Avenues in Leather, Inc. (“Avenues”) appeals the Court of International Trade’s
I
A
This is not the first time that the parties have disputеd the proper tariff classification of this type of merchandise. Avenues and the Customs Service have previously disagreed over the correct tariff classification for the goods Avenues imports.
See Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States,
In Avenues I, the imported goods were leather-covered folios usеd to store, organize and carry papers, books, pens, pencils, and the like. Upon importation, the Customs Service classified those goods under subheading 4202.11.00, as leather-covered containers. Avenues disagreed, arguing that the goods should be classified under subheаding 4820.10.20, as diaries, notebooks and similar articles. The Court of International Trade agreed with the Customs Service.
On appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s decision. We held that, under the
ejusdem generis
analysis, the common characteristic or unifying purpose of the goods in heading 4202 cоnsisted of “organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying various items,”
id.
at 1245 (citing
Totes, Inc. v. United States,
B
This current appeal turns on the proрer tariff classification of two other styles of folios imported by Avenues. The disputed goods, style numbers 3532 and 3533 “Presentation Calcu-Folios,” measure approximately 13.5 inches tall by 11.5 inches wide by 1.5 inches deep when closed, are zippered on three sides with an interior sleeve, possess one exterior open flat pocket and a number of small interior pockets, have a single padded carrying handle fitted to the exterior spine, are constructed of paperboard covered with plastic foam and a vinyl/plastic exterior and interior, contain a calculator, and have an interior three-ring metal binder permanently affixed to the spine.
The Customs Service classified the Cal-cu-Folio goods under subheading 4202.12.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) and assessed duty on the merchandise at the rate of 20 percent ad valorem. Subheading 4202.12.20 provides:
Heading 4202: Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attaché cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similаr containers; traveling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewеlry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper:
Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attaché cases, briefcases, school satchels and similar containers:
4202.12 With outer surface of plastics or of textile materials:
4202.12.20 With outer surface of plastics.20%
Avenues disagrees with the Customs Service’s classification of the folios, and contends that the merсhandise is properly classifiable under Subheading 4820.30.00 of the HTSUS at a rate of 4.2 percent ad valorem. Subheading 4820.30.00 provides:
Heading 4820: Registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles, exercise books, blotting pads, bindеrs (looseleaf or other), folders, file covers, manifold business forms, interleaved carbon sets and other articles of stationery, of paper or paperboard; albums for samples or for collections and book covers (including cover boards and book jackets) of paper or paperboard:
4820.30.00 Binders (other than book covers), folders and file
covers .... 4.2%
Avenues protested the Customs Service’s classification by filing a complaint in the Court of International Trade. After fifing its answer, the Government moved for summary judgment.
Acting on the motion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government. After noting the parties’ arguments in its opinion, the Court of International Trade found that the Calcu-Folio goods in this case were substantially similar to the merchandises considered in Avenues I. The trial court then reasoned that, to avoid summary judgment, Avenues had to prove that our decision in Avenues I was “clearly erroneous.” Because it deemed Avenues’s affidavit evidence insufficient to prove the requisite clear error, the trial court granted the Government’s motion and entered final judgment against thе importer. Avenues timely appealed, vesting us with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
II
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the mоving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” U.S.Ct. Int’l Trade R. 56(c);
see also Lynteq, Inc. v. United States,
III
A
In this case, the Court of International Trade confused and confounded two related doctrines of repose. Under the guise of stare decisis, the trial court improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We take this oрportunity to delineate the difference between these two principles.
The Calcu-Folio merchandise in question in this case is similar to, although not exactly the same as, the merchandise cor
Although the goods in question in this case are admittedly quite similar to the merchandise whose classification was finally adjudicated in
Avenues I,
the doctrine of issue preclusion does not hold sway over classification disputes under U.S. Customs law. Long ago, in
United States v. Stone & Downer Co.,
Although an imрorter is free to challenge anew a previous classification of merchandise under the rule of
Stone & Downer,
we have decided that the importer is burdened by the doctrine of stare decisis.
See Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States,
Subsequently, additional imports of similar merchandise were classified as “other optical glass.” Schott Opticаl brought suit, alleging that the definition of “optical glass” in the previous adjudication was clearly erroneous and therefore inapplicable to the subsequent imports. The Court of International Trade, succeeding to the jurisdiction of the Customs Court, permitted the suit to go forward under
Stone & Downer,
but held that the Customs Court’s previous definition of “optical glass” was
stare decisis,
precluding Schott Optical’s challenge to the subsequent classifications. On appeal to this court, we held that the doctrine of stare decisis indeed tempers the rule of
Stone & Downer,
but we also held that а well-recognized exception to stare decisis applies to customs classification litigation: a court will reexamine and overrule a previous legal determination that is clearly erroneous.
Schott Optical Glass,
This background provides the context in which the Court of International Trade decided Avenues’s challenge to the classification of its goods under subheading 4202.12.20.
B
In ruling on the summary judgment motion, the Court of International
In doing so, the Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the rule of
Schott Optical Glass
because this case does not invоlve an attempt to disturb stare decisis. The only legal issue we addressed in
Avenues I
was a determination that, in an ejusdem generis analysis, the common characteristic or unifying purpose of Heading 4202 merchandise consists of “organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying various items.”
Avenues I,
C
In assuming that Avenues attempted to relitigate the holding of Avenues I, the Court of International Trade believed that there wаs no new issue of fact or law in this case based on its perfunctory decision that the Calcu-Folios were “substantially the same” as the Avenues I folios. That assumption caused it to improperly apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel against Avenues.
As we explained above, the application of collateral estoppel in customs classification cases is contrary to settled Supreme Court precedent. By refusing to consider Avenues’s evidence and determining that Avenues I’s classification was determinativе of this case, the trial court actually estopped the importer from presenting evidence and litigating the proper classification of the Calcu-Folios as allowed by Stone & Downer. Because that application of collateral estoppel violates Supreme Court doctrine, we must reverse the trial court’s summary judgment.
Even if Supreme Court precedent permitted issue preclusion in this litigation, collateral estoppel could not apply in this case because of new issues of fact and law that are different from those in
Avenues I. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
Consequently, the Court of International Trade erred when it applied collateral es-toppel to this case and failed to consider whether Avenues’s evidence could create a genuine issue of triable fact. This is a new entry and thus a new case. Avenues was entitled to a trial on the classification of the Calcu-Folios.
IV
In sum, the Court of International Trade applied the wrong standard in assessing the motion for summary judgment and improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to this case. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED