US Says Trijicon Downplays Case Law on Whether Tritium Lamps Qualify as 'Lamps' Under Heading 9405
Importer Trijicon's tritium lamps are "lamps" of Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 regardless of the "material" of which they are made and the light source they use, the U.S. said in a Dec. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Trijicon v. U.S., CIT # 22-00040).
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.
DOJ argued Trijicon downplayed its use of the word "lamp" in many facets of its business along with case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that rejected classifying more complex LED lamps as "apparatus" -- the classification Trijicon seeks for its goods -- instead of "lamps."
The importer brought the case to argue that its tritium-powered rifle sights should be classified as "apparatus" under heading 9022, a duty-free provision, instead of as "lamps" under heading 9405, which comes with a 6% duty. Trijicon argued that the definition of "lamp" in heading 9405 doesn't include its goods.
In response, the U.S. said the importer focused on "minor distinctions in the case law," parts of Explanatory Note 94.05(I), the classification of glowsticks and words that Trijicon could, but doesn't, use to describe its tritium lamps. The government noted that the burden is on the company to establish the legal criteria for a commercial designation, adding that the importer would have to show the word "lamps" has a "nationally consistent, 'well-known signification in trade and commerce that is different from its common meaning,'" and that the tritium sights have a distinct "commercial identity."
Trijicon didn't do so, failing to show "how either the commercial meaning or common meaning of the word 'lamps' fails to describe its tritium lamps," the brief said.
Part of DOJ's arguments centered on the Federal Circuit's ruling in Gerson Co. v. U.S., in which the appellate court said battery-powered LED candles are "lamps" of heading 9405 and not "apparatus" of heading 9022. The Gerson court didn't limit its ruling to specific products, the government noted. DOJ added that Trijicon itself consistently refers to its good as lamps "with its supplier, its workers, its customers, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission." While the goods may have alternative names, "tritium lamp" is truly the most commonly used and specific name for the subject goods, as the company's "own documents, website, and patents show," the brief said.
The government also argued that heading 9022's description of "apparatus" doesn't cover the tritium lamps, citing the Gerson court's ruling. Trijicon's tritium lamps, "which simply illuminate, are thus not 'apparatus' of heading 9022," the brief said.
While the importer says the U.S. misunderstands Gerson as taking up a single definition of the term "apparatus" and finding that a lamp is not an apparatus, "this misunderstands" the government's claim and understates the opinion's relevance, DOJ said. Gerson rejected a "hyper-techincal" understanding of the term "apparatus" that is "divorced from the context of heading 9022 and its Explanatory Note," the brief said. If "apparatus" doesn't cover the more complex battery-powered LED candles at issue in Gerson, it doesn't cover the tritium lamps, DOJ said.