Rubies Costume Company v. United States
1:13-cv-00407
Ct. Intl. TradeOct 31, 2017Background
- Rubies Costume Company imported a 9-piece "Premier Plush Santa Suit" (jacket, pants, hat, belt, gloves, shoe covers, wig, beard, sack); only the jacket, pants, gloves, and sack were contested.
- Jacket and pants: 73% acrylic/27% polyester knit, fully lined, dry-clean-only labels, zipper front on jacket, hemmed/faux-fur trim; lab testing shows cut-pile weft knit; retail price ≈ $100 and intended for repeated seasonal use. Gloves: 100% polyester knit with fourchettes. Sack: same plush textile with drawstring; packaged as a "toy bag."
- Customs classified the jacket and pants under Chapter 61 apparel headings, the gloves and sack under Chapter 61/42 subheadings, and liquidated other accessories duty-free under Chapter 95.
- Rubies protested, arguing the suit is a duty-free "festive article" under HTSUS 9505.10.50 / 9505.90.60; the Government argued individual garments/containers are properly classifiable under Chapters 61 and 42. Cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- Key legal issue: whether the contested items are "festive articles" (Chapter 95) or excluded from Chapter 95 as "fancy dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62," and therefore classifiable as apparel/containers in Chapters 61 or 42.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Santa Suit components qualify as "festive articles" under HTSUS Chapter 95 | Rubies: the suit is a costume made for Christmas festivities and not ordinary apparel; its festive use and design favor Chapter 95 classification | U.S.: the jacket, pants, gloves, and sack are durable, well-constructed garments/containers properly described by Chapter 61/42 and thus excluded from Chapter 95 by Note 1(e)/(d)/(u) | Held: Components are excluded from Chapter 95 as "fancy dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62" (jack/ pants/ gloves/ sack classified in Chapters 61/42) |
| Whether the Jacket is "flimsy" or "well-made" for Rubie’s II flimsiness test | Rubies relies on an expert asserting the suit is not "well-made" and intended as costume | U.S. points to physical sample, lab testing, dry-clean label, construction (zipper, lining, hems), price and intended multiple wears | Held: Jacket is durable/non-flimsy and thus is wearing apparel (not Chapter 95); classified as HTSUS 6110.30.30 (similar to sweaters/pullovers) |
| Whether the Pants are "fancy dress" or wearing apparel | Rubies: pants are costume pants, intended seasonal use supports Chapter 95 | U.S.: pants are lined, have pockets, stitched seams and are durable; fit Chapter 61 trousers | Held: Pants are wearing apparel, classifiable as HTSUS 6103.43.15 |
| Proper classifications for gloves and sack (Chapter 95 exclusions) | Rubies: sack described as "toy bag" and gloves are costume accessories potentially covered by Chapter 95 | U.S.: gloves are knitted synthetic gloves (Chapter 61) and sack is a textile container (Chapter 42) thus excluded from Chapter 95 | Held: Gloves classifiable as HTSUS 6116.93.94; sack classifiable as HTSUS 4202.92.30 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubie’s Costume Co. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (defines scope of Note 1(e); endorses Customs' flimsiness/durability criteria and distinguishes flimsy seasonal costumes from textile wearing apparel)
- Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (Chapter 95 can cover festive sweaters; Chapter 95 exclusion notes must be applied to determine overlap with apparel)
- Arnold v. United States, 147 U.S. 494 (U.S.) (classic definition: "wearing apparel" embraces articles ordinarily worn)
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (two-step classification framework: interpret tariff headings, then identify the merchandise)
- Totes, Inc. v. United States (Totes II), 69 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir.) (use of ejusdem generis for "and similar articles" in heading 4202; identify unifying characteristics of exemplars)