US Rails Against Importer's 'Myriad of Unsupported' Claims on Classification of Steel Conduit Tubing
Importer Shamrock Building Materials laid out a "myriad of unsupported and unpersuasive arguments" against the Court of International Trade's finding that electrical conduit is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7306, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 22 reply brief. The government said the heading, which provides for "other tubes, pipes and hollow profiles" of iron or steel, exactly describes the electrical conduit, and that heading 8547, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," does not fit the bill (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
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.
In its opening brief, Shamrock took aim at the trade court's interpretation of the term "lined with insulating material." The trade court read this term with the term "electric conduit tubing," and said they should be interpreted together to say that the insulating material must relate to the function of the tubing. CIT ruled that heading 8547 "describes electrical conduit" that is also "marketed in commerce" as performing an insulating function, adding that Shamrock's tubing "does not satisfy that criteria."
In its brief, the U.S. noted that Shamrock's witness "did not consider the degree of resistivity or resistance of the coating sufficient to qualify it as an insulator." The importer itself agreed that its product "is not marketed to customers as insulated or insulating electrical tubing." Another one of its witnesses gave an opinion "based merely on deduction" since the expert "never tested the interior coating to determine whether it impeded the flow of electricity," the brief argued.
Shamrock went on to claim in its brief that CIT improperly construed heading 8547's Explanatory Note. The government said the importer "is wrong," since the court used the "traditional tools of statutory construction" to get the heading's common meaning, then used the Explanatory Notes for guidance on the scope of the covered conduits. The Note helps distinguish between goods classified under headings 8547 and 7306.
CIT in March said that Shamrock's conduits cannot insulate the base metal from the electrical current or the heat in the wire it surrounds (see 2303140035). As a result, the trade court barred classification under 8547.