CBP Withholding Communications on Past Classification Decisions, Importer Argues in Motion to Compel

October 17, 2023 by Ben Perkins|Litigation

The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).

The case challenges CBP's liquidation of a single entry where the imported shade machines were classified as "curtains" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6303.92.2030, dutiable at 11.3%, and as "builders' ware of plastics ..." under subheading 3925.30.1000, dutiable at 3.3%. CBP assessed 7.5% Section 301 duties on both classifications.

Lutron then filed suit in September 2022, arguing the shade machines exceeded the scope of both provisions and argued for classification under subheading 8479.89.95 as “machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified, or included elsewhere in this chapter: … other machines and mechanical appliances: … other: … other," dutiable at 2.5%. Lutron also said that the shade machines are not subject to Section 301 duties as they are of Mexican origin (see 2209150062).

CBP classified a "substantially identical" shade machine under HTS subheading 8479.89.9897 in 2007 and then changed the classification in 2022 with a headquarters ruling. That ruling said that the shade machines were composites and that the shade component provided the essential character. When it brought its case in September 2022, Lutron said that the HQ ruling cited "no change in law or precedential court decision." Therefore, Lutron argued, the electronic drive unit, when imported separately, still should have been classified under 8479.89.9897.

In both the 2007 New York ruling and the 2022 HQ ruling, CBP claimed to use a GRI 3(b) essential character analysis. Lutron argued that "It should be beyond any reasonable dispute" that CBP's analyses of both decisions are highly relevant and should be provided with minimal, if any, redactions.

Lutron said that the government failed to fully explain the rationale behind both rulings and went overboard in its redactions, including the redaction of statements made years before the agency had decided that NY N010048 was incorrect.

The government is currently withholding contact information of "critical witnesses," citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which prohibits the disclosure of certain personal information. Lutron argues that Section 552a doesn't apply to disclosure “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” The former CBP personnel at issue include the author of the New York ruling and "there can be no reasonable dispute" about their relevance, Lutron said.