Agfa Corp. v. United States

Citations: 520 F.3d 1326; 29 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2537; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6083; 2008 WL 755874Docket: 2007-1430

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; March 24, 2008; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Agfa Corporation appealed the decision of the United States Court of International Trade, which ruled in favor of the United States, affirming the classification of imported metal plates coated with a photosensitive emulsion by United States Customs and Border Patrol under subheading 3701.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The merchandise consists of aluminum sheets used for offset lithographic printing, each with sides exceeding 255 mm. Agfa imported these sheets between September 29 and November 2, 2003, and Customs classified them under the aforementioned subheading, which incurs a 3.7% ad valorem duty.

Agfa protested this classification, arguing the plates should fall under subheading 8442.50.10 as "printing plates," claiming they were duty-free. The Court of International Trade found the plates prima facie classifiable under heading 3701 but not under heading 8442, supporting Customs’ classification. The court noted agreement on the characteristics of the plates as flat, sensitized, unexposed, and meeting the dimension requirement, and it clarified that the term "photographic plate" is not a term of art according to the definition in Note 2 to Chapter 37. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Agfa's definition of "photographic plate," which required a glass substrate, was rejected by the court as inconsistent with the plain language of tariff heading 3701, which permits "photographic plates" made from various materials excluding only paper, paperboard, and textiles. The court ruled that the imported plates qualified as "photographic" since they utilized a laser to create images in a polymer layer, thereby employing light indirectly. The Explanatory Notes for heading 3701 support that "photographic plates" can be composed of diverse materials for photomechanical processes. In contrast, heading 8442 does not address photosensitive materials and explicitly excludes plates with photographic emulsions. Agfa appealed, asserting that the plates should be classified under subheading 8442.50.10 as printing plates, arguing the court improperly prioritized the Explanatory Notes, which are non-binding and inconsistent with heading 8442's plain language. Agfa contended that "photographic plate" is not defined in Chapter 37 and should not encompass items clearly categorized under another heading. They also claimed that heading 8442 is more specific and thus prevails under General Rule of Interpretation 3. The government maintained that Customs and the Court of International Trade properly classified the plates under subheading 3701.30.00, emphasizing that heading 8442 does not include unexposed plates with photosensitive surfaces, and the Explanatory Notes, while not binding, provide persuasive guidance. The court ultimately agreed with the government, affirming the classification under heading 3701. The relevant HTSUS classifications were also outlined, confirming the specifications for photographic plates and film.

Imported plates for printing purposes are classified under heading 3701 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which encompasses "photographic plates" of materials other than paper, paperboard, or textiles. The argument presented by Agfa, asserting that photographic plates must be rigid and transparent, is countered by the broad language of heading 3701, which does not impose such a transparency requirement, as evidenced by its exclusion of specific materials. The definition of "photographic" in Note 2 to Chapter 37, which relates to the formation of visible images through light action on photosensitive surfaces, further supports classification under heading 3701. The process described, where visible images are created on aluminum plates for ink transfer, fits this definition.

Explanatory Notes for heading 3701, while not legally binding, provide guidance indicating that materials like metal or stone are commonly used for photomechanical processes, including those that involve subsequent mechanical steps like ink transfer. Conversely, heading 8442, which includes "printing plates," primarily refers to purely mechanical processes and explicitly excludes sensitized plates used in photomechanical processes. The Explanatory Notes for heading 8442 reinforce this exclusion, directing readers to heading 3701 for the relevant classification of such goods.

The Court of International Trade, supported by the government, concluded that the imported plates do not fall under heading 8442 and are appropriately classified under heading 3701. Agfa does not contest the classification under subheading 3701.30.00 once established under heading 3701. The decision of the Court of International Trade, affirming the government and Customs' classification, is upheld.