claims, GRI 3 has no application here. By its terms, GRI 3 applies only where “goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings.” See GRI 3. As set forth in section III.A above, however, the four pieces of merchandise in dispute are properly prima facie classifiable under heading 9405, pursuant to GRI 1 and GRI 2(a). And Explanatory Note 70.13 expressly excludes from classification under heading 7013 “[l]amps and lighting fittings and parts thereof of heading 94.05.” See Explanatory Note 70.13; see also Note 1(e) to Chapter 70. There is therefore no basis for invoking GRI 3, because the merchandise at issue is not “prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings.” See, e.g., Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423, 1429 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Government emphasizes that, in addition
holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory holding that chapter note which excludes articles of heading 9505 from classification under chapter 69 obviates  the need to decide whether the items  prima facie fall under the alternative headings 6912  and 6913 holding that the jury need only decide the ultimate issue of intentional discrimination and usually need not make findings on the prima facie case or whether the defendants explanation is pretextual holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7 recognizing that a debt ors sequential filing of a chapter 7 petition and then a chapter 13 petition is the socalled chapter 20 