Trade Court Says GoPro's Camera Housings Are Camera Parts, Not Cases

Judge Timothy Reif ruled that eight of GoPro's housing models fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8529.90.86, which includes parts used solely or principally with cameras under heading 8525, free of duty, and not as camera cases under subheading 4202.99.9000, dutiable at 20%.

GoPro imported the eight housing models for a variety of its HERO action cameras from October 2018 to February 2019. The housings are form-fitted to these specific cameras and include features to improve their "functionality," including making the camera usable under water.

The court's 190th opinion of 2023, which is one shy of the court's record for a calendar year since 1999, spent the bulk of the discussion on whether the camera housings fit under HTS heading 4202, CBP's preferred heading. The four-factor test for heading 4202, which covers "camera cases" along with "similar containers," says that a good must have all four of the heading's "essential characteristics" regarding how they store, transport, protect and organize multiple items within.

First assessing whether the housings are camera cases, Reif turned to "industry-specific encyclopedias," expert testimony, the physical packaging of the goods and marketing materials. The court accepted the encyclopedic definition of "camera case" in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, which establishes that when the user tries to use the camera, "the user would alter a part of the camera case to use the camera within."

Using the GoPro cameras within the housings doesn't require the user to alter the housing by removing a flap or cover, the court said, adding that the housings actually "enhance" the use of the camera. The court said this doesn't match the encyclopedic definition.

Reif also assessed the housings' commercial use and "denomination of trade." GoPro claimed that the industry recognizes a camera case as involving four elements: "It must protect, store, organize and transport a camera/cameras and their parts, and/or common accessories." The U.S. said this understanding of camera cases isn't uniform throughout the industry since other companies sell fitted, hard plastic protective coverings as cases.

Reif found that the housings don't fit the meaning of the tariff term "camera case" since it "fails to meet the elements of storage, organization and carriage of the cameras within" and also improves the functionality of the GoPro cameras, which is a purpose "not enumerated in the encyclopedic definition" of camera cases. The "most significant" properties of the housing are "those that enable or enhance the use of the camera," the judge said, specially pointing to its "waterproof nature," spring-loaded function buttons and a thin layer of foam that ensures the "tight fit and stabilization of the camera inside the housing."

The government argued that the words "case" and "housing" are "interchangeable," but Reif disagreed. While the terms may overlap, the two are "neither interchangeable nor synonymous," the judge said.

Reif next applied the four-factor test for goods described as "similar containers" under HTS heading 4202 by looking to whether the housings organize, store, protect and carry another item comparably to other goods under the heading. First addressing the housings' organization, Reif said the goods are not designed to accommodate multiple items and don't organize goods comparably to the other items under heading 4202.

While the housings allow for battery packs and anti-fog inserts that clip onto the camera, that ability just adds to the functionality of the housings, the judge said. Any organizational capabilities "are secondary to the functions of enhancing the operation of the action cameras," the opinion said.

Ruling on the storage features of goods under heading 4202, Reif said the "unifying feature" of these products is that the goods can be accessed "only if the container is modified, opened or removed," adding that they are "designed to enclose an object within when the object is not in use." The court said this clearly isn't the case, and even though the U.S. said the cameras don't retain 100% functionality when they are in the housings due to "degraded" sound quality, Reif said the primary functions of the housings aren't for storing the cameras.

Also, even assuming the housings did degrade the cameras' audio quality, this dimishment in audio wouldn't prove the housings provided a storage function. "Muffled audio does not suffice to negate functionality within the scope of the term delineated within" the four-factor test for heading 4202 that was codified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Otter Products v. U.S.

The court noted that the housings did offer protection comparably to other heading 4202 goods and said the housings aren't meant to facilitate the carriage of goods. While the housings may provide minimal carrying functionality, they do not serve this function within the meaning of the HTS heading's "similar containers" language, the opinion said.

Reif said the correct heading should be 8529, adding that the housings are "specialised to receive" the GoPro action cameras, a phrase used in the heading's explanatory notes. Evidence shows that the housings are specially designed to enclose only certain models of action cameras, the court said, supporting their designation as camera parts.

(GoPro Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 23-190, CIT # 20-00176, dated 12/28/23; Judge: Timothy Reif; Attorneys: Alena Eckhardt of Nackachi Eckhardt for plaintiff GoPro Inc.; Edward Kenny for defendant U.S. government)