CAFC Upholds CIT's Ruling on the Classification of Various Home Lighting Fixtures
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed and affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. U.S., ruling that certain lighting fixtures could not be classified without considering all their components.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection appealed the decision reached by the CIT, which had ruled that the classification of certain lighting fixtures should be under HTS 9405.10.80 (3.9%), which provides for other electric ceiling or wall lighting fittings other than of base metal.
CBP argued that these lighting fixtures should instead be classified under HTS 9405.10.60 (7.6%), which provides for other electric ceiling or wall lighting fittings of base metal other than brass, etc.
Upon appeal, the CAFC reviewed the two competing subheadings; (1) HTS 9405.10.80, a classification supported by Home Depot based on the glass components in the goods in question and (2) HTS 9405.10.60, which CBP argued was the correct classification, based on the metal components which formed the structural framework. The CAFC reiterated GRI 3(b) which states that if the good consists of two components, each of which are covered by a separate subheading, then the classification must be in the subheading comprising the component of the good which provides its "essential character."
The CAFC concluded that the CIT had correctly considered all of the components in determining the "essential character"of the lighting fixtures, and thus upheld its ruling.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 05/04/06 news, 06050415, for BP summary of the CIT decision, where both parties had urged the CIT to adopt a single factor objective test for the essential character analysis, which the CIT failed to do. Home Depot had advocated that the visible surface area of the fixture should determine the essential character, whereas Customs had focused on the "structural framework" as the essential character.)
CAFC 06-1459 (dated 06/21/07) available at http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1459.pdf