United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
STOREWALL, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
__________________________
2010-1193
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in case No. 05-CV-0462, Judge Leo M. Gordon.
___________________________
Decided: March 31, 2011
___________________________
JESSICA R. RIFKIN, Rodriguez, O’Donnell, Gonzalez &
Williams, P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-
appellant. With her on the brief were R. KEVIN WILLIAMS,
and THOMAS J. O’DONNELL.
EDWARD F. KENNY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Liti-
gation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department
of Justice, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-
appellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assis-
tant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, of
Washington, DC; and BARBARA S. WILLIAMS, Attorney in
Charge, of New York, New York. Of counsel on the brief
STOREWALL v. US 2
was PAULA S. SMITH, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel,
International Trade Litigation, United States Customs
and Border Protection, of New York, New York.
__________________________
Before DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE.
Circuit Judge DYK concurs in the result.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
StoreWALL, LLC (storeWALL) appeals the United
States Court of International Trade’s decision upholding
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (Customs)
classification of storeWALL’s wall panels and HangUp
locator tabs under Subheading 3926.90.98 of the Harmo-
nized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
storeWALL, LLC v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1200,
1201-02 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000). Because the wall panels
and HangUp locator tabs are parts of furniture under
Subheading 9403.90.50, HTSUS, we reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
StoreWALL imports wall panels and locator tabs
manufactured in Taiwan that are used in conjunction
with home organization and storage systems. The Han-
gUp locator tabs, which are made of acrylonitrile butadi-
ene styrene (ABS) plastic, are specially designed
mounting hooks for the wall panels – the end user at-
taches the locator tabs to the wall and the wall panels
rest upon the locator tabs. StoreWALL constructs the
wall panels from rigid extruded polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
plastic. The panels contain “L” shaped grooves in which
the end user may place shelves, cupboards, baskets, hooks
and other attachments to create a customized storage or
3 STOREWALL v. US
display unit. StoreWALL imports both the wall panels
and the locator tabs separately from other components.
Between April and September 2004, Customs liqui-
dated the wall panels under Subheading 3916.20.00,
HTSUS, a provision covering “Monofilament of which any
cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm, rods, sticks and
profile shapes, whether or not surfaced-worked but not
otherwise worked, of plastics: Of polymers of vinyl chlo-
ride.” During the same time period, Customs liquidated
the HangUp locator tabs under Subheading 3926.90.98,
HTSUS, a provision for “Other articles of plastics and
articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914:
Other: Other.”
After liquidation, storeWALL filed three protests with
the ports of Los Angeles and Chicago requesting that
Customs reclassify both the wall panels and the HangUp
locator tabs under duty free provisions. StoreWALL
requested that Customs reclassify the wall panels under
Subheading 9403.70.80, a provision for “Other furniture
and parts thereof: Furniture of plastics: Other,” and the
locator tabs under Subheading 9403.90.50, a provision for
“Other furniture and parts thereof: Parts: Others: Of
rubber or plastics: Other.” Customs denied all three of
storeWALL’s protests.
StoreWALL commenced this action in 2005. During
the course of the proceedings, Customs discovered that
the wall panels were in fact “otherwise worked” within
the meaning of Subheading 3916.20.00, HTSUS, and
reclassified the wall panels (like the locator tabs) under
Subheading 3926.90.98. After the completion of discov-
ery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judg-
ment.
In its motion for summary judgment, storeWALL ar-
gued to the Court of International Trade that its wall
STOREWALL v. US 4
panels and locator tabs are either “unit furniture” or
“parts” of “unit furniture” covered under Heading 9403.
storeWALL, 675 F. Supp. 2d at 1204. The Court of Inter-
national Trade denied storeWALL’s motion for summary
judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion. Id.
at 1201-02. The Court of International Trade began by
analyzing whether the wall panels and locator tabs are
properly classifiable as “other furniture and parts thereof”
under Heading 9403. Id. at 1203. The Court of Interna-
tional Trade noted that although the HTSUS does not
explicitly define the term “furniture,” the Chapter Notes
clarify that items which are designed “to be hung, to be
fixed to the wall or to stand one on the other” such as
“cupboards, bookcases, other shelved furniture, and unit
furniture” are classifiable under Heading 9403. Id. at
1203-04 (citing Chapter 94 Notes, Note 2, HTSUS).
The Court of International Trade noted that the Ex-
planatory Notes attempt to clarify what is included within
the scope of unit furniture:
The Explanatory Notes do not define “unit furni-
ture” either, but add a caveat that “unit furniture”
must be “designed to be hung, to be fixed to the
wall or to stand one on the other or side by side,
for holding various objects or articles (books,
crockery, kitchen utensils, glassware, linen, me-
dicaments, toilet articles, radio or television re-
ceivers, ornaments, etc.).” The Explanatory Notes
also include within the definition of furniture
“separately presented elements of unit furniture,”
but expressly exclude from coverage under Head-
ing 9403 “other wall fixtures such as coat, hat and
similar racks, key racks, clothes brush hangers
and newspaper racks. . . .”
5 STOREWALL v. US
Id. (internal citations omitted). The Court of Interna-
tional Trade also reviewed the 1971 Brussels Nomencla-
ture Committee Report, which emphasizes that “unit
furniture” is “arranged to suit the tastes and needs of
their users and the shape and size of the rooms to be
furnished.” Id. The Court of International Trade re-
viewed dictionary definitions of the term “unit” and
ultimately defined “unit furniture” as:
[A]n item
(a) fitted with other pieces to form a larger system
or which is itself composed of smaller complemen-
tary items,
(b) designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall, or
to stand one on the other or side by side, and
(c) assembled together in various ways to suit the
consumer’s individual needs to hold various ob-
jects or articles, but
(d) excludes other wall fixtures such as coat, hat
and similar racks, key racks, clothes brush hang-
ers, and newspaper racks.
Id.
The Court of International Trade determined that
under this definition of “unit furniture,” a completed
storeWALL system may be classifiable as unit furniture.
Id. at 1204-05. However, if an end user decided to acces-
sorize the wall panels “only with hooks, as opposed to
shelves or baskets,” then the completed storeWALL
system is “merely a rack, which is expressly excluded
from coverage . . . .” Id. at 1205. The Court of Interna-
tional Trade concluded that because a completed store-
WALL system is not always “unit furniture,” the wall
panels and locator tabs are not prima facie classifiable
under Heading 9403 because imported parts must be
STOREWALL v. US 6
dedicated solely or principally for use with the classified
item. Id.
Having concluded that the wall panels and locator
tabs are not classifiable under Heading 9403, the Court of
International Trade determined that Customs properly
classified both articles under Subheading 3926.90.98,
HTSUS as “Other articles of plastics . . .: Other: Other.”
Id. at 1206. StoreWALL appeals and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
DISCUSSION
We review the Court of International Trade’s ruling
on summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Drygel, Inc. v.
United States, 541 F.3d 1129, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Proper classification of goods under the HTSUS entails a
two step process: First, ascertaining the meaning of
specific terms in the tariff provision; and second, deter-
mining whether the goods come within the description of
those terms. See, e.g., Millenium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v.
United States, 558 F.3d 1326, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The
interpretation of the headings and subheadings of the
HTSUS is a question of law reviewed without deference.”
Drygel, 541 F.3d at 1133. Whether the goods fall within
the scope of the headings and subheadings is a question of
fact and storeWALL bears the burden of proving the
classification is erroneous because Customs’ classification
decisions are presumed correct. Millenium Lumber, 55
F.3d at 1328. We review the factual findings of the Court
of International Trade for clear error. Deckers Corp. v.
United States, 532 F.3d 1312, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) govern
classifications under HTSUS. Millenium Lumber, 55 F.3d
at 1328. “Under GRI 1, the court must determine the
appropriate classification ‘according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes’ with
7 STOREWALL v. US
all terms construed to their common commercial mean-
ing.” Id. at 1328-29. Unlike Chapter Notes, Explanatory
Notes are not legally binding. Id. at 1329. However, the
Explanatory Notes “may be consulted for guidance and
are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the
various HTSUS provisions.” Id. (quoting N. Am. Process-
ing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir.
2001)).
A. The Court of International Trade’s Definition
of “Unit Furniture”
StoreWALL argues that the Court of International
Trade erred by defining “unit furniture” to exclude “other
wall fixtures such as coat, hat and similar racks, key
racks, clothes brush hangers, and newspaper racks.” For
ease of reference, we will refer to this express language in
part (d) of the Court of International Trade’s definition of
“unit furniture” as “the rack exclusion.” StoreWALL
proposes the following definition of “unit furniture”:
[A]n article or articles of convenience or decora-
tion, used to furnish living quarters or other
spaces, composed of more or less repetitive sec-
tions which are combined to form either a single
article or a larger system of articles (Chapter 94
Note 2 makes clear that such “unit furniture” in-
cludes articles designed for placing on the floor or
ground, to be hung, to be fixed to the wall, or to
stand one on the other).
Appellant’s Br. 16. Although storeWALL admits that it
“generally agrees” with the Court of International Trade’s
definition of “unit furniture,” it argues that the addition of
the “rack exclusion” based solely on the Explanatory
Notes is improper because it is “inconsistent with the
broad common and commercial meaning of the term ‘unit
STOREWALL v. US 8
furniture.’” Id. at 16-17. StoreWALL argues that under
our precedent, the Explanatory Notes “cannot be used to
contradict or artificially limit the broad common and
commercial meaning of [‘unit furniture.’]” Id. at 22-23
(citing Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 561
F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Airflow Tech., Inc. v. United
States, 524 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
The government argues that the Court of Interna-
tional Trade properly relied on the Explanatory Notes to
define “unit furniture.” The government contends that
Chapter 94, Note 2 creates exceptions to the general rule
that furniture must be designed to be placed on the floor
or the ground, including “unit furniture” that is designed
to be hung, to be fixed to the wall or to stand one on the
other. Appellee’s Br. 22. The government argues that
although the Explanatory Notes are not binding, the
Court of International Trade appropriately consulted the
Explanatory Notes for further detail regarding the scope
of “unit furniture.” Id. at 23-24.
Note 2 to Chapter 94 makes clear that articles are
classifiable as furniture under Heading 9403, HTSUS,
only if the article is designed to be placed on the floor or
the ground, or it falls under specified exceptions. Chapter
94 Notes, Note 2, HTSUS. Note 2 explicitly identifies
“cupboards, bookcases, other shelved furniture, and unit
furniture that are designed to be hung, to be fixed to the
wall or to stand one on the other” as such excepted arti-
cles. Id. The HTSUS does not define the term “unit
furniture” or provide any clarification regarding the scope
of the term. Where the HTSUS does not define a tariff
term, the correct meaning of the term is its common
commercial meaning absent contrary evidence. Airflow
Tech., 524 F.3d at 1291. In order to determine the com-
mon commercial meaning of a tariff term, courts may
consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific authorities,
9 STOREWALL v. US
and other reliable information sources. Warner-Lambert
Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
This is precisely what the Court of International
Trade did here. The Court of International Trade first
reviewed the Headings and Subheadings at issue and the
corresponding Chapter Notes to clarify what fell under
the definition of “furniture.” storeWALL, 675 F. Supp. 2d
at 1203-04. The Court of International Trade then con-
sulted both the 1971 Brussels Nomenclature Committee
Report and dictionaries to properly define “unit furniture”
in light of the Chapter Notes. Id. at 1204.
Furthermore, the Court of International Trade did not
err in consulting the Explanatory Notes. Although not
binding, where a tariff term is ambiguous the Explana-
tory Notes may provide persuasive and “clearly relevant
guidance” to the meaning of the term. Agfa Corp. v.
United States, 520 F.3d 1326, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In
making this determination, we recognize that in Airflow
Technology, we cautioned against the use of Explanatory
Notes that contradict the plain language of an unambigu-
ous heading. Airflow Tech., 524 F.3d at 1293 (“[W]hen
the language of the tariff provision is unambiguous and
the Explanatory Notes contradictory, ‘we do not afford
[the Explanatory Notes] any weight.’”). We later reaf-
firmed this holding in reaching our decision in Archer
Daniels. 561 F.3d at 1315. Here, however, the Court of
International Trade’s importation of the “rack exclusion”
from the Explanatory Notes into its definition of “unit
furniture” does not contradict the common commercial
meaning of “unit furniture,” but instead clarifies the scope
of the term. Therefore, the Court of International Trade
appropriately looked to the Explanatory Notes for clarifi-
cation and in doing so properly defined “unit furniture.”
STOREWALL v. US 10
B. The Classification of storeWALL’s Wall Panels
and Locator Tabs
StoreWALL contends that, although the Court of In-
ternational Trade correctly determined that a completed
storeWALL system with shelves could satisfy the defini-
tion of “unit furniture,” it clearly erred in its determina-
tion that a completed system accessorized only with hooks
is “merely a rack, which is expressly excluded from cover-
age under Heading 9403 by the Explanatory Notes.” The
government disagrees and argues that the Court of Inter-
national Trade correctly determined that a storeWALL
system using only hooks is a rack. The government
contends that neither the wall panels nor the HangUp
locator tabs are classifiable as “parts” of “unit furniture”
because they are not designed solely or principally for use
with “unit furniture” (i.e. a storeWALL system with
shelves, baskets, cupboards, etc.), but may also be used
with racks (i.e. a storeWALL system accessorized with
hooks).
We agree with storeWALL that the Court of Interna-
tional Trade clearly erred in its determination that a
completed storeWALL system utilizing only hooks is
“merely a rack,” and therefore, excluded from the Court of
International Trade’s definition of “unit furniture.” The
Court of International Trade determined that the wall
panels and locator tabs were not parts of “unit furniture”
because “a completed storeWALL system is too fungible at
the time of importation to possess one fixed and certain
application as unit furniture.” storeWALL, 675 F. Supp.
2d at 1205. However, the fact that a storeWALL system
is “fungible” is due entirely to the system’s versatility and
adaptability, characteristics that are the hallmark of unit
furniture. As the Court of International Trade’s defini-
tion notes, unit furniture may be “assembled together in
11 STOREWALL v. US
various ways to suit the consumer’s individual needs to
hold various objects or articles.” The 1971 Brussels
Nomenclature Committee Report confirms this definition
by stating that unit furniture is “arranged to suit the
tastes and needs of [its] users and the shape and size of
the rooms to be furnished.” Nomenclature Committee,
26th Session, Report (Apr. 14, 1971); (J.A. 279).
The versatility and adaptability of a completed
storeWALL system is the reason that such a system,
equipped only with hooks, is dissimilar to wall fixtures
such as coat, hat and similar racks. An end user may add
shelving, cupboards, baskets, etc. to a storeWALL system
initially equipped only with just hooks. Indeed, the end
user could remove all of the hooks and replace them with
other accessories. However, a coat rack, a hat rack, or
any conceivable “similar rack” does not possess that same
flexibility. One day a storeWALL system could only have
hooks, the next it could only contain shelving – but a coat
rack will always be just a coat rack.
The fact that the end user has the option with the
storeWALL system to add or subtract accessories is the
very reason any such system is unit furniture under the
Court of International Trade’s definition. Even if
equipped only with hooks, the storeWALL system retains
the essential versatility and adaptability that is the very
essence of unit furniture. Therefore, because both the
wall panels and HangUp locator tabs are dedicated solely
for use with a completed storeWALL system, and such a
system is unit furniture, the Court of International Trade
clearly erred by not classifying the products as “parts” of
unit furniture under Subheading 9403.90.50, HTSUS. 1
1 Because we have determined that the wall panels
are properly classifiable as “parts” of unit furniture under
Subheading 9403.90.50, HTSUS, we need not address
STOREWALL v. US 12
CONCLUSION
There are no genuine issues of material fact with re-
spect to whether storeWALL’s wall panels and HangUp
locator tabs are properly classified under Subheading
9403.90.50, HSTUS. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of
International Trade’s grant of summary judgment and
order that on remand summary judgment be granted to
storeWALL in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
storeWALL’s alternative argument that the wall panels
are properly classifible under Subheading 9403.70.80,
HTSUS, as “separately presented elements” of unit furni-
ture.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
STOREWALL, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
__________________________
2010-1193
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in case no. 05-CV-0462, Judge Leo M. Gordon.
__________________________
DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I join the majority opinion except for Part B, and I
also agree that the majority reaches the correct result.
However, I respectfully disagree with the reasoning of
Part B. In my view, Heading 9403 as applied to “unit
furniture” is a use provision, rather than an eo nomine
provision as the majority concludes.
I
To be a use provision, a heading has to “[describe] ar-
ticles by the manner in which they are used as opposed to
by name.” Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d
1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In contrast, an eo nomine
provision is one “in which an item is identified by name.”
Id.
STOREWALL v. US 2
In many respects, Heading 9403 is unquestionably a
use provision because many subheadings in this section
depend on use. See, e.g., Subheading 9403.10.00, HTSUS
(“Metal furniture of a kind used in offices”) (emphasis
added); Subheading 9403.40, HTSUS (“Wooden furniture
of a kind used in the kitchen”) (emphasis added); Sub-
heading 9403.90.10, HTSUS (“Parts [o]f furniture of a
kind used for motor vehicles” (emphasis added)). Simi-
larly, the chapter notes and explanatory notes for Section
9403 all describe “unit furniture” by “the manner in which
[it] is used as opposed to by name.” Len-Ron, 334 F.3d at
1308. As we concluded in Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United
States, 347 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2003), “[s]ection and
[c]hapter [n]otes are not optional interpretive rules, but
are statutory law” with binding legal effect. See also
General Rule of Interpretation 1, HTSUS (stating that
classification “shall be determined according to the terms
of the headings and any relative section or chapter
notes”). Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 94, which controls
this case, provides:
The articles (other than parts) referred to in head-
ings 9401 to 9403 are to be classified in those
headings only if they are designed for placing on
the floor or ground. The following are, however, to
be classified in the above-mentioned headings
even if they are designed to be hung, to be fixed to
the wall or to stand one on the other: (a) Cup-
boards, bookcases, other shelved furniture and
unit furniture . . . .
Chapter 94 Notes, Note 2, HTSUS (emphases added).
The Explanatory Notes similarly state that “unit furni-
ture” must be “designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall
or to stand one on the other or side by side, for holding
3 STOREWALL v. US
various objects or articles . . . .” 1 Explanatory Notes to
Chapter 94 (2002) (emphases added).
Although the Chapter Notes do not contain the words
“used for,” our court has held that a provision may be a
use provision even without such language. In Processed
Plastic Co. v. United States, 473 F.3d 1164, 1169–70 (Fed.
Cir. 2006), we defined a HTSUS subheading as a use
provision even though the phrase “used for” was absent
from Subheading 9503.70.00, HTSUS. That provision
covered, “Other toys; reduced-size (‘scale’) models and
similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all
kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other toys, put up in
sets or outfits, and parts and accessories thereof.” Id. at
1168. Processed Plastic upheld the standard adopted in
Minnetonka Brands, Inc. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d
1020, 1026 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000), which stated that
[a]lthough nothing in heading 9503 . . . explicitly
states that an item's classification as a ‘toy’ is de-
pendent upon its use, the court finds inherent in
the above definitions the notion that an object is a
toy only if it is designed and used for amusement,
diversion or play, rather than practicality.
See also Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d
1437, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding “[i]nherent in the
term ‘preparation’ . . . the notion that the object involved
is destined for a specific use”). Thus, we construed head-
1 The Explanatory Notes to Chapter 94, though not
legally binding, define the following as “furniture”: “Cup-
boards, bookcases, other shelved furniture and unit
furniture, designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall or to
stand one on the other or side by side, for holding various
objects or articles . . . and separately presented elements
of unit furniture.” Explanatory Notes to Chapter 94
(2002).
STOREWALL v. US 4
ing 9503 as a “principal use” provision, insofar as it
pertained to “toys.”
Similarly, Subheading 9403.90.50, HTSUS, is a use
provision because the classification of the storeWALL
panels turns on the manner of use—whether the items
are primarily used with shelves or with hooks. Just as
the toys in Processed Plastic were “designed and used for
amusement, diversion or play,” the unit furniture here—
as the majority describes—is inherently designed to be
“assembled together in various ways to suit the con-
sumer’s individual needs to hold various objects or arti-
cles.” Maj. Op. at 10–11.
Indeed, the majority touts the “versatility and
adaptability” of unit furniture, and then cites the Brussels
Nomenclature Committee Report, which defines unit
furniture as furniture “arranged to suit the tastes and
needs of [its] users and the shape and size of the rooms to
be furnished.” Maj. Op. at 11 (quoting Nomenclature
Committee, 26th Session, Report (Apr. 14, 1971)); (J.A.
279). As the majority states, “[t]he fact the end user has
the option with the storeWALL system to add or subtract
accessories is the very reason any such system is unit
furniture under the Court of International Trade’s defini-
tion.” Maj. Op at 11. Thus, the majority itself describes
“articles by the manner in which they are used as opposed
to by name.” Len-Ron Mfg. Co., 334 F.3d at 1308. This is
the very definition of a use provision.
II
Under a use analysis, Subheading 9403.90.50 is gov-
erned by Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1(a),
which states that “a tariff classification controlled by use
(other than actual use) is to be determined in accordance
with the use in the United States at, or immediately prior
to, the date of importation of goods of that class or kind to
5 STOREWALL v. US
which the imported goods belong, and the controlling use
is the principal use.” Here, the evidence shows that the
principal use of the storeWALL system was not as a rack.
In 2008, a survey of ten independent dealers selling
storeWALL panels, accounting for over 50% of store-
WALL’s wall panel sales, showed that over 95% of the
accessory sales by these dealers were for cabinets and
shelves, and only 4.8% of sales were for hooks. J.A. 315.
Nonetheless, the government relies on Millennium
Lumber Distribution Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326,
1329–31 (Fed. Cir. 2009), to contend that we cannot look
to principal use because the storeWALL system was “not
dedicated solely or principally to unit furniture as [it
could] be configured, finished, and completed to form
articles which are not classifiable under Heading 9403.”
Appellee’s Br. 21. Under Millennium Lumber, “if the item
as imported can be made into multiple parts of articles,
the item must identify and fix with certainty the individ-
ual parts that are to be made from it.” Id. at 1329 (inter-
nal quotation omitted). The cut lumber at issue in
Millennium Lumber was unfinished, raw material that
could be used for trusses and other general purposes,
rather than “identifiable parts” of a specific finished truss.
Id. at 1329–30. In contrast, the storeWALL panels are
finished items that are consistent with the Court of Inter-
national Trade’s definition of unit furniture—items that
may be “assembled together in various ways to suit the
consumer’s individual needs to hold various objects or
articles.” storeWALL, LLC v. United States, No. 05-00462,
slip. op. at 7 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 18, 2009). The principal
use provision thus governs, and the wall panels are
properly classifiable as “parts” of unit furniture under
Subheading 9403.90.50.