## Facts

- Bausch & Lomb imported the “Interplak” battery-operated electric toothbrushes from January 1991 to August 1992.
- The product consisted of interchangeable plastic brush heads, a detachable handle containing a battery-operated motor and rechargeable batteries, and a stand incorporating a battery recharger.
- Customs initially classified the imports as “toothbrushes” under HTSUS subheading 9603.21.00.
- Customs later issued a notice reclassifying the merchandise as “other” electromechanical domestic appliances with a self-contained electric motor under HTSUS subheading 8509.80.00, increasing duties.
- Bausch & Lomb protested; Customs denied the protest.
- The Court of International Trade granted summary judgment for the United States, sustaining classification under subheading 8509.80.00.
- Bausch & Lomb appealed, disputing both the tariff classification and the propriety of summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Interplak electric toothbrush is properly classified under the HTSUS as a “toothbrush” (9603.21.00) or as an “electromechanical domestic appliance, with self-contained electric motor; other” (8509.80.00).
2. Whether summary judgment is appropriate in a tariff classification case when the product’s physical characteristics are undisputed and the dispute concerns the legal meaning and application of the HTSUS headings and notes.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade.
- The court held the Interplak is properly classified under HTSUS subheading 8509.80.00 as an electromechanical domestic appliance with a self-contained electric motor.
- The court held summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the nature of the imported merchandise; the remaining dispute was legal classification under the HTSUS.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff classification follows a two-step approach: (1) the meaning of tariff terms is a question of law; (2) whether the merchandise falls within those terms depends on underlying facts about the merchandise.
- Classification is determined under the General Rules of Interpretation, beginning with GRI 1 (the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes).
- Summary judgment is appropriate in classification cases where the material facts describing the merchandise are undisputed and the outcome turns on legal interpretation and application of the HTSUS.
- For composite merchandise, classification turns on the imported article as a whole, not a single component; a replaceable brush head does not control classification where the imported good is a motorized appliance.
- Prior agency treatment of the same merchandise does not control the correct classification if inconsistent with the best reading of the HTSUS.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained Customs’ reclassification of a battery-operated electric toothbrush as an electromechanical domestic appliance under HTSUS 8509 and confirmed that summary judgment is appropriate when the product’s characteristics are undisputed and only legal classification remains.


Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998)