## Facts

- Timber Products Co. imported plywood from Brazil and described the outer plies on entry documents as various tropical hardwoods, including “White Virola (Virola spp.)” and other woods such as Sumauma, Faveira, and Amesclao.
- U.S. Customs classified the merchandise under HTSUS subheading 4412.14.30 (plywood with at least one outer ply of nonconiferous wood), subject to an 8% ad valorem duty.
- Timber argued the plywood should be classified duty-free under HTSUS subheading 4412.13.40, covering plywood with at least one outer ply of the tropical wood “Virola.”
- The parties did not dispute that the common meaning of “Virola” in the tariff schedule is limited to the botanical genus *Virola spp.*
- Timber attempted to prove that “Virola” had a broader commercial designation in the plywood trade that included multiple species (and mixtures) beyond *Virola spp.*
- At trial, Timber presented trade witnesses, but their testimony varied on the scope of “Virola,” its geographic limitations, and whether usage was consistent over time and across the industry.

## Issues

1. Whether the importer proved that “Virola” in HTSUS subheading 4412.13.40 has a commercial designation broader than its common botanical meaning (*Virola spp.*).
2. If no broader commercial designation was established, whether Customs correctly classified the plywood under HTSUS subheading 4412.14.30 rather than the duty-free “Virola” provision in subheading 4412.13.40.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment sustaining Customs’ classification under HTSUS 4412.14.30.
- The court held Timber failed to carry its burden to establish a commercial designation for “Virola” that was definite, uniform, and general throughout the relevant trade.
- Because “Virola” retained its undisputed common meaning limited to *Virola spp.*, Timber’s mixed-species plywood did not qualify for the duty-free “Virola” subheading.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff terms are construed according to their common and commercial meanings, presumed to be the same unless a different commercial designation is proven.
- A party asserting a special commercial meaning bears the burden to show the meaning is definite, uniform, and general in the relevant trade.
- The importer challenging Customs’ classification must prove both that Customs’ classification is incorrect and that the importer’s proposed classification is correct.
- Tariff classification involves (1) interpreting tariff terms (law) and (2) determining whether the goods fall within the terms as construed (fact); trial-court findings on trade usage and witness credibility are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained an 8% duty classification because the importer’s inconsistent trade-usage evidence did not establish a uniform, generally accepted commercial meaning of “Virola” broader than *Virola spp.*, foreclosing duty-free treatment under the “Virola” plywood provision.


Timber Prods. Co. v. United States, 515 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2008)