Importer's Granted Exclusion Request Didn't Actually Cover Importer's Products, CIT Rules
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421, not “other” catalytic reactors under 3815, the Court of International Trade ruled April 29.
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.
Mitsubishi had requested the Section 301 exclusion for the catalyst blocks. But the importer hadn’t specified a particular HTS heading for the exclusion -- its request only provided a description of its products. When the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative drafted the language of the exclusion, that language didn’t actually cover Mitsubishi’s products.
Even if it had, the Section 301 exclusion was drafted to cover products under HTS heading 3815, CIT Judge Jane Restani said; Mitsubishi’s products, based on the General Rules of Interpretation, were classifiable first under 8421.
She dismissed Mitsubishi’s claim of equitable estoppel, saying that, when USTR answered the importer’s request, it sent Mitsubishi a letter in which it “provided a link to its proposed exclusion language” and informed the importer that “[t]he scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.” This put Mitsuishi on notice that its products might not be covered, she said.
The judge also explained why the blocks were covered under 8421, not 3815.
The products in question were SCR (selective catalytic reduction) catalyst blocks meant to be installed into SCR catalyst systems. These systems turn the “harmful NOx” in industrial flue gas, i.e. exhaust, “into harmless byproducts (water and nitrogen),” Restani explained. First, the systems mix the industrial flue gas with ammonia, “which allows the flue gas to pass through the SCR catalyst blocks.” Second, “[o]nce the flue gas passes through the SCR catalyst blocks, the flue gas no longer contains NOx as it exits through the outlet duct.”
Mitsubishi had argued that the process by which this second step occurs is chemical, not physical, so it couldn’t be considered filtration or purification under the dictionary definitions of the term (see 2408230019). It had also pushed back against the U.S.’s claim that the products were apparatus, not parts in a larger system.
Restani agreed that the blocks weren’t filters, as “[n]o matter is separated out of the flue gas suspension.” But they were purifiers under heading 8421, she said, because they work by “essentially freeing the flue gas from the undesirable and harmful NOx.”
Other evidence supports this interpretation, she said. She observed that both patents filed with regard to the blocks referred to them as “purifying catalyst[s]” and an “exhaust gas purification method.” And she said that the HTS explanatory notes refer to “chemical filters and purifiers for air and other gases” and provide catalytic converters as an example of merchandise covered under heading 8421. The judge explained that these converters, similar to the Mitsubishi’s SCR catalyst blocks, “perform a catalytic oxidation-reduction reaction, converting harmful hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and NOx, into harmless water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen gas and oxygen.”
She parted with the government, however, to find that the blocks weren’t apparatus but rather parts “within the larger SCR system.” As a result, she classified them under subheading 8421.99 rather than the government’s preferred 8421.39.80.
She also addressed whether the blocks were prima facie covered under heading 3815, finding they were not. She said that Mitsubishi’s blocks exceeded the requirements of heading 3815 because they were more than just “supported catalyst chemical compounds alone.” Further, the heading includes the phrase “not elsewhere specified or included,” and the blocks were, in fact, “elsewhere specified or included.”
They weren't classifiable under heading 3815 using General Rule of Interpretation 3(b), either, she said, because they were already classifiable under heading 8421 using General Rule of Interpretation 1.
(Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 25-53, CIT # 21-00573, dated 04/29/2025; Judge: Jane Restani; Attorneys: Serhiy Kiyasov of Rock Trade Law for plaintiff Mitsubishi Power Americas; Luke Mathers for defendant U.S. government)