Whether the panel disregarded legislative intent and prior statutory construction to improperly use the General Rules of Interpretation and the Explanatory Notes to justify its classification of the sunflower seeds under HTS Heading 2008, despite its NESOI language

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Circuit panel’s initial unqualified finding was that the sunflower seeds at issue (roasted, salted, and/or flavored sunflower seeds; a.k.a. “snacking sunflower seeds”) were prima facie classifiable under both HTS Heading 1206 — covering “Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken”; as well as under 2) HTS Heading 2008, which provides for “Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included” (NESOI) (Emphasis added). The snacking sunflower seeds cannot be classified under both HTS Heading 1206 and HTS Heading 2008. The question presented is: Whether the panel disregarded legislative intent and prior statutory construction to improperly use the General Rules of Interpretation and the Explanatory Notes to justify its classification of the sunflower seeds under HTS Heading 2008, despite its NESOI language. ll RULES 14.1 AND 29.6 STATEMENTS All parties are identified in the caption of this petition. Petitioner was the plaintiff in the United States Court of International Trade and was the appellant in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Well Luck Co. does not have a parent company and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Well Luck Co.’s stock. Respondent United States was the defendant in the United States Court of International Trade. Respondent was listed as defendant-appellee in the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.