Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9322
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Deckers imported UGG Classic Crochet boots (2006–2007) with knit uppers and rubber soles.
- Boots have no laces, buckles, or fasteners and extend above the ankle.
- The merchandise is sold as boots and is pull-on in use.
- Customs classified the boots under HTSUS 6404.19.35 (slip-on footwear).
- Deckers protested, seeking classification under 6404.19.90 (higher value/lower duty).
- Trade Court granted summary judgment upholding 19.35 and rejecting 19.90.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does slip-on type cover boots above ankle? | Deckers argues slip-on type excludes boots above the ankle. | Government argues slip-on type includes boots per common meaning. | Boots fall within slip-on type. |
| Is slip-on limited to shoes, not boots? | Deckers asserts slip-on applies only to shoes. | Government maintains slip-on covers footwear held to foot without fasteners. | Slip-on includes boots; not limited to shoes. |
| Does pulling on with hands exclude slip-on status? | Deckers contends pull-on boots cannot be slip-on. | Treasury decision definitions include pull-on boots as slip-on. | Pull-on boots can be slip-on footwear. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Deckers challenged reliance on dictionary definitions and industry views. | Merits disposed by undisputed factual record; law resolves classification. | Yes; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (de novo review of tariff classifications; GRIs apply in order)
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (classification turns on meaning of provisions; fact vs law)
- Outer Circle Prods. v. United States, 590 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GRIs interpretation; deference to customs rulings by Skidmore)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (agency rulings persuasive power under Skidmore)
- Intercontinental Marble Corp. v. United States, 381 F.3d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (dictionary definitions used to define tariff terms)
- Dell Prods. LP v. United States, 642 F.3d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (persuasion of agency pronouncements; deference levels)
- Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (common meaning of tariff terms; lexical sources)
- Swan v. Arthur, 103 U.S. 597 (U.S. 1881) (commercial understanding governs tariff interpretation)
- Franklin v. United States, 289 F.3d 753 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (commercial meaning of HTSUS terms presumed)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (no surplusage; give meaning to all provisions)
- Germain v. Connecticut National Bank, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (statutory interpretation presumption)