WeeRide Carrier classified as Bicycle part(HS:8714)or Sheat(HS:9401)?
This article is regarding the court case of “KENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant..”
Source:Amazon
US Customs classified it as a Bicycle part(HS:8714.99)
8714 Parts and accessories of vehicles of headings 8711 to 8713
…
8714.99 Other: …
8714.99.80 Other
KENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., contends that it’s classifiable as Sheat(HS:9401.80)
9401 Seats (other than those of heading 9402), whether or not
convertible into beds, and parts thereof: …
9401.80 Other seats: …
9401.80.40 Other
Table of Contents
1.Customs’s opinion
- Defendant contends that the WeeRide Carrier fits under heading 8714 because it is
an “accessory” to a bicycle. - Note 1(h) of Chapter 94 excludes “[a]rticles of heading 8714,” Source:WCO
- (“Note 1(h)”) prevents classification of the subject merchandise under heading 9401 therefore no relative specificity analysis is required (GRI3(a) )
2.Plaintiff’s opinion
- WeeRide Carrier is also prima facie classifiable under subheading 9401.80
- seats that is more specific than the subheading for a bicycle accessory
- the court must apply the relative specificity analysis under GRI 3(a) to resolve this classification dispute
- Note 1(h) to Chapter 94 does not “come into play unless and until a relative specificity analysis is performed
3.Court Opinion
The court disagrees. While there is ample case law to support the preclusive effect of an exclusionary note under GRI 1, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the court must conduct a relative specificity analysis under GRI 3 prior to applying an exclusionary note.
As previously noted, under GRI 1, the court relies on headings and chapter notes to classify merchandise. See Avenues in Leather, Inc., 423 F.3d at 1333.
If Note 1(h) is applicable, it would exclude the subject merchandise from classification under Chapter 94. See, e.g., id., 423 F.3d at 1333–34 (“Note 1(h) to Chapter 48 states that the Chapter does not cover ‘[a]rticles of heading 4202 (for example travel goods).’
Thus, if the articles are prima facie classifiable under Heading 4202, then applying Note 1(h), the articles are specifically excluded from classification under Heading 4820.”);
Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v.
United States, 122 F.3d 1423, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Note 2(ij) to chapter 69 states that the chapter does not cover ‘Articles of chapter 95.’ Accordingly, the issue here is whether the items at issue prima facie are classifiable under heading 9505. If so, then pursuant to note 2(ij), chapter 69, the items cannot fall under chapter 69 and must be classified under chapter 95.”), superseded on other grounds as stated in WWRD US, LLC v. United States, 886 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Plaintiff’s reliance on Sharp and Bauer to avoid the application of Note 1(h) under GRI 1 is misplaced.
In Sharp, the plaintiff argued that Customs incorrectly classified certain glass cells under HTSUS heading 9013, and contended that the merchandise was properly classified under HTSUS subheading 8473.30.40. 122 F.3d at 1447–48.
The Government maintained that the classification dispute should be settled by “Note 1(m) of Section XVI of the HTSUS, which provides that ‘[t]his section [which includes chapter 84 and thus subheading 8473.30.40] does not cover … Articles of Chapter 90 [including subheading 9013.80.60].’” Id. at 1448.
The Federal Circuit held that Note 1(m) alone could not resolve the disputed classification because the precise language of heading 9013 expressly required a relative specificity analysis. (9013 Heading: Liquid crystal devices not constituting articles provided for more
specifically in other headings); See 122 F.3d at 1450.
Sharp is inapplicable here as neither heading 8714 nor 9401 mandate a relative specificity analysis.
In Bauer, the court resolved a dispute over hockey pants and whether they were properly classified by Customs under HTSUS subheading 6211.33.00 or by the plaintiff under subheading 9506.99.25. See 393 F.3d at 1248. The court noted that Note 1(t) of Section XI to Chapter 62 excluded articles of Chapter 95 from being classified under Chapter 62 and Note 1(e) to Chapter 95 excluded “sports clothing . . . of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62.” Id., 393 F.3d at 1252 n.6. Due to these competing and mutually exclusive exclusionary notes, the court used a relative specificity analysis to determine the heading that provided the most specific description of the merchandise. Id. at 1252–53.
Unlike in Bauer, the resolution of the present classification dispute involves only one exclusionary note, i.e., Note 1(h). Accordingly, Bauer is inapplicable.
ADC, however, is instructive. In ADC, there was a dispute about the classification of the plaintiff’s fiber optic telecommunications network equipment as assessed by Customs under subheading 9013.80.90 or as claimed by the plaintiff under subheading 8517.62.00. The plaintiff argued that the merchandise at issue was prima facie classifiable under both headings and that the classification must be resolved under GRI 3. See ADC, 39 CIT at ___, 2017 WL 4708021 at *6.
The Government argued that the court should resolve the classification under GRI 1 “because the plaintiff’s optical devices are excluded from chapter 85 by Note 1(m) to Section XVI (which covers chapter 85, HTSUS), which provides: ‘this section does not cover … [a]rticles of Chapter 90.’” Id. (citation omitted). The court agreed that the relative specificity test under GRI 3 was not applicable, stating: “[s]imply put: as to which of chapter 90 and chapter 85 provides the ‘more specific’ heading on an article’s classification, there is no ‘comparison’ involved, because Note 1(m) renders GRI 3 inapplicable.” Id. Consequently, the court determined that the merchandise was classified under heading 9013. Id., 39 CIT at ___, 2017 WL 4708021 at *9.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining: We start with the language of the heading, looking to the relevant section and chapter notes . . . . HTSUS Heading 8517 covers “[t]elephone sets, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks” and “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data . . . .” Chapter 85 of the HTSUS is contained in Section XVI, and Note 1 to Section XVI provides that “[t]his section does not cover . . . (m) [a]rticles of [C]hapter 90.” Therefore, because the subject merchandise is classifiable in HTSUS Heading 9013, which is found in Chapter 90, . . ., it is not classifiable in Section XVI, in which HTSUS Heading 8517 is found. 916 F.3d at 1023–24.
As in ADC, the court here is faced with competing provisions where one heading has a note excluding merchandise classifiable in the competing heading.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because the WeeRide Carrier is classifiable under heading 8714, the court determines that Note 1(h) excludes the subject merchandise from being classified under heading 9401
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Customs properly classified the WeeRide Carrier under HTSUS subheading 8714.99.80.
