US Tells CAFC Frozen Fruit Mixtures Fall Under HTS Heading 0811
The Court of International Trade properly said that importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods frozen fruit mixture entries are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "Fruit ... frozen," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 reply brief. The trade court "committed no legal error in interpreting" the terms "fruit," "other" and "food preparations" since the terms are defined by "dictionaries, Explanatory Notes, and legal standards" set by the Federal Circuit and other courts, the government said (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
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 suit concerns 14 types of frozen fruit mixtures, five of which contain vegetable ingredients, that Judge Stephen Vaden said are properly classified under HTS subheading 0811.90.80 as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5% (see 2305260048). Vaden said heading 0811 was proper since the term "Fruit ... frozen" describes the goods as a whole. Nature's Touch seeks classification under subheading 2016.90.98 as "[f]ood preparations not otherwise specified or included" -- a basket provision that can only be used if there is no other heading that covers the goods more specifically.
In its opening brief, Nature's Touch said that CIT's "unprecedented interpretation" of an "other" provision comes from a "false premise" that would greatly expand its scope throughout the HTS (see 2309280082). The importer also said the HTS provides specifically for "mixtures" in a heading or subheading, allowing for classification under General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) 1. Where this falls short, however, GRIs must be looked to, with GRI 3(b) stating that a mixture should be classified as if it were only made of the single material that imparts the mixture's "essential character," the importer said.
In response, the U.S. said Nature's Touch "fails to complete a GRI 1 analysis of heading 0811 because it ignores the trial court's analysis regarding the common meaning of the tariff term 'Fruit.'" Vaden's analysis said that fruit includes fruit mixtures.
The government added that Nature's Touch's argument that eo nomine provisions don't cover mixtures is "not supported by the law." The Federal Circuit has held that eo nomine provisions include "all forms of the named article, even improved forms," so as long as the good doesn't have features "substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of the term," it will be covered by the provision that names it, the U.S. said.
The U.S. said that while Nature's Touch claims that an "other" heading is meant to exclude items specifically named in preceding subheadings from its coverage, the importer "fails to cite to any authority for support of this proposition." As held by Vaden, "the plain meaning of the tariff term 'other' is 'none of the above,'" the brief said.