Lemans Corp. v. United States
660 F.3d 1311
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- LeMans imported motocross jerseys, motocross pants, and motorcycle jackets in 2004 (July 20–Sept 17) and sought classification under HTSUS Chapter 95 as sports equipment.
- Customs classified all goods as wearing apparel under HTSUS Chapters 61 or 62, with specific subheadings and duty rates for jerseys, pants, and jackets.
- LeMans protested the classification, arguing the merchandise should be classified under Chapter 95 (subheading 9506.91.0030 or 9506.99.6080) with lower duties.
- The Court of International Trade upheld Customs’ apparel classifications and rejected LeMans’s sports-equipment theory, applying GRI 1 and dictionary/EN guidance for headings 6110, 6210, and 6201.
- The Federal Circuit reviews tariff classifications de novo, with GRI 1 governing interpretation of headings and notes; GRI 3(a) only used if two headings are prima facie applicable.
- The court concludes the subject merchandise is apparel under Chapters 61–62, and is not prima facie sports equipment under Chapter 95.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the merchandise is properly classified as wearing apparel under Chapters 61–62 or as sports equipment under Chapter 95 | LeMans asserts the items are designed for and primarily serve sport use, making them sports equipment. | Customs properly classified the items as apparel under Chapters 61–62, not as sports equipment. | Properly classified as apparel; not sports equipment. |
| If prima facie sports equipment, whether GRI 3(a) applies to select the most specific heading | Goods are specially designed for motocross/motorcycle use, so they are prima facie sports equipment. | Not prima facie sports equipment; GRI 1 governs and headings 6110/6210/6201 apply. | Not applicable; not prima facie sports equipment. |
| Whether Explanatory Notes to 9506 support excluding apparel from sports equipment | Explanatory Notes are not dispositive and could include apparel. | Notes clarify that sports equipment is non-apparel and the subject items fall outside 9506. | Explanatory Notes support excluding the merchandise from 9506; not sports equipment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (defined 'sports equipment' as items necessary or appropriate for a sport)
- Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (recognized 'sports equipment' includes items that are useful or appropriate for a sport and addressed reliance on ENs)
- Rubie's Costume Co. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (note exclusion of certain 'fancy dress' from Chapter 95; distinguishes apparel-based goods)
- Airflow Technology, Inc. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cautions against broad extrapolation of Explanatory Notes beyond subheading terms)
- StoreWALL, LLC v. United States, 644 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (utilizes Explanatory Notes as persuasive aid to interpret headings)
- Agfa Corp. v. United States, 520 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (supports use of explanatory notes in interpreting tariff provisions)
- BASF Corp. v. United States, 497 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reinforces persuasive weight of Explanatory Notes when interpreting headings)