## Facts

- Clarendon Marketing, Inc. imported refined liquid hydrocarbon mixtures in 1989 and entered them under HTSUS subheading 2710.00.25 (“Naphthas (except motor fuel or motor fuel blending stock)”), which carried a lower duty rate.
- U.S. Customs classified the same merchandise under HTSUS subheading 2710.00.15 (“Motor fuel blending stock”), resulting in a substantially higher duty.
- The parties agreed the merchandise fell within the accepted definition of “naphthas” and that products of this type were commonly used as motor-fuel blending stock.
- Neither side introduced evidence of the actual use of the specific imported products after importation.
- Clarendon protested Customs’ classification; the Court of International Trade granted Clarendon summary judgment on cross-motions, classifying the imports as naphthas under 2710.00.25.
- The United States appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether petroleum products concededly within the definition of “naphthas,” but also suitable and commonly used as motor-fuel blending stock, are classifiable under HTSUS 2710.00.25 (“Naphthas (except motor fuel or motor fuel blending stock)”) or under HTSUS 2710.00.15 (“Motor fuel blending stock”).
2. Whether Customs could treat the “except motor fuel or motor fuel blending stock” language as requiring the importer to prove the negative (non-motor-fuel/non-blending-stock) absent proof of actual use.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s grant of summary judgment for Clarendon.
- The court held the imports were properly classified under HTSUS subheading 2710.00.25 as “naphthas.”
- The court rejected Customs’ attempt to shift classification to the higher-duty “motor fuel blending stock” provision based on suitability or common use, where there was no evidence of actual use of these imports as blending stock.
- The court concluded that the statutory text’s plain meaning controlled the classification outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff classification begins with the statutory text; when the language is clear, its plain meaning governs.
- A product that unambiguously fits a descriptive tariff provision should not be displaced by a higher-duty, use-based provision without the type of evidentiary showing required for use-based classifications.
- Exception language within a descriptive heading should not be construed to impose an extra-textual requirement that the importer disprove alternative, higher-duty uses absent statutory direction and supporting evidence.
- Where no proof of actual use is presented, common suitability or typical uses do not alone establish classification under an actual-use or use-based provision.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that petroleum imports concededly within the definition of “naphthas” remained classifiable as naphthas under HTSUS 2710.00.25, and Customs could not impose a higher-duty “motor fuel blending stock” classification without evidence establishing the requisite use-based predicate.


Clarendon Mktg., Inc. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1998)