Logitech Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 21-106
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
LOGITECH, INC.,
Plaintiff, 	Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
v. 	Court No. 16-00017
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION
[Following trial, holding that subject Webcams and ConferenceCams are classified under
HTSUS Heading 8517.]
Dated: August 24, 2021
Patrick D. Gill and Deborah B. Stern, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., of New
York, N.Y., for Plaintiff Logitech, Inc.
Jamie L. Shookman, Jason M. Kenner, and Peter A. Mancuso, Trial Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, New York, N.Y.,
argued for Defendant United States. On the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge,
International Trade Field Office. Of counsel was Paula S. Smith, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection of New York, N.Y.
Gordon, Judge: Plaintiff, Logitech, Inc. (“Logitech” or “Plaintiff”), challenges the
denial by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) of Logitech’s protest of
Customs’ classification of the imported merchandise that 	fall into two categories:
“Webcams” and “ConferenceCams” (collectively, “subject merchandise”), as “television
cameras” under subheading 8525.80.3010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (“HTSUS”), with a duty rate of 2.1 percent ad valorem.
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 1 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 2
Plaintiff 	claims 	that 	the 	subject 	merchandise 	are 	properly 	classified 	as
“other 	apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,
including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network” under HTSUS
Subheadings 8517.69.0000 (Webcams) and 8517.62.0050 (ConferenceCams), each
duty free.
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2018). For the reasons
set forth below, the court enters judgment for Plaintiff that the subject ConferenceCams
are classifiable under HTSUS Subheading 8517.62.00 and the subject Webcams are
properly classifiable under HTSUS Subheading 8517.69.00.
I. Background
Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See Pl.’s Mot.
for Summ. J., ECF No. 31; Def.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 37. The court denied
the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, explaining that HTSUS Heading 8517
is a principal use provision, and the court could not grant summary judgment in favor of
either party on the fact-intensive principal use factors set forth in United Sates v.
Carborundum Co., 63 CCPA 98, 102, 536 F.2d 373, 377 (1976) without it impermissibly
finding facts about the principal use of the subject merchandise (particularly given the
summary judgment standard requiring the court to draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-movant on contested fact issues). 	See Memorandum and Order at 2, ECF
No. 42. 	Before trial, the court delineated the uncontested facts in its Pretrial Order.
See Pretrial Order, Schedule C, ECF No. 81 (“Joint Uncontested Facts”). The court held
a bench trial on November 20–22, 25, 2019. Trial, ECF No. 83.
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 2 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 3
After the conclusion of the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. 	See Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
ECF 	No. 	107 	(“Pl.’s 	FOF 	& 	COL”); 	Defendant’s 	Proposed 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Conclusions 	of 	Law, 	ECF 	No. 108 	(“Def.’s 	FOF” 	& 	“Def.’s 	COL”); 	Defendant’s
Confidential Proposed Findings of Fact, ECF No. 109. The parties also submitted post-
trial briefs. 	See Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief (“Pl.’s Br.”), ECF No. 110; Defendant’s
Confidential Post-Trial Brief (“Def.’s Br.”), ECF No. 112. 1
II. Standard of Review and Legal Framework
The court reviews Customs’ protest decisions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1)
(2018). The classification of merchandise involves a two-step inquiry. ADC Telecomms.,
Inc. v. United States, 916 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 	First, the court ascertains
the meaning of the terms within the relevant tariff provisions, which is a question of law;
second, the court determines whether the subject merchandise fits within those terms,
which is a question of fact. 	Id. 	This case presents both questions of law, the meaning
and scope of HTSUS Headings 8517 and 8525, as well as questions of fact—how the
imported products are principally used.
In 	actions 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1581(a), 	the 	court 	reviews 	Customs’ 	legal
interpretations of the tariff schedule relative to their “power to persuade,” United States v.
Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 235 (2001) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140
(1944)). 	A corollary is “the rule of construction of revenue statutes whereby unclear or
1 All citations to parties’ briefs and other documents on the record are to their public
versions unless otherwise noted.
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 3 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 4
ambiguous tariff classifications have traditionally been resolved in favor of the importer.”
Anhydrides & Chems., Inc. v. United States, 130 F.3d 1481, 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing,
inter alia, United States v. Greek Orthodox Church of Evangelismos, 49 CCPA 35, 40
(1962) (referring to the “rule of liberal construction in favor of the importer”)).
For contested factual issues, a statutory presumption of correctness imposes on
Plaintiff the burden of proof. See 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (2000); Universal Elecs., Inc. v.
United States, 112 F.3d 488, 492 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Chrysler Corp. v. United States,
33 CIT 90, 97, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1353–54 (2009), aff’d, 592 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir.
2010). Despite its name, the statutory presumption of correctness is not a true evidentiary
presumption governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 301, but rather an “assumption” that
allocates to plaintiff the burden of proof on contested factual issues that arise from the
protest decision. Universal Elecs., 112 F.3d at 492 n.2; 21B Charles A. Wright & Kenneth
W. Graham, Jr., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5124 (2d ed. 2021) (“Rule 301 does not apply
to ‘assumptions’—rules for allocating the burden of proof that are often mislabeled as
‘presumptions.’ ... the best known include: ... the ‘assumption’ that official duty has been
regularly performed.”). 	Plaintiff’s burden of proof carries an initial burden of production
(to make an evidentiary proffer), and an ultimate burden of persuasion to establish by a
preponderance plaintiff’s operative facts. Universal Elecs., 112 F.3d at 492. Importantly,
the presumption does not “change the rule of strict construction of revenue statutes, or
negate judicial responsibility for correct construction of tariff classifications.” Anhydrides
& Chemicals, Inc., 130 F.3d at 1486. 	In this action, the presumption of correctness
imposes a burden on Plaintiff to establish by a preponderance that the merchandise is
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 4 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 5
principally used as other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or
other data, for communication in a wired or wireless network.
A. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
The HTSUS governs the classification of merchandise imported into the United
States. 	See Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The HTSUS “is organized by headings, each of which has one or more subheadings; the
headings set forth general categories of merchandise, and the subheadings provide
a more particularized segregation of the goods within each category.” Id. “The first four
digits of an HTSUS provision constitute the heading, whereas the remaining digits reflect
subheadings.” 	Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158, 1163 n.4
(Fed. Cir. 2017). 	“[T]he headings and subheadings ... are enumerated in chapters 1
through 99 of the HTSUS (each of which has its own section and chapter notes) ....”
R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States, 757 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 	The HTSUS
“also contains the ‘General Notes,’ the ‘General Rules of Interpretation’ (‘GRIs’), the
‘Additional [U.S.] Rules of Interpretation’ (‘ARIs’), and various appendices for particular
categories of goods.” Id. (footnote omitted).
The GRIs and the ARIs govern the classification of goods within the HTSUS.
See Otter Prods., LLC v. United States, 834 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The GRI
apply in numerical order, meaning that subsequent rules are inapplicable if a preceding
rule provides proper classification.” 	Schlumberger Tech., 845 F.3d at 1163. 	GRI 1
provides, in relevant part, that “classification shall be determined according to the terms
of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.” 	GRI 1 (emphasis added).
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 5 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 6
“Under GRI 1, a court first construes the language of the heading, and any section or
chapter notes in question, to determine whether the product at issue is classifiable under
the heading.” 	Schlumberger Tech., 845 F.3d at 1163 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[T]he possible headings are to be evaluated without reference to their
subheadings, which cannot be used to expand the scope of their respective headings.”
R.T. Foods, 757 F.3d at 1353 (citations omitted).
“Absent contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed according to
their common and commercial meanings, which are presumed to be the same.”
Well Luck Co. v. United States, 887 F.3d 1106, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “To discern the common meaning of a tariff term, [the court]
may consult dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources.”
Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
“After consulting the headings and relevant section or chapter notes” consistent
with GRI 1, the court may consider the relevant Explanatory Notes (“EN”). Fuji Am. Corp.
v. United States, 519 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 	“The [ENs] provide persuasive
guidance and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation, though they do not
constitute binding authority.” Chemtall, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Once the appropriate heading is determined, the court applies GRI 6 to determine
the appropriate subheading. See Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437,
1442 (Fed. Cir. 1998). GRI 6 provides that “the classification of goods in the subheadings
of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 6 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 7
related 	subheading 	notes 	and, 	mutatis 	mutandis, 	to 	the 	above 	[GRIs], 	on 	the
understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable.”
The two distinct types of headings in the HTSUS, eo nomine and use provisions,
are applicable in this case. 	Each requires different analyses. 	Schlumberger Tech.,
845 F.3d at 1164 (“We first must assess whether the subject Headings constitute
eo nomine or use provisions because different rules and analysis will apply depending
upon the heading type.”); compare Kahrs Int’l, 713 F.3d 640 (eo nomine analysis),
with Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (principle use
analysis).
An eo nomine provision describes articles by specific names, see Schlumberger
Tech., 845 F.3d at 1164, and includes all forms of the named article. Kahrs Int’l, 713 F.3d
at 646; ADC Telecomms., Inc. v. United States, 916 F.3d at 1017–18. In an eo nomine
analysis, the court first construes the headings at issue as a matter of law by defining the
elements of the heading; the court then moves to the second classification step, a factual
inquiry, to determine whether the subject merchandise is covered by those elements.
See, e.g., R.T. Foods, 757 F.3d 1349; Link Snacks, Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d 962
(Fed. Cir. 2014).
By contrast, the ARIs govern classification of imported merchandise under
use headings. In a use analysis, the court first construes the headings at issue by defining
the uses of the goods described by the heading as directed by ARI 1(a) for principal use
headings or by ARI 1(b) for actual use headings. 	For principal use headings, the court
then determines as a factual matter the principal use of the subject merchandise
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 7 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 8
by analyzing the goods using the Carborundum factors to determine whether they fall
within one of the headings:
[1] use in the same manner as merchandise which
defines 	the 	class; 	[2] 	the 	general 	physical
characteristics of the merchandise; [3] the economic
practicality of so using the import; [4] the expectation
of the ultimate purchasers; [5] the channels of trade in
which the merchandise moves; [6] the environment of
the sale, such as accompanying accessories and the
manner in which the merchandise is advertised and
displayed; and [7] the recognition in the trade of this
use.
Aromont, 671 F.3d at 1313–14 (citing United States v. Carborundum Co., 63 CCPA 98,
536 F.2d 373, 377 (1976)).
III. Discussion
A. HTSUS Provisions
The competing Headings are 8517, advocated by Plaintiff, and 8525, advocated
by Defendant:
8517 	Telephone 	sets, 	including 	telephones 	for 	cellular
networks 	or 	for 	other 	wireless 	networks; 	other
apparatus for the transmission or reception of
voice, images or other data, including apparatus
for communication in a wired or wireless network
(such as a local or wide area network), other than
transmission or reception apparatus of heading 8443,
8525, 8527 or 8528; parts thereof;
8525 	Transmission 	apparatus 	for 	radio-broadcasting 	or
television 	whether 	or 	not 	incorporating 	reception
apparatus 	or 	sound 	recording 	or 	reproducing
apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and
video camera recorders:
(Emphasis added).
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 8 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 9
As explained above, the possible headings are first evaluated without reference to
their subheadings. 	R.T. Foods, 757 F.3d at 1353. 	Defendant contends the subject
Webcams and ConferenceCams are “television cameras”, whereas Plaintiff contends
they are “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data
… for communication in a wired or wireless network.” 	Both parties agree the term
“television 	cameras” 	in 	Heading 	8525 	is 	an 	eo 	nomine 	provision, 	and 	the 	term
“other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data … for
communication in a wired or wireless network” in Heading 8517 is a principal use
provision. 	Broadly 	speaking, 	Heading 	8517 	covers 	telephony 	apparatus 	and
Heading 8525 covers broadcast radio and television apparatus. 	These broad contours
of the respective headings are helpful to keep in mind when attempting to classify
Plaintiff’s merchandise: Is it more telephonic, or more television?
Starting with the definition of “television camera” under Heading 8525, the ENs to
Heading 8525 describe “television cameras” as “cameras that capture images and
convert them into an electronic signal that is: (1) transmitted as a video image to a location
outside the camera.” See EN 85.25(B)(1). This definition is consistent with the technical
dictionary definitions of “television camera.” 	The Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (“IEEE”) defines television camera as “a pickup unit used in a television system
to convert into electrical signals the optical image formed by the lens.” Joint Uncontested
Facts ¶ 56. Similarly, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed.
2003) defines “television camera” as:
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 9 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 10
The 	pickup 	unit 	used 	to 	convert 	a 	scene 	into
corresponding electric signals; optical lenses focus the
scene to be televised on the photosensitive surface of
a camera tube, and the tube breaks down the visual
image into small picture elements and converts the
light 	intensity 	of 	each 	element 	in 	turn 	into 	a
corresponding signal. Also known as a camera.
Thus, the ENs to Heading 8525 and technical definitions 2 describe “television cameras”
as devices that capture images, convert them to electronic signals, and transmit them to
a remote location. 	The subject merchandise perform all three functions—capturing,
converting, and transmitting images. 	See Pl.’s FOF & COL at ¶ 12; Def.’s FOF ¶ 76;
see Tr. at 164:25–165:6 (cross-examination of Plaintiff’s engineer, Mr. Aron Rosenberg,
conceding that subject merchandise capture “audio and video”); id. at 165:10–12 (subject
merchandise converts captured images into “digital signal.”); see id. at 168:6–10; Joint
Uncontested Facts at ¶ 1 (subject merchandise compress and transmit the digital signals
to computer so that they can be sent over internet).
The ENs, which as noted above, offer persuasive guidance and are generally
indicative 	of 	the 	proper 	interpretation 	of 	the 	tariff 	schedule, 	specifically 	reference
“webcams” in the notes for Heading 8525:
Television 	cameras 	may 	or 	may 	not 	have 	an
incorporated device for remote control of lens and
diaphragm 	as 	well 	as 	for 	remote 	control 	of 	the
horizontal 	and 	vertical 	movement 	of 	the 	camera
2 Both parties agreed with these technical definitions. 	See Tr. at 732:17–22 (testimony
of Dr. Brian D’Andrade referencing IEEE and McGraw-Hill definitions of television
cameras, and noting that television cameras do not have ability to capture or transmit
audio or have compression capabilities); id. at 857:18–24 (testimony of Mr. David Elliot
that “television camera” refers to device that “captures images, that transforms those
images into electrical or electronic signals and that transmits those signals out to a
viewer”).
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 10 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 11
(e.g., television cameras for television studios or for
reporting, 	those 	used 	for 	industrial 	or 	scientific
purposes, in closed circuit television (surveillance) or
for supervising traffic). 	These cameras do not have
any inbuilt capability of recording images.
Some 	of 	these 	cameras 	may 	also 	be 	used 	with
automatic data processing machines (e.g., webcams).
World Customs Organization, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
Explanatory Notes, Explanatory Note, XVI-8525-2 (5th ed. 2012).
Defendant emphasizes that the ENs to 8525, with their inclusion of webcams,
undercuts Plaintiff’s argument that their Webcams or ConferenceCams are not properly
classified 	as 	television 	cameras 	in 	Heading 	8525. 	Defendant 	also 	notes 	that
Heading 8525 explicitly covers “cameras,” and that Plaintiff’s merchandise abbreviate
“camera” in their names, Webcam and ConferenceCam, and do meet the aforedescribed
definition of television cameras. One can understand how a webcam used to broadcast
one-way video would find its way into the ENs for television cameras. As an eo nomine
provision, the term “television cameras” includes all forms of the named article, and if the
court accepts that webcams are televisions cameras, the provision then covers all forms
of webcams for whatever use, even those used for purposes unrelated to one-way
broadcasting, such as those used for person-to-person or multi-person communication.
Turning to the subject Webcams and ConferenceCams, they 	are prima facie
classifiable as television cameras under Heading 8525. Given that, this case would have
ended at summary judgment if the carve out in Heading 8517 for “transmission or
reception apparatus … of heading 8525” were applicable. 	Cf. ADC Telecomms., 916
F.3d at 1022–23. 	However, both parties agree that the carve out is not applicable
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 11 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 12
because it is limited to the first part of Heading 8525 (“Transmission apparatus for … ”)
and does not apply to “television cameras.” 	See Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 25; Def.’s
Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., at 26 n.13 (“We agree that the subject merchandise does not
fall within this exclusion because it applies to the first clause of Heading 8525, HTSUS,
rather than the second clause of the heading, which includes ‘television cameras.’”).
Therefore, classification of the subject merchandise under Heading 8517 	could not be
dismissed as a matter of law. See, e.g., BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (reversing and remanding lower court classification under eo nomine
provision for failure to address principal use under competing tariff provision).
For the court to dismiss the applicability of Heading 8517, the court must first
undertake 	a 	principal 	use 	analysis 	and 	conclude 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Webcams 	and
ConferenceCams are not principally used “for the transmission … of voice, images or
other data … for communication in a wired or wireless network.” 	Such a conclusion,
however, is not easily reached. 	After analyzing the Carborundum factors, the court
concludes that the subject Webcams and ConferenceCams are principally used “for the
transmission … of voice, images or other data … for communication in a wired or wireless
network.”
B. Principal Use Findings of Fact
1. General Physical Characteristics
Both the subject Webcams and the ConferenceCams contain lenses that capture
light, and in turn, images. 	See Tr. at 194:21–195:3 (statement describing subject
merchandise by Mr. Rosenberg). 	The Webcams consist of a single camera unit and
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 12 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 13
internal microphone, along with mounting clips to position the Webcam atop a computer
or elsewhere to capture images at the user’s desired angle. See Joint Uncontested Facts
at ¶ 4; PX 2–10. The two models of ConferenceCams differ slightly. The Orbit Ali Models
contain two attachable pieces: (1) a base that contains a microphone, speaker, USB port,
and on-device buttons (call, hang-up, volume controls) and (2) a circular camera that can
be attached to the base directly or supported by an adjustable riser stand. 	See PX 11.
The 	Colossus 	model 	of 	the 	ConferenceCams 	contain 	three 	attachable 	pieces:
(1) a motorized camera with an integrated microphone; (2) a speakerphone with on-
device buttons including call, hang-up, and volume control; and (3) a USB-enabled hub.
See PX 12; Tr. at 116:4–16 (direct examination of Mr. Rosenberg). The Colossus model
also includes a remote control. See PX 12. Plaintiff argues that the subject merchandise
“consist of multiple components all of which working in concert enable communication.”
Pl.’s 	FOF 	& 	COL 	at 	22. 	Plaintiff 	notes 	that 	the 	subject 	merchandise 	contain
omnidirectional microphones, on-board video and audio processing, mounting hardware,
and are built for low latency to minimize delays in transmission of audio and video.
See id.; see also Tr. at 74:22–75:2; 84:11–16; 102:16–25. 	Plaintiff maintains that the
physical 	characteristics 	of 	the 	subject 	merchandise 	point 	to 	a 	principal 	use 	as
communication apparatus for voice and images among two or more parties. Defendant
argues that EN 85.17(II)(G) demonstrates that subject Webcams and ConferenceCams
are not principally used like the other communication apparatus covered by Heading 8517
because 	the 	explanation 	and 	examples 	found 	in 	EN 85.17(II)(G) 	are 	focused 	on
intermediary technical networking equipment such as modems, routers, and multiplexers,
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 13 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 14
none of which have cameras. Def.’s COL at ¶¶ 38–40. See Def.’s Br. at 15. Nothing in
the actual language of Heading 8517, however, limits the apparatus to those that perform
intermediary data transmission. 	See Rubie’s Costume Co. v. United States, 337 F.3d.
1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Although the examples in the Explanatory Notes are
probative 	and 	sometimes 	illuminating, 	[the 	court] 	shall 	not 	employ 	their 	limiting
characteristics, to the extent there are any, to narrow the language of the classification
heading itself.”).
Plaintiff’s engineer, Mr. Rosenberg, testified that the internal microphones and
noise canceling capabilities are central to the use of the subject merchandise. 	See Tr.
at 85:3–25. The subject merchandise are designed for low latency to minimize delays in
transmission of audio and video. 	Id. at 123:20–125:24. 	To do so, the subject
merchandise contain H.264 or MJPEG codecs for video compression, analog-digital
converters, signal processors, and the ability to process and synchronize audio and video
for transmission over a USB wire. 	See Joint Uncontested Facts at ¶ 4; Tr. at 64:5–8;
105:7–10. The camera, internal microphones, and on-board synchronization software all
work together to allow for the subject merchandise to facilitate real-time communication.
The physical characteristics point to use to communicate voice and images among two
or more parties for videoconferencing. 	Given these considerations, this factor favors
classification under Heading 8517.
2. Use in the Same Manner as Merchandise Which Defines the Class
Plaintiff argues that the class of merchandise covered by Heading 8517 is defined
by “interpersonal audio and visual communication and apparatus for data communication
between devices.” Pl.’s FOF & COL at 23. Plaintiff contends that the primary use of the
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 14 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 15
subject 	merchandise 	is 	for 	videoconferencing, 	which 	Plaintiff 	describes 	as
“the penultimate form of electronic communication.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff relies on an internal
study, conducted in the normal course of business prior to the dates of entry of the subject
merchandise, that found 72% of respondents used the subject Webcams primarily for
videoconferencing. 	See PX 18 (“Internal Marketing Study”); Tr. at 396:5–25 (direct
examination of Plaintiff’s head of marketing, Ms. Joan Vandermate, and her description
of Internal Marketing Study). 	However, as Ms. Vandermate conceded on cross-
examination, the study polled consumers who use the subject merchandise for “business
purposes,” and not the entire market. 	See Tr. at 568:17–569:9. 	Ms. Vandermate was
unable to provide an answer as to what percentage of the market for the subject
merchandise is actually comprised of “business users.” See id. Thus, while it is probative,
the Internal Marketing Study is not itself dispositive as to the use of the merchandise.
Beyond 	the 	Internal 	Marketing 	Study, 	Mr. 	Rosenberg 	explained 	on 	direct
examination that the principal use of the subject merchandise is “video calling and video
communication.” Tr. at 568:17–569:9. When asked for the basis of his knowledge as to
the use of the subject merchandise, Mr. Rosenberg explained, “[i]t’s how we sell them.
It’s what customers tell us. It’s what’s on the box.” Id. Further, Plaintiff’s expert witness,
Dr. Brian D’Andrade, on direct examination, highlighted that the devices “are optimized
with video compression, low latency, and audio for real-time interactive communication.”
Tr. at 703:23–704:4.
Defendant argues that the use which defines the class is merely transmitting and
receiving data. 	See Def.’s Br. at 17 (relying on examples provided in EN 85.17(II)(G)).
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 15 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 16
Defendant contends that because the subject merchandise are used to “capture, convert,
and transmit images to a computer,” they exceed the use which defines the class of good
properly classified under Heading 8517. 	Id. 	Defendant also contends that it is
exceedingly rare for consumers to use the subject merchandise for audio-only calls.
See Tr. at 578:22–579:7 (cross-examination of Ms. Vandermate). Defendant argues that
the court should not consider this “fugitive use” in its analysis of this use provision.
See Pomeroy Collection, Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT 526, 549, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1374,
1397 (2008) (explaining that fugitive, or “atypical,” use is not considered in principal use
analysis). Although the record establishes that the subject merchandise is seldom used
for audio-only calls, the audio function is integral to the broader (and apparently most
common) use of the subject merchandise, videoconferencing. 	See Tr. at 85: 22–25
(Mr. Rosenberg 	replying 	“[n]ot 	that 	I 	know 	of” 	when 	asked 	if 	user 	can 	have
videoconference without audio on direct). 	Overall, this factor favors Plaintiff’s claimed
classification.
3. Economic Practicality
The subject merchandise are sold for up to $1000. 	See Tr. at 202:3–13 (cross-
examination of Mr. Rosenberg); 557:21–23 (cross-examination of Ms. Vandermate).
At its inception, the subject merchandise were intended to compete with other more
expensive video conferencing systems, which can cost upwards of $100,000. 	See id.
at 331:13–23 (direct examination of Ms. Vandermate).
Defendant maintains that the subject merchandise does not actually replace these
more expensive videoconferencing systems. 	Rather, they only replace the camera
portion and still rely on “consumers to purchase an entire telepresence system consisting
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 16 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 17
of expensive network infrastructure.” Def.’s Br. at 18. Ms. Vandermate testified on direct
that the ConferenceCam market has drastically changed since Logitech entered in the
early 2000s. 	Rather than purchasing expensive infrastructure for video conferencing,
consumers today ordinarily rent cloud storage through providers like Microsoft, Zoom,
Webex, or Google, and then purchase the videoconferencing hardware, like the subject
merchandise. See Tr. at 333:9–336:11 (direct examination of Ms. Vandermate comparing
videoconferencing market from 2006–2010 to today). 	In this fragmented, multivendor
market, Logitech provides a less expensive alternative than the all-inclusive, “old-school”
systems provided by companies like Polycom and Cisco. 	See id. at 336:12–337:9.
Plaintiff apparently was at the forefront of that shift from a single-vendor environment,
creating and marketing their initial Webcams and ConferenceCams as a cheaper
alternative. 	See id. at 337:24–338:13. 	Even when the cost of a subscription to a cloud
service like Zoom is included in the cost of the subject merchandise, it may present a less
costly alternative to traditional video conferencing systems offered by companies like
Polycom and Cisco. 	See Tr. at 333:9–334:15. 	Defendant argues that the price of the
subject merchandise increases as the quality of the camera component increases.
See Tr. at 105:19–106:3 (direct examination of Mr. Rosenberg). 	Defendant therefore
contends that it would be impractical to use the subject merchandise in a similar manner
to the “other communication devices” in EN 85.17(II)(G) because they are less expensive
and merely “connect components, combine signals or convert data.” 	Def.’s Br. at 17.
Overall, this factor supports Plaintiff’s classification of the subject merchandise under
Heading 8517.
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 17 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 18
4. Expectations of the Ultimate Purchaser
Plaintiff 	contends 	that 	the 	ultimate 	purchaser 	expects 	to 	use 	the 	subject
merchandise for videoconferencing. 	Defendant argues that the ultimate purchaser
expects to use the subject devices as cameras, and highlights that the term “cam” is short
for camera. Id. at 18. Defendant highlights the importance of the camera in the subject
merchandise in contrast to “the ultimate purchasers of codecs, hubs and other goods
identified as ‘communication apparatus’ in EN 85.17(II)(G),” who “do not expect to use
the goods to capture images, because these goods do not incorporate a camera.” 	Id.
at 16. Defendant’s proof on the ultimate purchaser’s expectations is lacking, relying on
Plaintiff’s 	own 	marketing 	materials, 	which 	emphasize 	the 	ability 	of 	the 	subject
merchandise to facilitate “face-to-face” communication. 	See id.; see also Tr. at 484:7–
487:15 (direct examination of Ms. Vandermate).
Plaintiff demonstrated that the ultimate purchaser expects to use the subject
merchandise 	generally 	for 	interpersonal 	communication, 	and 	specifically 	for
videoconferencing. 	See Tr. at 360:10–16 (Ms. Vandermate explaining on direct that
users “are looking for very good video calls with clear audio that does not echo and can
be heard clearly and naturally.”); PX 24. The Internal Marketing Study provides additional
support 	for 	this 	proposition 	for 	business 	purchasers. 	See 	PX 	24. 	Moreover,
Ms. Vandermate testified that Plaintiff partners with communication platforms like Zoom
for marketing purposes to assure customers that the subject merchandise will work well
with the videoconferencing platform. See Tr. 418:11–420:6 (Ms. Vandermate describing
marketing partnership). 	Accordingly, the court concludes that this factor supports the
classification of the subject merchandise of Heading 8517.
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 18 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 19
5. Channels of Trade
It is undisputed that the subject merchandise is sold both directly to businesses
and through consumer channels like Best Buy, Staples, and Amazon.com. 	See Tr.
at 362:14–20 (direct examination of Ms. Vandermate); PX 24–25. Defendant notes that
Logitech also sells the subject merchandise on its own website (see PX 3 at 13) in the
“VIDEO” section of products, where Plaintiff emphasizes the ability of the Webcams and
ConferenceCams to capture images.
Plaintiff contends that the channels of trade in which it operates demonstrates that
it “intentionally went into the channel of trade occupied by enterprise video conferencing
companies such as Cisco and Polycom” to target customers “who could not afford the
more costly systems that preexisted.” 	Pl.’s FOF & COL at 25. 	On the other hand,
Defendant 	notes 	that 	when 	the 	subject 	merchandise 	are 	sold 	through 	consumer
channels, the packaging is attractive and includes “pictures of images captured by the
products’ cameras,” whereas, the products sold directly to business use a brown box
format. Def.’s Br. at 18; see also Tr. at 108:11–20 (Mr. Rosenberg describing packaging
of subject merchandise when sold to non-business customers). Overall, the information
on the record submitted by the parties does not persuade the court that this factor favors
either side.
6. Environment of the Sale
The environment of sale deals with the manner in which the subject merchandise
is advertised and displayed, including accompanying accessories. 	See Aromont USA,
Inc., 671 F.3d at 1312. 	Here, the record establishes that the subject merchandise are
sold alongside other computer peripherals and gaming equipment, such as mice,
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 19 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 20
keyboards, and headsets. See Tr. at 580:21–582:12; DX 78; PX 24. Generally, Plaintiff
designs a display for the subject merchandise, often with space for gaming devices and
other computer peripherals and assists the retailer in determining the optimal location for
the display. 	See Tr. at 423:16–431:18 (statement of Plaintiff’s head of marketing,
Ms. Vandermate); PX 24–25 (example store displays for subject merchandise designed
by Plaintiff for retailers).
The parties disagree about what implications may be drawn about the use of the
subject merchandise itself from the devices sold alongside of the subject merchandise
(e.g., mice, keyboards, and headsets). 	Plaintiff contends that the subject merchandise
are classifiable as “other communication apparatus” under Heading 8517, evidenced by
the fact that they are sold alongside other videoconferencing and video collaboration
apparatus and not in the camera section. See Pl.’s FOF & COL at 26.
Conversely, Defendant, relying again on a comparison to the exemplar goods in
EN 85.17(II)(G), contends that the computer peripherals sold alongside the subject
merchandise are not “other communication apparatus” as defined by Heading 8517.
See Def.’s Br. at 18. For the reasons set forth in the court’s analysis of previous factors,
however, the court remains unconvinced of the relevance of Defendant’s comparison of
the environment of sale of the exemplars in EN 85.17(II)(G) with the environment of sale
of the subject merchandise.
Overall, it is unclear from the record as to whether the goods sold alongside the
subject merchandise, and the manner in which the subject merchandise is advertised and
displayed, demonstrate that this factor supports classification of the subject merchandise
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 20 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 21
under Heading 8517. Plaintiff’s argument relies on a comparison between merchandise
in the computer peripheral section, where the subject merchandise are typically sold,
as opposed to retail sections dedicated to “television cameras.” 	See Pl.’s FOF & COL
at 16. 	The fact-based analysis under Carborundum, however, considers whether the
subject merchandise are commercially fungible with the goods described in the use
provision. See Carborundum, 536 F.2d at 377. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the sale
of merchandise defined as “television cameras” under the eo nomine provision of
Heading 8525 are therefore of little probative value in the court’s evaluation of the
applicability of Heading 8517. 	Thus, the court concludes that the environment of sale
factor neither refutes nor supports classification of the subject merchandise under
Heading 8517.
7. Recognition in the Trade of this Use
Under this factor, the court considers whether the merchandise is recognized in
the trade as having the particular use described by Heading 8517, or whether it meets
certain specifications recognized in the trade for that particular class of products.
See Aromont USA, Inc., 671 F.3d at 1316. 	Defendant contends that the subject
merchandise are recognized as cameras in the trade, evidenced by the fact that they are
designed to comply with industry standards for video resolution and framerate. See Def.’s
Br. at 16–17; Tr. at 223:19–225:6 (Mr. Rosenberg explaining on cross-examination that
subject merchandise can all transmit images at 720p, “one of the standard resolutions”
in industry.).
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 21 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 22
Plaintiff argues that the subject merchandise is known and accepted in the trade
as “communication apparatus.” 	See Pl.’s FOF & COL at 26. 	Plaintiff highlights its
partnership with Zoom and maintains that “[t]estimony affirms that [Zoom and Plaintiff]
are recognized in the trade as providers of communication systems and were so at the
time of importation.” 	Id. at 26–27; see also Tr. at 383:11–384:8 (Ms. Vandermate
explaining on direct examination that “totality of the products” produced by Plaintiff and
companies like Zoom “create a communication system.”).
Plaintiff’s 	partnership 	with 	Zoom 	consisted 	of 	a 	reciprocal, 	co-marketing
relationship whereby the products would be advertised together to consumers and at
trade shows. See Tr. at 418:11–421:17 (direct examination of Mr. Rosenberg discussing
benefits of Plaintiff’s partnership with Zoom). 	The partnership between Plaintiff and
companies like Zoom, which represent a large portion of the videoconferencing software
market, demonstrate that the subject merchandise is recognized in the trade for use as
communication apparatus. This factor supports classification of the subject merchandise
under Heading 8517.
In sum, given the record, including the credible testimony of Plaintiff’s three
witnesses—Mr. Rosenberg, Ms. Vandermate, and Dr. D’Andrade—the first, second, third,
fourth, 	and 	seventh 	Carborundum 	factors 	support 	classification 	of 	the 	subject
merchandise under Heading 8517. The fifth and sixth factors are neutral. Thus, the court
concludes that the subject merchandise is classifiable under Heading 8517.
C. Application of GRI 3
The subject merchandise are prima facie classifiable under both Headings 8517
and 8525. GRI 3, provides, in relevant part, that: “[w]hen … goods are, prima facie,
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 22 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 23
classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: …
[t]he heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings
providing a more general description.” GRI 3(a). In determining which tariff provision is
more specific, the court compares only the language of the headings, and looks to the
provision with requirements that are more difficult to satisfy and that describe the article
with the greatest degree of accuracy and certainty. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440–41.
Defendant 	argues 	that 	the 	subject 	merchandise 	are 	classifiable 	under
Heading 8525 because it is more specific than Heading 8517 under the relative specificity
analysis of GRI 3(a). 	See Def.’s COL at 19–21. 	Defendant argues that while the “tariff
term ‘television camera’ is very specific, describing only cameras that capture, convert
and transmit images to a remote location … Heading 8517, on the other hand, if broadly
interpreted by the Court, could potentially cover goods that play an undefined role in the
transmission or reception of voice, images or other data.” Id. at 19–20.
Heading 8517 is a use provision that covers apparatus used “for the transmission
or reception of voice, images or other data.” The subject merchandise must be used in a
specific way to satisfy Heading 8517, while the eo nomine provision of Heading 8525
describes the article regardless of its use. Heading 8517 has requirements that are more
difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty.
See Len-Ron Mfg Co., Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“where
a product is equally described by both a ‘use’ provision and an eo nomine provision,
the ‘use’ provision is typically held to be the more specific of the two”). 	This conclusion
is reinforced by the functions and complex features of the devices which facilitate that
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 23 of 24

Court No. 16-00017 	Page 24
use. The principal use of the subject merchandise cannot be said to be the mere capture,
conversion, and transmission of images, any more than the principal use could be
narrowly limited to the conveyance of audio information with the microphone. Rather, the
principal use of the subject merchandise combines these features to allow for interactive
multi-person real-time communication (i.e., videoconferencing).
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Heading 8517 provides a more
specific description than Heading 8525. 	In accordance with GRI 3, the court concludes
that the subject merchandise are classified under Heading 8517. 	Heading 8517 covers
“other apparatus for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice,
images or other data ….” 	Subheading 8517.62.00 covers such machines “for the
reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images and other data
….” 	Subheading 8517.69.00 is the basket provision for Heading 8517 which would
include devices that transmit but do not receive. 	Since the ConferenceCams are
machines “for the reception, conversion and transmission of voice, images or other data,”
they are properly classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8517.62.00. Since the Webcams
are machines “for the conversion and transmission of voice, images or other data,” but
do not receive, they are properly classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8517.69.00.
Accordingly, the court will enter judgment for Plaintiff.
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: August 24, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:16-cv-00017-LMG Document 116 Filed 08/24/21 Page 24 of 24