Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated v. United States
148 F.3d 1363, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1321, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15175 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When classifying goods under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, the specific language of a heading, including parenthetical phrases that limit its scope, controls over the common name of the merchandise or its classification under prior, superseded statutes.
Facts:
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. imported a battery-operated electric toothbrush product sold under the trademark 'Interplak'.
- The Interplak product consists of interchangeable toothbrush heads, a detachable handle containing a motor and rechargeable batteries, and a stand that incorporates a battery recharger.
- The product is imported and sold as a complete, functional unit for personal dental hygiene.
- Bausch & Lomb imported these products into the United States between January 8, 1991, and August 12, 1992.
Procedural Posture:
- Until February 6, 1991, U.S. Customs classified Bausch & Lomb's 'Interplak' products as 'toothbrushes' under HTSUS Subheading 9603.21.00.
- On that date, Customs reclassified the Interplak as 'Other [electromechanical domestic] appliances' under HTSUS Subheading 8509.80.00.
- Customs liquidated the imported merchandise under the new 'appliances' classification.
- Bausch & Lomb filed a protest with Customs, which was subsequently denied.
- Bausch & Lomb filed suit against the United States in the Court of International Trade (the trial court) to challenge the classification.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade.
- The Court of International Trade granted the Government's motion, denied Bausch & Lomb's motion, and affirmed the classification of the Interplak as an appliance.
- Bausch & Lomb, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a complete electric toothbrush, imported as a single unit, properly classified as a 'toothbrush' under HTSUS Heading 9603, which includes the parenthetical phrase 'including brushes constituting parts of machines, appliances or vehicles,' rather than as an 'electromechanical domestic appliance' under HTSUS Heading 8509?
Opinions:
Majority - Plager, Circuit Judge.
No. A complete electric toothbrush is properly classified as an 'electromechanical domestic appliance' under HTSUS Heading 8509, not as a 'toothbrush' under HTSUS Heading 9603. The court reasoned that while the product is commonly known as a toothbrush, the specific language of the tariff schedule controls. Heading 8509 broadly covers 'Electromechanical domestic appliances, with self-contained electric motor,' which plainly includes the Interplak. Conversely, Heading 9603, which covers 'brushes,' contains the limiting parenthetical phrase 'including brushes constituting parts of machines, appliances or vehicles.' The court interpreted this phrase to mean that Heading 9603 covers only the brush components of appliances when imported separately, not the entire appliance itself. This interpretation avoids absurd results, such as classifying a street sweeper under the 'brushes' heading. The court distinguished prior case law that classified electric toothbrushes as 'toothbrushes' because the previous tariff statute (TSUS) did not contain this limiting parenthetical language, and a change in statutory language implies a change in meaning.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of statutory interpretation that the plain and specific language of a tariff heading, including its limitations, is paramount. It establishes that a change in statutory text from a prior tariff schedule (the TSUS) to the current one (the HTSUS) can override long-standing classification practices. The case serves as a key precedent for how courts should resolve conflicts between an item's common name (eo nomine) and the technical, restrictive language of the tariff code, reinforcing that the latter prevails. This ruling guides importers and customs officials to focus on the precise wording of HTSUS headings rather than relying on historical classifications or common understanding.
