Football Uniforms Without Pads are Apparel, Not Sports Equipment in HTS, says CIT
The Court of International Trade denied Riddell's challenge to CBP's classification of its football pants, jerseys, and girdles, finding the goods to be correctly classified as apparel and not sports equipment. The football uniform components were imported without pads, and as goods are classified in their condition as imported, they did not qualify as sports protective equipment, the court said.
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.
On importation, CBP classified Riddell's football pants, jerseys, and girdles as apparel in Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings 6110, 6203, and 6207, dutiable at 10.5 to 27.9 percent. Riddell argued that its goods should instead be classified as sports equipment in heading 9506, which is duty free. Because of provisions in each Chapter excluding items classified in the other, the goods could not be classified as both apparel and sports equipment CBP said.
Riddell pointed to a 2004 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Bauer Nike Hockey USA v. U.S., to bolster its case. In Bauer, the appeals court found hockey pants should be classified in heading 9506 as sports equipment.
CBP, on the other hand, relied on the Federal Circuit's 2011 opinion in Lemans Corp. v. U.S., where the court ruled that Lemans' motorcycle jackets and pants are classified as apparel, not sports equipment. According to CBP, the appeals court said in Lemans that heading 9506 "only covers articles that are not apparel-like, protective in nature, and have minimal textile components." Because Riddell's football pants, jerseys, and girdles were entirely made of textiles and did not contain any protective pads when they were imported, they should be classified as apparel, CBP said.
"Although the subject merchandise is designed for playing organized football and might naturally be associated with sports equipment, under the framework set forth in Lemans this is not the case," the court said. While in Bauer the hockey pants at issue were composed of about 80 percent padding and other protective material, Riddell's football pants, jerseys and girdles were imported without pads, said CIT. On the other hand, Chapters 61 and 62 don't distinguish between apparel designed for general or specific uses, so Riddell's goods good be classified there. "There is no dispute that the subject merchandise is worn on the body and composed entirely of textile material," the court said. "Riddell's merchandise, therefore, can be described as apparel-like articles specially designed for playing football."
The fact that pads were to be inserted into the pants, jerseys, and girdles is irrelevant, the court said, because goods are to be classified in their condition as imported. Therefore, CBP's classification as apparel was correct, CIT found.
(Riddell, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 13-37, dated 03/20/13, Judge Barzilay)
(Attorneys: Daniel Gluck of Simon Gluck for plaintiff Riddell, Inc.; Marcella Powell for defendant U.S. government)