CAFC Affirms Motocross Jerseys, Pants, & Jackets Are Apparel, Not Sports Equip.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a Court of International Trade decision to uphold Custom's classification of LeMans Corporation's motocross jerseys and pants, and motorcycle jackets as apparel under Chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The CAFC stated that the articles are not classifiable as sports equipment in Chapter 95 as they are designed for comfort, worn on the body, and because specialization doesn't exclude articles from being classified as apparel.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
CIT Said Merchandise Is Classified in Ch. 61 & 62 as Apparel, Using GRI 1
LeMans imported the subject merchandise into the U.S. between July and September 2004. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified LeMans' motocross jerseys as other sweaters, pullovers, etc. of man-made fiber under subheading 6110.30.30 (32%) and its motocross pants as other men’s or boys’ garments of man-made fiber under subheading 6210.40.50 (7.1%). Customs classified four models of motorcycle jackets in the following three separate provisions: (i) 6201.93.30 (7.1%), (ii) 6201.93.35 (27.7%); and 6201.92.15 (6.2%). The CIT upheld Customs' classification using General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 1.1
LeMans Claimed Goods Are Ch. 95 Sports Equipment as "Highly Specialized"
LeMans claimed its merchandise is properly classifiable as sports equipment either under subheading 9506.91.0030 (4.6%) or 9506.99.6080 (4%) because it is so highly specialized for use during motocross or motorcycle riding that any apparel-like features are incidental to the merchandise's primary purpose as sports equipment.
Also Said CAFC's Rubie’s Decision on Ch. 95 Costumes Supports its View
LeMans also argued that the CAFC should reverse the CIT's decision due to the precedent set by Rubie's Costume Co. v. U.S. (2003), in which the CAFC found that Customs appropriately classified certain costumes as "festive articles" under Chapter 95 rather than as wearing apparel under Chapter 61 because they are only worn on rare occasions and are one-size-fits-all and lacking in durability.
CAFC Affirmed CIT's View that Articles Are Apparel, Reliance on Rubie’s in Error
The CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision to uphold Customs' classification of the merchandise as apparel under Chapters 61 and 62 and not as Chapter 95 sports equipment for the following reasons:
Articles are designed for comfort. The CAFC found LeMans' reliance on Rubie's was misplaced as, unlike the articles in Rubie's, LeMans' articles share more characteristics with ordinary apparel, coming in different sizes and having the durability to be worn repeatedly. Additionally, LeMans' articles are designed to provide optimal fit and comfort while participating in a sport, whereas the comfort features of Rubie's costumes were secondary or incidental.
Specialization doesn't exclude articles from Ch. 61 & 62. The CAFC stated the headings and subheadings of Chapters 61 and 62 do not distinguish between apparel designed for general or specific uses. The fact that articles are specialized or intended for specific purposes, such as for sports, does not alone remove them from the category of apparel.
Ch 95 almost exclusively for protective non-apparel wear. The CAFC found that LeMans' merchandise was distinguished from the examples of goods classified in Chapter 95 listed in the heading 9506 Explanatory Notes. The vast majority of the examples are items that a user would not wear on his or her body, but instead consist of articles that are entirely separate from the user (e.g., tennis nets, archery targets, bobsleds), held by the user in his or her hand (e.g., golf clubs, tennis rackets, hockey sticks), or are accessories fastened to a user (e.g., snow skis, ice skates). The few examples that a user would actually wear are almost exclusively used for protection and would complement, or be worn in addition to, apparel worn for a particular sport.
(Appeals No. 2010-1295, dated 10/03/11)
1Classification by application of GRI 1 is made according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes.