## Facts

- Jarvis Clark Co. imported “tippler hoppers,” mining cars used only to haul and dump ore and waste from underground mines.
- The cars ran on narrow-gauge rails in mines, were not self-propelled, had no brakes, and did not conform to railroad safety standards; their gauge (20, 30, or 36 inches) differed from standard U.S. railroad gauge.
- U.S. Customs classified the merchandise under TSUS item 690.15 (“railroad and railway rolling stock … other cars, not self-propelled”) and assessed an 18% duty.
- The importer protested, claiming the proper classification was TSUS item 664.08 (certain “excavating … and extracting machinery … whether stationary or mobile … for earth, minerals, or ores”), subject to a substantially lower duty rate.
- In the Court of International Trade (CIT), the parties proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts.
- The CIT granted summary judgment to the government after concluding the importer had not established its proposed classification and stated the importer had “failed to overcome” Customs’ classification, without separately deciding whether Customs’ classification was substantively correct.

## Issues

1. In a customs classification case, must the CIT determine the correctness of both the importer’s proposed classification and the government’s classification and reach the legally correct classification under the tariff schedules?
2. May the CIT uphold Customs’ classification solely because the importer fails to prove its own proposed classification is correct?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held the CIT must decide the correctness of both the importer’s proposed classification and the government’s classification.
- The CIT erred by stopping after rejecting the importer’s proposed classification and treating that failure as sufficient to sustain Customs’ classification without an independent determination of its correctness.

## Legal Principles

- In tariff classification disputes, the CIT’s role is to make a de novo judicial determination of the legally correct classification under the tariff schedules.
- The importer’s burden to show Customs’ classification is wrong does not eliminate the court’s obligation to evaluate whether Customs’ classification is correct.
- The CIT is not confined to a binary choice between the parties’ proposed classifications; if neither is correct, the court must select the proper classification required by law.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required the CIT to independently determine the correct tariff classification by assessing the validity of Customs’ classification as well as the importer’s proposed alternative, and remanded because the CIT failed to perform that analysis.


Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir. 1984)