United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
2009-1493
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in case No. 05-00058, Senior Judge Thomas J.
Aquilino, Jr.
__________________________
Decided: June 2, 2010
__________________________
JEREMY PAGE, Page Fura, P.C., of Chicago, Illinois,
argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was
SHANNON E. FURA.
EDWARD F. KENNY, Trial Attorney, International
Trade Field Office, United States Department of Justice,
of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee.
With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attor-
ney General, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, Com-
mercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 2
the brief was MICHAEL W. HEYDRICH, Office of the Assis-
tant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation,
United States Customs and Border Protection, of New
York, New York.
__________________________
Before MAYER, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. (“Honda”) ap-
peals a final decision of the Court of International Trade
(“CIT”) affirming, on summary judgment, a Customs and
Border Protection (“Customs”) classification of Honda’s oil
bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (“Schedule” or “HTSUS”). Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc.
v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2009). Because the CIT properly interpreted and applied
the Schedule, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2002-2004, Honda imported “oil bolts” used in its
cars and motorcycles. Pl.’s Compl. 2. These oil bolts
feature a smooth upper portion with a hollow, threaded
body, some of which have extended stems. The oil bolts
connect fluid lines to brake master cylinders or transmis-
sion cases, allowing fluid to flow through without leaking.
Honda’s Principal Br. 5-8. Customs classified the oil bolts
under Schedule subheading 7318.15.80: “Screws, bolts,
nuts, . . . and similar articles, of iron or steel . . .
[t]hreaded articles . . . [h]aving shanks or threads with a
diameter of 6 mm or more.” Customs Headquarters
Ruling No. 966412 (Sept. 3, 2003), aff’d, Customs Head-
quarters Ruling No. 966789 (June 21, 2004). Customs
liquidated at the corresponding 8.5% duty.
3 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US
Honda appealed to the CIT, arguing that the proper
classification is one of three subheadings in Schedule
Chapter 87, “Vehicles . . . and Parts and Accessories
Thereof.” 1 On Honda’s motion, the CIT designated this
case a test case for four others. Both parties cross-moved
for summary judgment. The CIT granted the govern-
ment’s motion, holding that Customs correctly classified
the oil bolts as “parts of general use,” even though the
bolts have specialized features, because the Schedule
“does not generally make an exception for specialized
parts.” Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1327. Honda appeals,
and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
DISCUSSION
“We review the Court of International Trade’s grant of
summary judgment concerning tariff classifications de
novo. A classification decision involves two underlying
steps: determining the proper meaning of the tariff provi-
sions, which is a question of law; and then determining
which heading the disputed goods fall within, which is a
question of fact.” Outer Circle Prods. v. United States, 590
F.3d 1323, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). A
Customs decision “is presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S.C. §
2639(a)(1).
“The General Rules of Interpretation (‘GRIs’) govern
classification of merchandise under the HTSUS,” Mille-
1 Because Honda imported in 2002-2004, we use the
June 30, 2004 supplemented edition of the Schedule. See
N. Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 696
& n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting for imports in 1992,
“[a]ccordingly, all references to the HTSUS are to the
1992 edition”); Pl.’s Statement of Uncontested Facts ¶ 22
(“The provisions of the HTSUS that pertain to the classi-
fications at issue in this action did not change during the
period of 2002 through 2004, when the entries of the oil
bolts that are the basis of this action occurred.”).
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 4
nium Lumber Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d
1326, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and “are applied in numerical
order,” ABB, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1274, 1276
n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2005). General Rule 1 states that classifica-
tion occurs “according to the terms of the headings and
any relative section or chapter notes.” Therefore, “a court
first construes the language of the heading, and any
section or chapter notes in question.” Orlando Food Corp.
v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
“The terms of the HTSUS are construed according to
their common commercial meanings.” Millenium Lumber,
558 F.3d at 1329. Here, the plain language of the compet-
ing relevant subheadings is not dispositive. The oil bolts
facially meet subheading 7318.15.80 because they are
undisputedly “threaded articles” of iron or steel with a
diameter of 6 mm or more. However, they also facially
meet Honda’s proposed subheadings because they are
“parts and accessories” of vehicle power trains (subhead-
ing 8708.99.6790), of vehicle “brakes and servo-brakes”
(subheading 8708.39.5050), and of motorcycles (subhead-
ing 8714.19.0060). Customs recognized that the oil bolt
“is classifiable in heading 8708 by the fact that it is a part
of a part for use in a motor vehicle . . . .” Customs Head-
quarters Ruling No. 966412, at 7.
However, the Section Notes in the Schedule clarify
the relationship between these subheadings. According to
the Schedule’s Preface, “[t]he legal text of the [Schedule]
includes all provisions enacted by Congress,” including
“Section and Chapter notes.” Heading 7318 is in Chapter
73, which is in Section XV. Honda’s proposed subhead-
ings are in Chapter 87, which is in Section XVII. Note
2(b) to Section XVII states: “The expressions ‘parts’ and
‘parts and accessories’ do not apply to the following arti-
cles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods
of this section: . . . [p]arts of general use, as defined in
5 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US
note 2 to section XV.” Note 2(a) to Section XV also ex-
plains: “Throughout the tariff schedule, the expression
‘parts of general use’ means . . . [a]rticles of heading . . .
7318 and similar articles of other base metals.” Thus,
reading these Notes together, as the CIT did, articles that
are “parts of general use” under Chapter 73 cannot be
classified as “parts” or “parts and accessories” under
Chapter 87.
Honda challenges this interplay between Chapters 73
and 87, relying on the Explanatory Notes to Section XVII.
4 World Customs Org., Harmonized Commodity Descrip-
tion and Coding System, Explanatory Notes 1712-13 (3d
ed. 2002) (“Explanatory Notes”). “Although the Explana-
tory Notes are not legally binding or dispositive, they may
be consulted for guidance and are generally indicative of
the proper interpretation of the various HTSUS provi-
sions.” Millenium Lumber, 558 F.3d at 1329 (citation
omitted). Here, General Explanatory Note III to Section
XVII says that the headings in that section
apply only to those parts or accessories which
comply with all three of the following conditions:
(a) They must not be excluded by the terms of
Note 2 to this Section . . . . and
(b) They must be suitable for use solely or princi-
pally with the articles of Chapters 86 to 88 . . .
. and
(c) They must not be more specifically included
elsewhere in the Nomenclature . . . .
4 Explanatory Notes, supra, at 1712. Honda insists that
its oil bolts meet condition (b) because they are suitable
principally for use with vehicles listed in Chapter 87.
However, the Explanatory Note requires an article to
satisfy “all three” conditions, including condition (a): that
it not be excluded “by the terms of Note 2 to this Section.”
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 6
See also id. at 1739, 1745 (confirming that articles under
headings 8708 and 8714 “must not be excluded by the
provisions of the Notes to Section XVII”). As explained
above, Note 2 to Section XVII excludes “[p]arts of general
use.” Therefore, parts of general use cannot be classified
under Chapter 87, even if they are “suitable for use solely
or principally” with articles in that chapter. Paragraph
(C) of the Explanatory Note to Section XV reiterates this
rule: “parts of general use (as defined in Note 2 to this
Section) presented separately are not considered as parts
of articles, but are classified in the headings of this Sec-
tion appropriate to them.” 3 Explanatory Notes, supra, at
1210. The Explanatory Note then offers an example: “in
the case of . . . springs specialised for motor cars . . . [t]he
springs would be classified in heading 73.20 (as springs)
and not in heading 87.08 (as parts of motor vehicles).” Id.
(emphasis added). Thus, an article’s specialization for
vehicles does not preclude its classification as a part of
general use.
The Section Notes define “parts of general use” to in-
clude articles under heading 7318. Heading 7318 covers
“[s]crews, bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw hooks, rivets,
cotters, cotter pins, washers (including spring washers)
and similar articles, of iron or steel.” The CIT thus cor-
rectly observed that “the initial test for plaintiff’s articles
herein is whether the definition of screws, bolts and
similar articles of iron or steel covers them.” Honda, 625
F. Supp. 2d at 1327. If the oil bolts are parts of general
use, then they cannot fall under Honda’s proposed sub-
headings.
Within heading 7318, Customs chose subheading
7318.15.80. “[S]ubheading 7318.15.80 is necessarily
limited to screws.” Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United
States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Ex-
7 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US
planatory Notes to heading 7318 list physical traits of
“screws, bolts and nuts”:
• They are “threaded” and “used to assemble or
fasten goods.”
• “Bolts and screws for metal” are “cylindrical in
shape, with a close and only slightly inclined
thread,” and “may have slotted heads or heads
adapted for tightening with a spanner.” This “in-
cludes all types of fastening bolts and metal
screws regardless of shape and use.”
• Screws are “more usually screwed into a hole
tapped in the material to be fastened.”
3 Explanatory Notes, supra, at 1270. Similarly, in “Dis-
tinguishing Bolts From Screws,” a Customs Informed
Compliance Publication of May 2000, Customs defined
“screw” as “an externally threaded fastener capable of . . .
mating with a preformed internal thread . . . and of being
tightened or released by torquing the head.” We affirmed
this definition in Rocknel Fastener, noting its basis in “an
authoritative industry source that is generally consistent
with the dictionary definitions.” 267 F.3d at 1358, 1361.
Determining whether the oil bolts fall within sub-
heading 7318.15.80 is a factual question, Outer Circle, 590
F.3d at 1325, but there are no material disputes of fact
here. Honda’s oil bolts mate with preformed holes, per-
form a fastening function, and are tightened by torquing
their heads, thereby meeting the established definition for
“screw”—despite their “bolt” moniker. Honda conceded
before the CIT that its oil bolts “consist of partially-
threaded hex head articles of steel, which are torqued by
a head into a preformed hole with one of their functions
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 8
being to fasten both the oil bolt and the hose assembly to
either a brake master cylinder or transmission case.”
Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 2. Thus,
there is no dispute that the oil bolts have the characteris-
tics for subheading 7318.15, “Other screws and bolts,
whether or not with their nuts or washers.” Nor does
Honda dispute that the oil bolts feature “shanks or
threads with a diameter of 6 mm or more,” which places
them specifically under subheading 7318.15.80. See
Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1328.
Honda insists that its oil bolts are not for “general
use” because they “do not function solely in a fastening
capacity,” but also conduct fluids and prevent leakage.
Honda’s Reply Br. 5-6. However, the Explanatory and
Section Notes do not restrict heading 7318 to items
“whose sole function is to fasten,” as Honda claims. Id. 5.
Rather, the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 73 clarify that
“bolts and screws for metal” include “all types of fastening
bolts and metal screws regardless of shape and use”
(emphasis added).
Honda also claims that Customs’ decision deserves
less deference because it conflicts with previous rulings
involving heading 7318. See Warner-Lambert Co. v.
United States, 425 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (not-
ing that deference to Customs depends partly on “its
consistency with earlier and later pronouncements,”
according to Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140
(1944)). Those rulings are distinguishable. Honda cites
Customs New York Ruling No. F88921 (July 7, 2000),
where Customs classified a “steel washer” under heading
8708 instead of heading 7318. Customs found, however,
that “[t]he design features of this washer do not appear to
have the characteristics of ‘parts of general use’ washers”
under heading 7318. Id. This ruling therefore followed
the principle that articles are classifiable under Chapter
9 HONDA OF AMERICA v. US
87 only if they are not parts of general use. Similarly, in
Customs Headquarters Ruling No. H007106 (May 8,
2007), Customs placed a “plastic dryer timer knob” under
heading 8451 because “[k]nobs are not described in Note 2
to Section XV, HTSUS, as parts of general use nor are
they similar to any of the articles mentioned therein.” It
noted that the knobs were used “solely or principally with
dryers” of subheadings in Chapter 84, but recognized that
if the knobs were parts of general use, they would be
“excluded from classification in Chapter 84.” Id. Finally,
in Customs Headquarters Ruling No. 954102 (Mar. 15,
1994), “control cables” with features that “dedicate them
for use in vehicles” were classified under heading 8709,
not as parts of general use. However, the contemporary
Explanatory Notes to Chapter 73 stated that cables were
parts of general use “provided they do not thereby assume
the character of articles of other headings.” Id. Thus, the
Notes specifically exempted the cables from Chapter 73,
while the Notes applicable here do not exempt oil bolts.
The CIT also noted that, at the time Ruling No. 954102
issued, Customs was reconsidering the scope of heading
8709 and its application to a cable, but not to a “screw,
bolt, or the like.” Honda, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30.
Honda’s citation of other allegedly inconsistent rulings is
similarly unpersuasive. Consistency with earlier and
later pronouncements “cannot be read as precluding any
deference to an agency ruling that has the power to
persuade, solely because it is inconsistent with an earlier
one.” Warner-Lambert, 425 F.3d at 1386.
Finally, Honda argues that General Rule of Interpre-
tation 3 requires that Chapter 87 headings apply because
they are more specific than those in Chapter 73. Rule 3
applies to tiebreakers: when goods are, “prima facie,
classifiable under two or more headings,” the heading
with “the most specific description” (Rule 3(a)), the head-
HONDA OF AMERICA v. US 10
ing that covers the goods’ “essential character” (Rule 3(b)),
or “the heading which occurs last in numerical order”
(Rule 3(c)) governs. The government correctly responds
that Rule 3 does not apply because there is no tie to
break. Under Rule 1, which starts with the headings and
“relative section or chapter notes,” the oil bolts are not
prima facie classifiable under any Chapter 87 headings.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the CIT’s grant
of summary judgment that Customs properly classified
Honda’s oil bolts under Schedule subheading 7318.15.80.
AFFIRMED