; declines to apply the broader use-based test urged by WWRD. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (agency interpretations receive Skidmore deference)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (two-step tariff classification analysis)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (classification when facts undisputed turns on legal construction)
- Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423 (Federal Circuit festive-article analysis under HTSUS heading 9505)
- Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1335 (discussing HTSUS amendments creating subheading 9817.95.01)
- Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922 (criteria for festive articles and ‘‘closely associated’’ test)
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (court’s duty to reach correct result)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (rule that every word in a statute should have operative effect)