Counterweights Are 'Backhoe' Parts Subject to Section 301 Tariffs, US Argues at CIT
Counterweights for mini-excavators are "backhoe" parts and should not be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in an April 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief bolstered the government's January motion for judgment (see 2301240063) by arguing that the Bobcat mini-excavators that the counterweights are "designed for and exclusively used on" are themselves "backhoes" (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Instead of blurring the distinctions between excavators and backhoes, as Norca accused, the government said it simply sought to "define the meaning of tariff terms." The only question in this case, DOJ said, is whether the counterweights are described by statistical reporting number 8431.49.9044 as “Parts ... of backhoes, shovels, clamshells, and draglines; Other; Other,” as advanced by CBP, or under 8431.49.9095 as parts of "other machinery," as advanced by Norca.
DOJ said it examined the common meanings of the terms "backhoe" and "excavator" and found that the mini-excavators "are a type of excavator that fit the common meaning of the term 'backhoe,' as they are designed to scoop soil and other material by using a boom and arm to draw a bucket towards a machine with a 360-degree revolving superstructure." Doosan Bobcat North America, Norca’s own customer for the counterweights, agreed that the mini-excavators it imports are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8429.52.10. The machine is therefore classified under subheading 8429.52.10 as a type of excavator that is a backhoe, and the counterweights are "parts of backhoes," DOJ said.
Norca's secondary argument that CBP ignored precedent was incorrect because customs rulings are not precedential, DOJ said. The court must look only to the record in this case and the classification analyses made by both sides, DOJ said.
Summary judgment is warranted because the attributes and function of both the counterweights and the excavators are not in dispute and classification is a legal question for the court to determine, DOJ said.