Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102

Background

Two importers (Victoria’s Secret Direct and Lerner New York) imported "shelf-bra camisoles" — single knitted garments combining a camisole/top and an internal shelf bra that provides bust support.
CBP classified Victoria’s Secret’s Bra Top as a cotton tank-top (6109) and Lerner’s Bodyshaper under residual knitted garments (6114); importers protested seeking classification under brassieres heading (6212) with a lower duty.
The Court of International Trade tried the cases together, found both garments serve dual purposes (coverage as outerwear and some bust support), and classified them under heading 6114 rather than 6212.
On appeal the importers argued the garments are “similar articles” to brassieres under HTSUS heading 6212 invoking ejusdem generis; the government defended the trial court’s ruling.
The Federal Circuit applied GRI 1 and ejusdem generis, held the unifying characteristic of the 6212 list is provision of support as the paramount function, and concluded the camisoles’ substantial outerwear/coverage purpose makes them unlike the exemplars — affirming classification under 6114.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shelf-bra camisoles are "similar articles" under HTSUS heading 6212 (brassieres, etc.)	Garments provide bust support and thus share the essential characteristics of listed items; classify under 6212	Although garments provide some support, they have a coequal/primary outerwear coverage function that makes them unlike the 6212 exemplars; classify under 6114	Held: Not similar — 6212 requires support as the paramount function; affirmed classification under 6114
Whether ejusdem generis should be read to include articles with dual functions	Importers: ejusdem generis covers articles sharing essential characteristics (support), even with additional features	Government: ejusdem generis requires comparing whole article; additional dominant coverage function defeats similarity	Held: Apply ejusdem generis by identifying unifying trait (paramount support); dual-function garments here lack that paramount support trait
Whether precedent or doctrines (e.g., “more than” doctrine) require different analysis	Importers: prior cases allow classification when essential characteristics match, and dual functions are not dispositive	Government: analysis must be heading-specific; look to the exemplars’ unifying characteristic	Held: Court follows heading-specific ejusdem generis; rejects importers’ broad application and affirms trial court
Proper judicial standard of review and disposition	Plaintiffs sought de novo or favorable factual application	Government relied on trial court factual findings and GRI framework	Held: Legal interpretation reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed clear-error; judgment affirmed (6114 applies)

Key Cases Cited

Millenium Lumber Distrib. Ltd. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (two-step classification: interpret heading, then compare merchandise)
Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir.) (ejusdem generis: merchandise must share essential characteristics/purpose of exemplars)
JVC Co. of America v. United States, 234 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir.) (rejecting inflexible doctrines; interpret HTSUS headings contextually under GRIs)
Totes, Inc. v. United States, 69 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir.) (analyze unifying characteristics of heading in light of merchandise-specific features)
SGI, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1468 (Fed. Cir.) (purpose inconsistent with heading’s unifying characteristics defeats inclusion)
Deckers Corp. v. United States, 532 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.) (ejusdem generis in tariff classification: focus on essential characteristics)