Allstar Marketing Group, LLC v. United States
2017 CIT 15
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Importer Allstar Marketing imported adult-sized polyester fleece "Snuggie®" items (71" x 54", with long front sleeves, open in back) in December 2009 and marketed them as blankets with sleeves.
- Customs classified the imports as garments under HTSUS 6114.30.30 (knitted garments of man-made fibers) and liquidated entries in 2010; Allstar protested claiming classification under HTSUS 6301.40.00 (blankets) or, alternatively, 6307.90.98 (other made-up articles).
- The physical sample, commercial invoices, purchase orders, trademark filings, retail packaging, and advertising characterize the product as a blanket (often described as “The Blanket That Has Sleeves”) and the product was sold in bedding/housewares rather than apparel departments.
- The Snuggie® is a “made up” textile article (assembled by sewing), so the dispute was whether it falls within Chapter 61 (garments) or Chapter 63 (blankets/other made-up articles).
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; material facts about the product were undisputed, so classification presented a pure question of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Snuggie® is a "garment" under HTSUS 6114.30.30 | Snuggie® is not an ordinary article of apparel; it is a blanket with sleeves used primarily as bedding/covering and marketed as a blanket | The Snuggie® is a covering "worn" for comfort (an outer covering) with sleeves and one-size fit, fitting the common meaning of garment | Not a garment — court held Snuggie® not classifiable under 6114.30.30 |
| Whether use, design, and marketing may inform classification under an eo nomine heading | Use, design, and marketing show primary identity as a blanket and thus are relevant to classification | Heading 6114 is eo nomine and should be decided by name alone; use is irrelevant | Use/design/marketing are relevant where identity and scope are at issue; court considered them and found they support blanket classification |
| Whether the addition of sleeves removes the product from the eo nomine term "blanket" (HTSUS 6301.40.00) | Sleeves are incidental improvements that preserve the essential blanket character (large fabric covering for warmth) | Sleeves transform the article into a garment and thus exclude it from "blanket" | Sleeves are incidental; Snuggie® retains essential blanket character and fits 6301.40.00 |
| If not garment or blanket, whether basket provision 6307.90.98 applies | Alternatively, could be classified as other made-up articles | Government agreed if neither garment nor blanket, classify under 6307 | Court did not reach this alternative because 6301.40.00 (blanket) is the most specific applicable heading |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (sets standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard) (allocation of burdens on summary judgment)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (deference to agency positions) (Skidmore/Mead guidance on agency persuasive weight)
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (classification review) (two-step tariff interpretation framework)
- Rubie’s Costume Co. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1350 (apparel/wearing-apparel analysis) (uses "ordinarily worn" and related tests for wearing apparel)
- CamelBak Prod., LLC v. United States, 649 F.3d 1361 (eo nomine scope and use) (consideration of design, use, and marketing when eo nomine scope is in question)
- Casio, Inc. v. United States, 73 F.3d 1095 (eo nomine and improved forms) (an improved article remains within eo nomine if essential character preserved)
- GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United States, 761 F.3d 1354 (use in eo nomine cases) (when use affects identity, court may consider use factors)
- LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311 (classification context) (discussion of "wearing apparel" and functional contexts)
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (court's responsibility) (court must reach correct tariff classification)
- Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363 (Explanatory Notes relevance) (ENs are nonbinding but indicative)
- Trans-Atlantic Co. v. United States, 471 F.2d 1397 (inspection/sample use) (physical sample as evidence in classification)