Fabric Brake Segments Are Pre-Cut 'Parts,' Not 'Materials,' Airplane Parts Exporter Says
In defense of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to the government’s, an airplane parts importer said Aug. 30 that Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, which covers “parts of goods” for aircraft or nonpowered aircraft, is more specific than heading 6307, which represents “other made up articles, including dress patterns” in a fabric section (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
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.
Importer Honeywell International also said that the government is placing “a heavy (and near-exclusive) emphasis on post-importation processing” in its argument to the contrary, even though it is “well established” that goods must be classified based on their condition at the time of importation.
Honeywell brought a motion for judgment to the Court of International Trade in March arguing that their chordal, radial and web fabric pre-cut brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies should be classified as airplane parts, not fabrics (see 2403110059). In response, the government filed its own cross-motion for judgment saying that the importer’s products are neither “parts” nor “parts of parts,” but are rather raw materials that don’t possess the essential characteristics of aircraft brake parts (see 2406130062) -- and that both categorization options contain basket elements, but that heading 6307 is more specific overall.
But heading 8803 isn’t a basket provision, the importer said.
“There is no principle of tariff classification that requires the consideration of ‘basket elements’ in a non-basket tariff provision and Defendant does not cite any support for this assertion,” it said.
Rather, the “claimed ‘basket elements’” appear in headings 8801 and 8802, referenced in the following provision only by number, not by language, it said; but it argued that headings 8801 and 8802 aren’t basket provisions either.
It also doesn’t matter in particular whether or not the brake segments are raw materials, Honeywell said, it said that rather, “courts have been clear that the proper comparison is whether a product is classified as a ‘material’ or as a ‘part,’ not whether the article is a ‘raw material.’”
The difference between “materials” and “parts” is that parts are “dedicated solely or principally for use in” a particular product, it said. It claimed this is the case for its imports, as they are entered having been pre-cut in such a way that they can only be used for brake discs.
And it defended the cases it cited that were litigated under the old U.S. tariff system, saying that the term “part” was used in both the old system and the current one and that “the primary cases for the classification of ‘parts’ are TSUS cases and are cited by Defendant as authority in their Cross-Motion.”