Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Jan. 17
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 17 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
H330112: Revocation of NY N306583; Tariff Classification of Frozen Buri Fish Collar
| Ruling: The frozen buri fish collar is classified under heading 0303, HTSUS, and specifically under subheading 0303.89.0080, which provides for “Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading 0304: Other fish, excluding edible fish offal of subheadings 0303.91 to 0303.99: Other: Other.” The column one general rate of duty is free. |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of the frozen buri fish collar at issue? |
| Item: The frozen collar of the fish Buri, also known as, Japanese Amberjack or Yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata). The fish will be beheaded, eviscerated, the collar retrieved, rinsed, cooled, wiped dry, packaged, vacuum sealed, labeled, measured and frozen. The finished product, “Frozen Buri Collar,” will be imported in bulk quantities of 12 pieces per each airtight bag and sold to the food service industry. |
| Reason: The buri fish collar at issue is frozen, beheaded, eviscerated, and contains bones. It meets the relevant terms of EN 03.02 and EN 03.03, and is provided for in heading 0303, HTSUS. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 28, 2023 |
H325435: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1174; Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same
| Ruling: Print-Rite has not met its burden to establish that the articles at issue do not infringe claim 1 of the ’093 patent. Print-Rite has failed to show that the articles at issue do not have a “bearing being positioned to the first outer surface” that is required by limitation 1c from claim 1 of the ’093 patent. |
| Issue: Has Print-Rite met its burden to show that the articles at issue don't infringe on any of relevant patent claims, as noted below, from the general exclusion order resulting from the 1174 investigation? |
| Item: Toner cartridges from Print-Rite. The model names are TN221/TN225 (RW3), TN223/TN227 (RW3), and TN730/TN760/TN770 (RW3). |
| Reason: The Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch recognizes that as a legal matter “there is a fine line between construing the claims in light of the specification and improperly importing a limitation from the specification into the claims.” The EOE Branch finds that none of Print-Rite’s references above to the specification rises to the level of “a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” Accordingly, the EOE Branch concludes that the relevant case law supports adoption of Brother’s proposed claim construction, based on its expert’s testimony, that a person skilled in the art would understand “positioned to” to include “positioned at, near, or toward.” Print-Rite has not pointed to any intrinsic evidence that rebuts this plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation. Thus, we reject Print-Rite’s proposed interpretation and construe the term “positioned to” to mean “at, near, or toward.” |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 30, 2023 |
H329729: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1174; Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same
| Ruling: YDT has not met its burden to establish that the articles at issue do not infringe claim 1 of the ’093 patent. YDT has failed to prove a prima facie case that the articles at issue do not meet the relevant claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents as applied by CBP. |
| Issue: Has YDT met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe on claims 1-5, 10, or 12-15 of the ’093 patent, and thus are not subject to the general exclusion order issued in the 1174 investigation? |
| Item: Cartridges for printers |
| Reason: YDT failed to provide any comparison between the substitute element and claimed element on an element-by-element basis. Instead, YDT’s cursory application of the “function-way-result” and “insubstantial differences” tests improperly compare the articles at issue to Brother’s cartridges generally, rather than analyzing the specific limitations at issue. YDT fails to provide any explanation, under the “function-way-result” test, of (1) how its substitute element differs from the claimed “rotatable about” element in function, (2) the way in which its substitute element differs from the claimed “rotatable about” element, or (3) how its substitute element achieves a different result from the claimed “rotatable about” element. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 1, 2023 |