CIT Finds Door Parts Neither Veneered Panels Nor Laminated Wood
Door stiles and rails imported by Composite Technology International are too thick on the outside to enter duty free as veneered panels, and too thin on the inside to be duty free laminated wood, said the Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 decision (here). Instead, the frame and panel door parts should be classified as “other articles of wood” dutiable at 3.3%, ruled the court.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The door stiles and rails consist of a 9.5 millimeter-thick outer pine cap laminated to a base of laminated poplar wood layers, each with a thickness of less than six millimeters. On liquidation, CBP classified the door stiles and rails under subheading 4421.90.97, as “Other articles of wood: Other: Other: Other.” Composite Technology protested, arguing its merchandise should have instead been classified under subheading 4412.99.51 as “Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood: Other: Other: With at least one outer ply of non-coniferous wood: Other: Other.” The door stiles and panels are either “veneered panels” or “laminated wood,” it said. The company filed suit when the protest was denied.
The explanatory note to Heading 4412 says veneered panels consist of a “thin veneer of wood affixed to a base.” Though the note is silent on what is meant by “thin,” the explanatory note to heading 4408, which covers veneering sheets, limits that thickness to less than 6 millimeters. With outer caps that are 9.5 millimeters thick, Composite Technology’s stiles and rails do not have outer veneers and are not veneered panels, said CIT. Nor are they laminated wood, said the court. The explanatory note to heading 4412 says classification as “other laminated wood” is appropriate when the “core is thick and composed of blocks, laths or battens of wood.” The stiles and panels imported by Composite Technology have a core made of panels only two millimeters thick, and the company did not argue the core is made of blocks, laths, or battens. With no place left to classify Composite Technology’s stiles and rails, CIT instead found them classifiable under heading 4421 as “other articles of wood” not classifiable elsewhere in chapter 44, affirming CBP’s classification.
(Composite Technology International v. U.S., CIT # 13-00205, Slip Op. 15-110, dated 09/28/15, Judge Tsoucalas)
(Attorneys: Joseph Cox of Stein Shostak for plaintiff Composite Technology International, Inc.; Stephen Tosini for defendant U.S. government)