Issue 292, February 9, 2001
General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) listed at the beginning of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) govern the process of classifying imported goods. However, over the years, the courts have created other rules of interpretation not listed in the GRIs. These judicially created rules of interpretation stem from cases dealing with the Tariff Schedule of the United States (TSUS), and other predecessor tariff systems to the HTSUS. Are these interpretive rules still applicable to classifying goods under the HTSUS?

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which is the appeals court that reviews Customs classification cases) addressed this question finding that at least one court-made rule of interpretation no longer applies under the HTSUS. In JVC Co. of America v. United States, 00-1028 (Fed. Cir., November 21, 2000), at issue was the correct classification of camcorders - combined video cameras and video recorders. Customs asserted that the HTSUS heading covering "television cameras" by name was the most specific classification, but the importer JVC disagreed, arguing that the good was "more than" a television camera. Under the "more than" rule, a good cannot be classified under a particular heading where the good constitutes more than the particular article, either because it possesses significant additional features or performs nonsubordinate functions. In this case, JVC argued that the video recorder features were co-equal and not subordinate to the camera features of the imports, making the camcorder "more than" a television camera.

The appeals court disagreed with JVC's argument. According to the court, language in the TSUS allowed for court-created rules of interpretation, but the HTSUS did not. Under the analytical scheme set up in the HTSUS, the GRIs are the all-inclusive interpretive aids. Thus, the court found that the "more than" doctrine no longer applied. While the court left open for another day whether other judicially-created doctrines of interpretation continue to be applicable, it is likely that it will find them inapplicable as well.

While many importers classifying goods may not even realize that there are court-created rules of interpretation lurking outside the GRIs and the HTSUS, this case indicates that they need not be concerned with them. Instead, importers should pay careful attention to the GRIs and use those rules to guide them to correct classifications.

Our contributing writer, Richard H. Abbey and Joel W. Rogers, are attorneys at Ablondi, Foster, Sobin & Davidow, p.c. in Washington DC and can be reached at 202-296-3355 via email at rabbey@ablondifoster.com or jrogers@ablondifoster.com respectively.

Please note that due to the complex nature of the subject matter, Danzas AEI cannot be responsible for actions taken by the reader in reliance on the information contained herein without prior consultation with Danzas AEI.