2017 WL 2199017
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Sigvaris imported graduated compression hosiery (15–20 mmHg; Series 120, 145, 185) and Series 500 arm-sleeves & gauntlets (30–40 mmHg) and paid duties after CBP classified items as dutiable; plaintiff protested and sued.
- Hosiery is knitted of synthetic fibers (nylon/spandex), sold OTC and in pharmacies, used for tired legs, prophylaxis in pregnancy, long standing/sitting; not surgical anti‑embolism stockings.
- Series 500 arm-sleeves and gauntlets are nylon/natural latex, primarily prescribed for upper‑limb lymphedema (often post‑mastectomy) to reduce swelling and restore lymph flow.
- Central legal question: whether these products are "articles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of . . . physically handicapped persons" (HTSUS 9817.00.96, Nairobi Protocol) and thus duty‑free.
- Court applied HTSUS rules and subchapter notes: a "physically handicapped" person has a permanent/chronic impairment that substantially limits major life activities; exclusions include transient disabilities, therapeutic/diagnostic articles, cosmetic items, and medicines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chronic venous disease (CVD) and hosiery (15–20 mmHg) qualify under HTSUS 9817.00.96 | Hosiery treats CVD symptoms and is therefore specially designed for handicapped persons | Hosiery treats early, non‑substantially limiting CVD and is ordinary hosiery useful to general public | Hosiery (Series 120/145/185) not within 9817.00.96; properly classified as 6115.10.40 (graduated compression hosiery of synthetic fibers) |
| Whether upper‑limb lymphedema and Series 500 arm‑sleeves/gauntlets qualify under HTSUS 9817.00.96 | Series 500 items are prescribed for chronic lymphedema (post‑mastectomy) and specially designed for handicapped persons | Government contends some uses are transient/intermittent and items could be classifiable under other HTSUS headings | Series 500 arm‑sleeves and gauntlets are specially designed for handicapped persons with upper‑limb lymphedema and are classifiable under 9817.00.96 (duty‑free) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir.) (court must determine whether government classification is correct)
- Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (use of lexicographic/scientific authorities to construe tariff terms)
- Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (HTSUS terms construed by common and popular meaning)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir.) (two‑step tariff classification: term construction, then applying to merchandise)
- Sigma‑Tau HealthScience, Inc. v. United States, 838 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir.) (same two‑step framework)
- Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 713 F.3d 640 (Fed. Cir.) (consult secondary sources where HTSUS terms lack definition)