Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Sharp Microelectronics Technology, Inc. challenged the classification of its imported glass cells by the U.S. Customs Service under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as liquid crystal devices subject to a 9 percent duty. Sharp argued for alternative classifications under parts of automatic data processing machines or input/output display units, but did not appeal the decision regarding indicator panels. The court, comprising Circuit Judges Clevenger, Rader, and Bryson, conducted a detailed analysis, focusing on the relative specificity of classification provisions and the application of Note 1(m) of Section XVI of the HTSUS. The court affirmed Customs' classification under subheading 9013.80.60, determining that the glass cells are more accurately described as liquid crystal devices. It rejected Sharp's contention that heading 9013 is a basket provision, instead finding that it provides a specific classification for Sharp's products. The court also found that Note 1(m) precludes classification under parts provisions when an article is described in Chapter 90. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Court of International Trade, affirming the duty classification without costs, and rejecting Sharp's arguments regarding historical customs practices and classification rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Note 1(m) of HTSUSsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interpreted Note 1(m) of Section XVI of the HTSUS, which states that articles described in Chapter 90 cannot be classified under Chapter 84, leading to the conclusion that the display glass could not be classified under the parts provision.
Reasoning: It referred to Note 1(m) of Section XVI of the HTSUS, which states that articles described in Chapter 90 cannot be classified under Chapter 84.
Classification of Liquid Crystal Devices under HTSUSsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed Customs' classification of Sharp's display glass as liquid crystal devices under subheading 9013.80.60, based on the Explanatory Note that includes liquid crystal devices not specifically classified under other headings.
Reasoning: The court affirmed Customs' classification under subheading 9013.80.60, which carries a 9 percent duty, based on the Explanatory Note that includes liquid crystal devices not specifically classified under other headings.
Customs Practice of Parts vs. Basket Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite recognizing that historically parts provisions take precedence over basket provisions, the court found that heading 9013 more specifically describes the display glass than the parts provision, thus superseding the general rule.
Reasoning: The government recognizes that historically, customs practice dictated that parts provisions take precedence over basket provisions.
Interpretation of Basket Provisions in HTSUSsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that heading 9013 is not a basket provision, as it requires specific analysis and serves as a specific classification for defined articles like liquid crystal devices, rather than being a general provision.
Reasoning: The conclusion drawn is that heading 9013 does not constitute a basket provision.
Relative Specificity Analysis for Classificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted a relative specificity analysis, confirming that the more specific description should be favored over more general classifications, thus ruling that the display glass is more accurately described under heading 9013 than under a parts provision.
Reasoning: It found that the classification as a part or accessory is easier to satisfy than classifying it as a liquid crystal device.