United States Federal Circuit

In a case involving the tariff classification of a breath-freshening product imported by plaintiffs, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) although the explanatory notes to each heading in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. headings are not binding, the unambiguous text of relevant explanatory notes may be credited absent persuasive reasons to disregard it; 2) the term "oral perfume" in the explanatory note to the disputed heading in this case was to be given its ordinary meaning; and 3) under this ordinary meaning, plaintiff's product was properly classified under the disputed heading as an "oral perfume."

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/09/2008
• Published 09/09/2008

Judges

• SCHALL, Circuit Judge., Before RADER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Casey K. Richter, Neville Peterson LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were John M. Peterson and George W. Thompson.


• For Appellees:
  
• Barbara S. Williams, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director.   Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Choy, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs and Border Protection, of New York, New York.