Shamrock Asks Trade Court for Summary Judgment in Electrical Conduit Case
Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating are insulated for tariff schedule purposes, and should be classified under heading 8547 as insulating fittings for electrical machines, appliances or equipment, importer Shamrock Building Materials said in a motion for summary judgment filed June 6 at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).
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 items in question were purchased by Shamrock from a Mexican manufacturer, Conduit S.A. de C.V d/b/a RYMCO (RYMCO) and imported as electrical metallic tubing finished conduit (EMT), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), and rigid metal conduit. Pintura Diamex S.A., supplied an epoxy coating to RYMCO which applied it to the EMT and IMC products before sale to Shamrock. Rockrock entered the EMT and IMC under heading 8547 as "Insulating fittings for electrical machines, appliances or equipment..." duty-free at the time of entry and the rigid conduit under heading 7306 as "Other tubes, pipes and hollow profiles..." with 25 percent section 232 duties at the time of entry. CBP classified all three products under 7306 and subsequently denied a protest by Shamrock.
The U.S. said in a May 2 brief that it does not dispute that the imported merchandise consists of electrical conduit tubing and said that classification will turn on the question of whether the coating qualifies as “insulating material” under subheading 8547.90.00. It argues that "insulating materials" must pass an actual resistance test and government expert witness Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos testified that the epoxy did not meet a "specific threshold" of resistance to be considered an insulating material. Shamrock attempted to throw out Meliopoulos' testimony and is awaiting a ruling by Judge Timothy Stanceu (see 2205030029).
Shamrock's argument hinges on the chemical makeup of the epoxy. Chemical analysis of the epoxy by expert witness Dr. Jeffrey T. Gotro and an independent lab confirmed that the epoxy resin lining the subject EMT and IMC is made up of melamine and silicone. Shamrock argues that those materials are "universally recognized in scientific, technical, and lexicographic authorities as insulating materials, and, in particular, electrically insulating materials." Because independent testing showed that the lining epoxy is made of insulating materials, the tubing with the epoxy is itself an insulting material, Shamrock said, noting that GRI 2(b) provides that “any reference to a material shall include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material... .”
Shamrock also said that the common meaning of “insulating material,” the explanatory notes to heading 8547 and a previous CIT case involving Wheatland Tube Company all support its assertion that the epoxy is an insulating material. Shamrock asked the court to overrule CBP's classification of the tubing, enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff that the imported merchandise at issue is properly classifiable in subheading 8547.90.0020, and order that the entries be reliquidated with a refund of duties plus interest.