UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 23-139

Before the Court in Second Nature Designs Ltd., v. United States, Court No. 17-00271, Slip Op. 23-139 (September 21, 2023) were cross motions for summary judgment concerning the classification of imported various decorative items of plant parts under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 0604.90.60, carrying a duty rate of 7% ad valorem. Plaintiff argued that the subject merchandise should instead be classified under HTSUS subheading 0604.90.30 free of duty. The court agreed with Second Nature’s preferred classifications for certain categories of the decorative items involving dried and curled articles and agreed with the Government’s preferred classification with respect to other categories of articles constituting artificial flowers or fruit. The court granted in part and denied in part both Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that factual issues persisted as to the remainder of the categories of the subject merchandise.

Contrary to Custom’s arguments, the Court held that duty free treatment under HTSUS subheading 0604.90.30 for “dried or bleached” botanicals was appropriate for all glittered or dyed dried botanicals, as well as cane circle and case spring botanicals. The Government argued “that because the items are dyed or glittered or further decorated with artificial snow, they are not merely ‘dried or bleached’ products as defined under subheading 0604.90.30.” Id. at 19. The Court said that “the only inquiry of this eo nomine designation is whether or not the item has been dried.” Id. at 20. As such, the Court found that these glittered and dyed items were classifiable under heading 0604.90.30, duty free.

With respect to other items like cane circles and cane spring botanicals, the Court rejected Custom’s suggested classification under HTSUS heading 4602 for “Basketwork, wickerwork and other articles, made directly to shape from plaiting materials or made up from articles of heading 4601; articles of loofah,” with a duty rate of 6.6%, calling the government’s reading of 4602 “overbroad” as applied to the subject merchandise. The Court agreed with Plaintiff’s argument that curling dried botanicals is not similar to articles of “basketwork, wickerwork” because these articles lack interlacing, weaving, or other similar methods. These items were classified under heading 0604.90.30, duty free.

On the other hand, the Court held botanical items resembling fruits and flowers are classifiable, as Customs suggested, under HTSUS subheading 6702.90.65 as artificial fruit or flowers because “it matters not whether [the merchandise] is made from bits and pieces of natural plants. . . . There is no ambiguity in the term artificial flowers.” Id. at 31-32. Artificial fruit or flowers may be “regarded as leaves, stems, flowers, or fruits produced not by nature, but by the hand of man.” Id.

Factual disputes remained and the classification of certain products could not be resolved in summary judgment. Customs contends that Kambu balls and Christmas Tree products should be classified under HTSUS subheading 4602.19.45 as “Basketwork, wickerwork and other articles, made directly to shape from plaiting materials or made up from articles of heading 4601; articles of loofah: Other: Other: of Willow or Wood: Other,” with a duty rate of 6.6%. Plaintiff argued that these products were classifiable under HTSUS subheading 0604 or, alternatively, in subheadings 4602.19.60 and 4602.19.35, all of which are entitled to duty free treatment. The classification issue here turns on whether the products are wickerwork. The Court said that because “whether the items within Category Four and Category Five are composed of twigs and the like, or whether they are made of strips, filaments, and the like” was in dispute and further proceedings will be required for these products.

Material issues of fact also exist with regard to the classification of bouquets and similar articles containing mixed botanicals. The issue here turns on the parties’ interpretation of the “physical characteristics of the bouquets.” Id. 37. The Court provided insight on the legal issue of the bouquets classification asserting, contrary to Customs’ argument, that an essential character analysis is not necessary for the classification of these products. The Court said that pursuant to GRI 1, the Government’s argument that “Note 2 to Chapter 6 must be read together with GRI 3” which provides for the essential character test, runs counter to the well-recognized rule that the GRIs apply in numerical order; the interpretation of chapter notes is paramount when evaluating classification under GRI 1.” Id. at 35. A GRI 1 analysis will include Note 2’s instruction that “bouquets, floral baskets, wreaths and similar articles made wholly or partly of goods of that kind, account not being taken of accessories of other materials.” Despite the fact that further proceedings will be required for Plaintiff to obtain a favorable classification under HTSUS subheading 0604.90.30.