CIT Didn't Err in Classifying The Comfy as a Pullover, US Tells CAFC
The Court of International Trade did not err in classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover imported by Cozy Comfort, as a pullover of Harmonized Tariff Schedule 6110 and not a blanket of heading 6301, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 19 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
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.
The government argued that CIT properly found that The Comfy "satisfies the common and commercial meaning of the tariff term 'pullover,'" and appropriately applied the CAFC's 2019 ruling in Rubies Costume v. U.S. to find that The Comfy is a pullover and doesn't protect from "extreme cold." The court in Rubies said heading 6110 articles provide "some warmth" but don't protect against "extreme cold."
In its opening brief, Cozy argued that CIT made three legal errors in finding The Comfy to be a pullover and not a blanket (see 2508270047). Specifically, the importer said the trade court misinterpreted Rubies when it essentially converted the "extreme cold" requirement to a subjective case-by-case approach to a review of whether an article is "technically capable of being actually used in freezing temperatures."
"Cozy is wrong," the U.S. said. In its decision, CIT said four "essential characteristics" apply to goods falling under heading 6110: the goods cover the upper body, provide "some warmth," don't protect against extreme cold and can be worn over undergarments or other clothing. The trade court properly took these characteristics from the Rubies decision, which didn't define the term "extreme cold," and anchored the concept of "extreme cold" to the National Weather Service's definition of extreme cold, the U.S. said.
The trade court's "determination of the meaning of extreme cold is not speculative or subjective," but, instead, is "reasoned, supported, and consistent with Rubies," the government argued.
CIT also didn't misinterpret Rubies to mean an article covered by heading 6110 may cover the whole body, as Cozy contends, the brief said. The trade court actually said a waistcoat, one of the heading 6110 exemplars, is an "item of wearing apparel extending to the waist or below." Acknowledging that the Rubies court said the typical pullover "covers the upper body," CIT said there's no bar for such goods to cover more than just the upper body, the government said.
"Relying on this Court’s precedent, the trial court found that only a significant difference, i.e., giving an eo nomine item features that are substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of the term could remove the item from the heading," the brief said.
Cozy also argued CIT erred by considering use when determining whether The Comfy is a pullover. The U.S. said the importer is again incorrect, since Rubies “revealed that determining whether an article is covered by heading 6110 turns on an ‘assessment that users can “wear the jacket over either undergarments or other clothing.”’” Thus, CIT properly found use was a relevant consideration, the brief said.
In addition, the U.S. argued that the trade court wasn't required to defer to CBP's "Informed Compliance Publication 'Classification: Apparel Terminology under the HTSUS,'" that was published in 2008, as Cozy suggests. The government said that not only is this argument waived, since it wasn't found in the company's findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted after trial, deference to a CBP pronouncement regarding the interpretation of a tariff term "is not mandatory."
CIT also didn't misinterpret the Supreme Court's decision in Arnold, Constable & Co v. U.S., the U.S. said. In Arnold, the high court didn't establish a test or multiple factors for the issue of whether knit woolen shirts, drawers and hosiery were "clothing, ready made, and articles of wearing apparel of every description," as the importer claims. Instead, the Supreme Court said the term "wearing apparel" wasn't an "uncommon one for statutes" and that it's used in an "inclusive sense embracing all articles ordinarily worn, --dress in general."
The Supreme Court said the provision was meant to cover "every article which is ordinarily worn or recognized as an article of dress.”
Contrary to the importer's attempt to use this statement to exclude an article like The Comfy from "wearing apparel of every description," the high court "used this language to capture a broad swath of apparel for the duty exemption," the U.S. argued. Had the Supreme Court meant to require exempt goods to satisfy two conditions, "being ordinarily worn and recognized as an article of dress, it would not have used the conjunction 'or,'" the brief said.