3D Pen Importers File Long-Awaited Motion for Judgment
Two 3D-printing pen kit importers moved for judgment Aug. 25 saying their products are demonstrably toys, not hand tools, based on the Carborundum factors (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).
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.
Quantified Operations’ and Wobbleworks’ case has been marked by a lengthy discovery process (see 2502140062), culminating in the Court of International Trade’s refusal to compel discovery (see 2505070022). The two importers separately brought their complaints to the trade court in late 2023 (see 2402070017).
The importers argued in their motion for judgment that CBP wrongly classified their pens as “machinery for working rubber or plastics” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8477 rather than as toys under heading 9503.
Alternatively, they said, the trade court should rule that the pen kits are properly classified under subheading 8467 for “tools for working in the hand … or with self-contained electric or nonelectric motor.” They further proposed, as another alternative, heading 8516, which covers “electric instantaneous or storage water heaters” and also includes “other electrothermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes.”
They first argued that, prima facie, their products are of the same class and kind as products categorized in heading 9503 and are primarily used as toys.
An analysis of the Carborundum factors also puts their products in the toy section, they said.
They said the pens’ physical characteristics are toy-like, as the products are “brightly colored” and designed for use by all ages. Their environment of sale includes colorful packaging and marketing in “toy publications such as The Toy Insider and Teen Vogue (media that target younger audience interested in toys and trendy items).”
Their products use the same channels of trade as toys under HTS 9503, they said, with sales online “in toys/games categories" and in physical retail locations “in toy and craft departments.” This, too, is true for its more advanced model, they said.
And the toy industry “overwhelming[ly]” recognizes the pens as toys, they claimed, saying the products have “been exhibited at the premier toy fairs worldwide, including New York, Nuremberg, London, Hong Kong Kong,” and have “won major toy awards.”
The products’ purchasers also expect toys, they said. This holds true even for their high-end pens that sell for up to $200, for which, “[d]espite taglines (such as ‘professional-grade’ and ‘for architects), the engineering and marketing … remains similar to any other 3D-pens, merely adding enhancements,” they said.
This further explains the pricing of the pens, which makes economic sense only in the context of the market segmentation within toy sales, the importers said.
“This aligns with the ‘kidult’ phenomenon -- adults purchasing toys for themselves,” they said.
Quantified and Wobbleworks also undertook the analysis in the opposite direction to show their pens aren’t classifiable under heading 8477. They said the pens aren’t machinery because, among other things, industrial machines “are sizable, often stationary, heavy pieces of equipment (often weighing thousands of pounds and measuring many feet in length/height).”