Wwrd US, LLC v. United States, 886 F.3d 1228

Background

WWRD imported decorative ceramic and crystal tableware with holiday motifs (Thanksgiving/Christmas) and CBP classified them under various HTSUS subheadings that carry duties. WWRD sought classification under duty-free subheading 9817.95.01.
HTSUS 9817.95.01 grants duty-free treatment to utilitarian home articles "used in the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations," and lists exemplars (e.g., Seder plates, blessing cups, menorahs, kinaras).
Congress amended Chapter 95 in 2007 (Note 1(v)) to remove general utilitarian holiday items from broad duty-free treatment, preserving duty-free status only for certain items in 9817.95.01 and 9817.95.05.
The Court of International Trade held the term "ritual" requires prescribed acts with cultural or religious meaning and that those acts must be sufficiently "specific;" it concluded WWRD’s goods were merely decorative/serving items and not used to perform specific ritual acts.
The CIT denied WWRD’s summary judgment and granted the Government’s cross-motion. The Federal Circuit affirmed, emphasizing that items must both (1) be used in performance of a specific ritual (i.e., tied to prescribed acts with unambiguous cultural/religious meaning) and (2) materially advance that ritual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thanksgiving/Christmas dinners qualify as "specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations" under HTSUS 9817.95.01	WWRD: These dinners involve prescribed acts (gathering, special foods, settings, shared intent) and thus are specific rituals.	Government: "Rituals" require formal, repeated, scripted acts performed uniformly each year.	Court: Dinners may be cultural holidays but lack the needed specificity; "ritual" requires prescribed acts with cultural/religious meaning and unambiguous definition.
Whether decorative utilitarian items used at such dinners are "used in the performance" of the ritual	WWRD: Utilitarian items that contribute to ambiance and are used during the event advance the ritual and qualify.	Government: Mere use during an event is insufficient; item must serve a particular ritual purpose (as exemplars do).	Court: Held use must materially advance or serve a specific prescribed act; mere decorative or serving function does not qualify.
Proper construction of "specific" modifying "ritual" in the statute	WWRD: "Specific" need not require formal solemnity; cultural rituals are broader.	Government: "Specific" demands formal, uniform, scripted repetition.	Court: "Specific" modifies "ritual" to require unambiguous, well-defined prescribed acts; formality/solemnity can be relevant but not mandatory.
Whether WWRD’s imports fit within ejusdem generis scope created by exemplars in 9817.95.01	WWRD: Exemplars show religious/cultural context but not limiting scope to only those forms.	Government: Exemplars require items that perform the ritual’s symbolic function (e.g., hold symbolic foods/candles).	Court: Exemplars limit scope; goods must share essential characteristics (serve specific symbolic ritual functions), which WWRD’s items do not.

Key Cases Cited

Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423 (Fed. Cir.) (established prior broad treatment of festive articles under Chapter 95)
Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir.) (prior precedent classifying utilitarian holiday items duty-free before 2007 change)
Millennium Lumber Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review and HTSUS interpretation principles)
Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390 (Fed. Cir.) (ejusdem generis application to tariff exemplars)
Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir.) (terms in HTSUS given common commercial meanings)
Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir.) (application of GRI 6/subheading comparison rules)
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir.) (instruction on HTSUS heading/subheading structure)