## Facts

- Ford imported model year 2012 Transit Connect 6/7 vehicles from Turkey.
- Customs liquidated a single entry under HTSUS subheading 8704.31.00 (vehicles for transport of goods), imposing a 25% ad valorem duty.
- Ford protested, asserting classification under HTSUS subheading 8703.23.00 (motor vehicles principally designed for transport of persons), subject to a 2.5% duty.
- As imported, the vehicles included a second-row foldable bench seat with seat belts, rear side windows, and passenger-oriented features (e.g., child safety locks, cupholder, coat hooks, map pockets, and interior lighting).
- After importation and Customs clearance, Ford removed the second-row seats and made other changes before delivery in a cargo-van configuration.
- Customs treated the passenger configuration at importation as an “artifice or disguise” masking the vehicles’ alleged commercial nature and reclassified under heading 8704.
- Ford sued after Customs denied its protest; after supplementation of the factual record, both sides renewed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Ford also moved to quash or suspend a government administrative summons issued in connection with the dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the Transit Connect 6/7 vehicles, in their condition as imported, are classified under HTSUS heading 8703 (principally designed for transport of persons) or heading 8704 (transport of goods).
2. Whether Ford’s importation of the vehicles with rear seats and passenger features was an impermissible “disguise or artifice” allowing Customs to disregard the import condition in favor of post-importation configuration and use.
3. Whether the court should quash or suspend the government’s administrative summons.

## Decision

- Granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment on tariff classification and denied the Government’s cross-motion.
- Held the vehicles were properly classified, as imported, under HTSUS subheading 8703.23.00.
- Rejected the Government’s “artifice or disguise” argument, concluding the imported configuration was genuine for classification purposes.
- Denied Ford’s motion to quash or suspend the administrative summons.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff classification is determined by the condition of the merchandise at the time of importation, not by post-importation modification or use.
- Whether a vehicle is “principally designed” for transport of persons is evaluated primarily from objective physical characteristics and design features present at importation.
- Duty-minimizing structuring is lawful if the imported article genuinely fits the claimed classification; improper “disguise or artifice” requires more than a duty-avoidance motive.
- Under GRI 1, classification begins with the terms of the headings and relevant notes; where the imported article fits a heading by its terms, further interpretive rules are generally unnecessary.
- Explanatory Notes may be considered as interpretive guidance in distinguishing passenger vehicles from goods-transport vehicles.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade concluded that the Transit Connect 6/7 vehicles’ objective passenger features at importation placed them under HTSUS 8703, rejected Customs’ theory that Ford’s import configuration was a sham, and left the government’s investigatory summons in place.


Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017)