UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-13

Before the Court in Honeywell International, Inc., v. United States, Court No. 17-00256, Slip-Op 25-13 (January 30, 2025) were cross-motions for summary judgments regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of three protests challenging the agency’s liquidation of Honeywell’s radial, web, and chordal segments under subheading 6307.90.98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States as “[o]ther made up articles, including dress patterns,” dutiable at seven percent ad valorem.

The issue turned on Honeywell’s allegation that the merchandise at issue was properly classified in HTSUS subheading 8803.20.00 as “[p]arts of goods of heading 8801 or 8802: … [u]ndercarriages and part thereof,” a duty-free provision applicable to parts of aircraft. The government sought classification of the segments pursuant to HTSUS subheading 6307.90.98, arguing that heading 8803 does not cover the segments, since this provision covers parts of aircraft. At issue was whether the segments meet the requirements for classification as parts of aircraft. However, the Court distinguished this case from other classification cases involving parts of articles because the segments imported by Honeywell were not installed directly on an aircraft. The segments, in this case, were imported into the United States as an upstream product for the production of the aircraft brake discs, an article the parties agreed constitutes a part of an aircraft. In other words, the court had to determine to the extent to which a part of a part is a part for tariff purposes.

Both parties agreed that the “subpart rule” may apply to articles within the aircraft parts supply chain, no matter how far upstream, if the articles meet the requirement for a part (or a part of a part) and are not otherwise excluded from classification as a part by relevant section and chapter notes. The court reasoned that although the segments at issue did not look like parts of aircraft, the relationship between the segments as imported and the article of which they are claimed to be a part requires that the segments undergo substantial post-importation processing in the manufacturing of needled preforms, carbonized preforms, carbon-carbon preforms and, finally, aircraft brake discs. The court considered whether this degree of processing removes the segments from classification as aircraft parts notwithstanding the segments’ principal, and perhaps sole, use in the production of aircraft brake discs.

The court determined that the imported segments are dedicated for use in needled preforms without further processing and have no substantial commercial use outside of that application. Since the preforms are composed of these segments, they are considered integral parts. The Government’s argument against classifying the segments as aircraft parts relied on the complexity of aircraft brake disc production rather than the segments’ dedicated use. The court rejected this reasoning, noting that the key issue is whether the segments are finished or unfinished parts at importation in relation to the downstream aircraft component, rather than whether they resemble a completed brake disc. The court concluded that the imported segments must be classified under heading 8803. Since no dispute existed as to the proper subheading, the court further found that the imported segments must be classified under subheading 8803.20.00 and granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.