CIT Vacates Ruling in Customs Case on Auto Parts for Clerical Error
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).
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.
Judge Richard Eaton said the category one articles covering interior trim pieces are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3926.30.50; the category two goods, covering door handles and door handle parts, fit under subheading 3926.30.10; the category three goods, covering external trim articles, fall under subheading 3926.30.50; and category four goods, covering mirror scalps, fall under subheading 8708.29.50.60.
Counsel for Jing Mei did not comment on the order vacating the judgment.
Jing Mei originally separated its 33 chrome-plated plastic automobile parts as five distinct entries, creating five categories of the parts. The first four are listed above, while the fifth covered emblems and wheel trim bits.
After CBP set its preferred classification, Jing Mei filed suit to contest the HTS heading for the first three category of goods, claiming that the products fit under HTS heading 8708, which covers vehicle parts, instead of heading 3926, which covers plastic articles. Jing Mei then sought a different subheading for the category four goods, claiming subheading 8708.29.50, which covers motor vehicle gody parts, as opposed to heading 8708.99.81.80, which covers other motor vehicle parts and accessories. The importer did not contest the classification of the goods in the fifth category under subheadings 3926.90.99 and 8708.29.50.
For the category one goods, Eaton said heading 8708 is not proper due to the second phrase of the General Rule of Interpretation 1, which says that classification shall be in line with "any relative section or chapter notes." In interpreting the phrase, CBP cited to section XVII's note 2(b) which eliminates from the definition of "parts" found in heading 8708 any "parts of general use." CBP also cited section XV's note 2(c), which defines "parts of general use" articles of heading 8302. As a result, while it appears that heading 8708 covers all automobile partes, the section notes act "as a limitation on just what 'parts' of motor vehicles that heading covers by eliminating 'parts of general use,'" the judge said.
The category one goods are "fittings" for "coachwork" as described by heading 3926.30 since they "function to fit, join, adjust, or adapt other automobile parts together" and are meant to "finish" an automobile from a "visual aspect," the judge said. The goods further fit under subheading 3926.30.50 for "Fittings for ... coachwork" since they are "not specifically described by the other eight-digit subheading found under six-digit subheading 3926.30," the opinion said.
Eaton then likened the analysis for the category two and three goods to that for the category one goods, ultimately siding with classification under heading 3926 as opposed to 8708.
Lastly, the court fit the category four goods under subheading 8708.29.50.60. Eaton said the goods are "'more specifically described" as other "parts and accessories of bodies' of motor vehicles under Customs' preferred subheading 8708.29.50.60."