Lerner New York, Inc. v. United States
908 F. Supp. 2d 1313
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Lerner New York, Inc. challenged CBP’s liquidation classification of Lerner style 9843233 (Bodyshaper) imported in 2005 as a knit nylon/spandex top with an interior shelf bra.
- Customs classified the Bodyshaper under HTSUS 6114.30.10 (tops of man-made fibers) at 28.2% ad valorem; Lerner protested.
- Lerner sought classification under HTSUS 6212 (brassieres and similar garments) but the government pressed 6114.30.10.
- The case was tried jointly with Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States on identical issues and briefing.
- The court conducted de novo fact-finding on disputed issues and applied GRIs/ARIs to classify the merchandise as a whole.
- The court ultimately held the Bodyshaper is properly classified under 6114.30.10, not under 6212.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bodyshaper falls under 6114 or 6212. | Lerner argues Bodyshaper is a brassiere or similar article under 6212. | Government contends Bodyshaper is a knitted top under 6114.30.10. | Bodyshaper classified under 6114.30.10. |
| Whether 6109 or 6106 could apply before 6114. | Plaintiff argues 6109/6106 scope could include outerwear with support features. | Court already determined 6114.30.10 applies as residual heading; 6109/6106 inapplicable. | 6114.30.10 governs; 6109/6106 rejected. |
| Whether heading 6212 can encompass a shelf-bra outerwear garment. | Bodyshaper is a body-supporting garment similar to brassieres under 6212. | Governing scope of 6212 does not cover this outerwear with shelf bra. | Bodyshaper not within 6212 as described; not a brassiere or similar article. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (court uses de novo review for tariff classifications)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (Skidmore-type persuasion for agency classifications)
- Hartog Foods v. United States, 291 F.3d 789 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (no deference when protest denial is summarily denied)
- Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (ejusdem generis and interpretation of general terms)
- Van Dale Indus. v. United States, 50 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (context of body-support garments and scope of headings)
- Degussa Corp. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guidance on interpreting Explanatory Notes and HS terms)
- Carborundum Co. v. United States, 536 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1976) (class/kind analysis for tariff interpretation)