Classification: Revisiting The Rule of Relative Specificity of General Rule of Interpretation 3(a)
On October 15, 2009, the Court of International Trade, in Photonetics, Inc. v. United States, provided a useful refresher as to the “rule of relative specificity” set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule at General Rule of Interpretation 3(a). The rule provides in relevant part that “[w]hen . . . goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.” The court noted that “[w]here articles can be classified under two HTSUS headings, under GRI 3(a) the classification turns on which of these two provisions are more specific. . . . Courts undertaking the GRI 3(a) comparison look to the provision with requirements that are more difficult to satisfy and that describe the article with the greatest degree of accuracy and certainty.”
The Court of International Trade cited to an earlier Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case that discussed the rule of relative specificity, Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, which adds that the classification “analysis is also guided by the general rule of customs jurisprudence that, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, a product described by both a use provision and an eo nomine provision is generally more specifically provided for under the use provision.” An eo nomine provision describes a commodity by a specific name, usually one common in commerce, and includes all forms of the article. Case law holds that the common and commercial meaning of tariff terms are presumed to be the same.
In sum, the case is a reminder that, when classifying goods for import, if an article could fall within the terms of two different tariff provisions, the most specific should control, namely, the provision that is the most difficult to satisfy. If given the choice between opting for an eo nomine provision and a use provision, the use provision is typically the more specific of the two and thus the proper classification. A “use” provision describes articles by the manner in which they are used as opposed to by name. However, importers and brokers must bear in mind that the rule of relative specificity is only applicable when the article in question can plainly be placed under two competing tariff headings; GRI 3(a) should be resorted to only when there are two classification choices equally applicable to the article in question.
