US Says Importer's Gun Sight Inserts Are 'Lamps' Under HTS Heading 9405

Self-powered, radioluminescent light sources fueled by tritium that importer Trijicon uses to illuminate gun sights are properly classified as "lamps" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 "not elsewhere specified or included," the U.S. argued in a cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The common meaning of the term "lamp," derived from "lexicographic sources and caselaw," shows this to be true, but it's really Trijicon's own communications with its supplier, workers, customers and chief regulator agreeing with this point that win the day for the government, the brief said (Trijicon v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).

At the trade court, Trijicon is vying for classification under HTS heading 9022, which covers "apparatus based on the use of ... alpha, beta, gamma or other ionizing radiations," for its tritium-powered gun sight inserts. The U.S. said this heading doesn't cover the importer's tritium lamps.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Gerson Co. v. U.S., a 2018 decision, clearly said that an "apparatus" is a "complex device or machine for a specific use," adding that "lamps" don't qualify for that definition. Seeing as the Gerson case dealt with battery-powered LED candles, Trijicon's tritium lamps, a product with even fewer features than the LED lamps, don't fit in this heading, the brief said.

"And, tellingly, Trijicon distances itself from this definition," the U.S. noted. In its own brief, Trijicon said that its lamps are "apparatus," defining "apparatus" as a "set of materials or equipment for a particular use." The government said this claim fails for three reasons: Gerson rejects this position, Trijicon misunderstands the word "materials," and CBP's Explanatory Notes "make plain that tritium lamps are not complex machines and devices like those covered by heading 9022." Trijicon misreads the term "materials," as its lamp is just one "material," the government points out.

Trijicon in its own brief argued that its products "cannot be reduced" to the tritium gas they contain but instead must be found to satisfy the definition of an "apparatus" that "performs certain functions" and that are made up of a "set of materials" for a particular purpose (see 2309180054). The sight inserts are made of a set of materials and include "at least the glass capillary, the interior phosphor coating, and the tritium gas," the importer said. The U.S. accused Trijicon of too broadly interpreting the definition of "apparatus" in response.