CIT Says Target's String Lights Classified as Lamps Under HTS Heading 9405

Wang sided with the government in the classification dispute, subjecting the goods to an 8% duty.

At issue in the case are 162 different LED lamps that fall under seven different categories of goods: "(1) candles; (2) string lights; (3) table lights; (4) nightlights; (5) path lights; (6) lanterns; and (7) artificial Christmas trees." Specifically, Target consolidated two cases in the customs spat, one on a group of entries made in 2013 covering goods in categories one through six, and another covering entries made in 2017 covering goods under categories two through seven.

The U.S. argued that the goods fit under heading 9405, which in both 2013 and 2017 covered "Lamps and lighting fittings including searchlights and spotlights and parts thereof, not elsewhere specified or included; illuminated nameplates and the like, having a permanently fixed light source, and parts thereof not elsewhere specified or included."

For the 2013 entries, Target said the goods fit under heading 8543, which provides for "Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof." For the 2017 entries, the importer said the goods fit under heading 8539, which covers "Electrical filament or discharge lamps, including sealed beam lamp units and ultraviolet or infrared lamps; arc lamps; light emitting diode (LED) lamps; parts thereof."

Wang noted that for a good to fit under heading 9405, "it must not elsewhere be specified or included." The judge also noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already has examined the "disputed tariff provisions" in Gerson Co. v. U.S. In Gerson, the court specifically addressed the terms of heading 8543, holding that the terms "machine" and "apparatus" refer to "equipment designed specifically to carry out a particular function."

The Gerson court also said heading 8543's provision doesn't exist in a "vacuum," adding that the court "must read it in conjunction with other relevant provisions to discern its meaning." After doing just that, the court said Gerson's electrical LED tea-light candles, "despite meeting the definition of machine or apparatus, cannot be so broadly classified under the terms of heading 8543." The court warned that if heading 8543 is read to cover Gerson's candles, "it would cover every electric lamp, because all such lamps use electricity to generate light."

The Federal Circuit said heading 9405 would be constrained to only non-electric lamps under this interpretation, imposing a "specific, and drastic, limitation on the scope of heading 9405, HTSUS that the article description for that heading does not express or suggest.”

Building on this decision, Wang said "chapter 85’s scope is generally limited to electrical lamps that are components within equipment, rather than those used independently in the home." The judge said lamps that are "independently used," "suitable for household use," or "decorative" fall under heading 9405.

Regarding the 2013 entries, Wang said Target failed to meet its burden of proof that CBP's classification of the goods under heading 9405 was incorrect. Each model of the lights is "independently used with solar-power, battery-power, and/or an external power source; suitable for household use; and used for utilitarian or decorative illumination."

For the 2017 entries, Target argued that the 2017 amendments to the HTS alter heading 8539's scope to include "independent, self-contained lamps." Wang disagreed, finding that the amendment, which adds LED lamps, "provides for LED light bulbs to be classifiable under heading 8539." Similar to the Gerson holding, "the 2017 amendment cannot be read to increase the scope of heading 8539 to include lamps 'commonly … described as electric light bulbs,'" the court said, since such a reading "would drastically limit heading 9405 'to only non-electric' and non-LED lamps."

Wang then said the string light models fit under subheading 9405.30.00 as lights "of a kind used for Christmas trees." Target argued that the goods fall under subheading 9405.40.80 as "other" electric lamps.

To fit under subheading 9405.30.00, the goods must be a "lighting set" that is "principally used for Christmas trees," rather than for other purposes such as "general decoration or illumination." Identifying the issue as whether Target sufficiently showed that the goods aren't principally used for Christmas trees, Wang held that the importer failed to meet this burden.

While Target said the goods are corded in colors other than green and are of lengths "not suitable for use on Christmas trees," the importer didn't provide evidence that the string light models aren't intended for use on Christmas trees, the court held. Wang said Target didn't distinguish "which, if any, of the imported string light models are not principally used for Christmas trees." The judge added that the importer's witness, Target's senior buyer Christina Jarvis, said she didn't think there was a "distinguishing factor" that makes a string light "of a kind used on a Christmas tree versus one that's not."

(Target General Merchandise v. U.S., Slip Op. 25-104, CIT Consol. # 15-00069, dated 08/13/25; Judge: Lisa Wang; Attorneys: Patrick Klein of Neville Peterson for plaintiff Target; Luke Mathers for defendant U.S. government)