Trade Court Orders More Briefing on Questions of Fact in GoPro Customs Spat
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 ordered parties to answer whether there are any outstanding questions of fact in a customs spat on GoPro Hero camera housings. Judge Timothy Reif wants the issue resolved to see if the case is "ripe for summary judgment."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case concerns eight camera housing models imported by GoPro under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.99.9000. Both GoPro and the U.S. filed motions for summary judgment, though the court noted that "there may be outstanding issues of material facts, despite parties' repeated assertions to the contrary." The judge said the "two-step inquiry of classification of merchandise," in which the court finds the meaning of the terms within the relevant tariff provision and determines whether the subject goods fit within those terms, "'collapses into a question of law' when there is no genuine dispute as to the nature of the subject merchandise."
In the court's view, a handful of questions of fact remain in the proceeding, leading Reif to order further briefing. The first question asks whether the camera housings "feature lens coverings that obstruct or inhibit use of the action camera as a camera when enclosed within the camera housings." GoPro says the cases do not have a protective lens covering, which the government denies.
Reif also asked if the action camera is functional as a camera while within the camera housing. While both GoPro and the U.S. used the term "fully functional," they then disagree on "what it means for the action camera to be 'fully functional,'" the court noted.
The court then asked a series of three related questions pertaining to the spring buttons on the camera housings. Reif asked (1) whether the buttons are designed to resist pressure to some degree "so as to minimize accidental turning on or off of the camera," (2) whether the spring buttons "correspond to the buttons on the action camera both to enable the user to turn the camera on while it is in the housing and to provide some degree of protection to the camera," and (3) whether the parties agree that if the camera cases were to be used as the main storage solution for the action camera, the spring button could be fouled by dirt and grime.
(GoPro v. United States, Slip Op. 23-130, CIT # 20-00176, dated 09/11/23; Judge: Timothy Reif; Attorneys: Alena Eckhardt of Nakachi Eckhardt for plaintiff GoPro; Edward Kenny for defendant U.S. government)