Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a product's post-importation modification and use can determine its classification under a tariff heading that is not statutorily 'controlled by use

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Worthington v. Robbins, this Court held that “the dutiable classification of articles imported must be ascertained by an examination of the imported article itself, in the condition in which it is imported.” 139 U.S. 337, 341 (1891). For over a century, this doctrine has served as a bedrock principle in interpreting tariff provisions, providing critical certainty for the trillions of dollars’ worth of goods imported into the United States each year. It is also codified in the governing statute, which provides for consideration of a good’s modification and use after importation only where the applicable tariff provision is specifically “controlled by use.” Recently, the Federal Circuit has developed a doctrinally unsound and unpredictable exception to this rule. It holds that a good should be classified based on its post-importation modification and use whenever a tariff heading “inherently suggests use,” even if it is not “controlled by use.” The Federal Circuit applied that exception here and held that vehicles imported as passenger vehicles should be tariffed at the far higher rate for cargo vehicles because they were converted into cargo vehicles after importation. The questions presented are: I. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, contrary to this Court’s precedent, that a product’s post-importation modification and use can determine its classification under a tariff heading that is not statutorily “controlled by use.” Il. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with the decisions of the other twelve Circuits, that an appellee must brief issues not decided by the trial court or raised by the appellant to preserve them for remand. (i)