Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States
908 F. Supp. 2d 1332
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Victoria’s Secret imported Bra Top style 194-423 in July 2006; CBP liquidated under HTSUS 6109.10.00 (cotton knitted tops) at 16.5% ad valorem.
- Victoria’s Secret protested the classification; complaint sought 6212.90.00 (brassieres, girdles, etc.) or, alternatively, 6114.20.00 (cotton knitted garments).
- The court held trial on the merits (joint with Lerner) and issued de novo findings of fact and law.
- The court concluded the Bra Top is not described by heading 6109 or 6212, and is properly classified under 6114.20.00, as a knitted cotton garment.
- Final judgment: classification under 6114.20.00, HTSUS, at 10.8% ad valorem; involving GRIs and HS/HTSUS interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bra Top falls under heading 6109 (tank tops) | Victoria’s Secret argues 6109 covers tank tops and similar garments. | CBP contends Bra Top is within 6109 as a tank top or similar garment. | No; Bra Top not described by 6109 nor its scope. |
| Whether Bra Top is described under heading 6212 (brassieres and similar) | Bra Top is substantially a brassiere or similar and thus within 6212. | Bra Top lacks the essential characteristics of a brassiere; not described by 6212. | No; not within 6212 as described. |
| Whether Bra Top is properly classified under heading 6114, specifically 6114.20.00 | If not 6109 or 6212, 6114.20.00 (cotton knitted other garments) should apply. | 6114.20.00 is not precluded; CI supports residual classification. | Yes; Bra Top correctly classified under 6114.20.00. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (interpretation of tariff terms; de novo classification standard)
- Simod Am. Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (merchandise as witness; de novo fact-finding)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (skidmore deference; agency interpretation at issue)
- Degussa Corp. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (interpretive guidance; HS consistency and ENs used for interpretation)
- Van Dale Indus. v. United States, 50 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (underwear vs. outerwear scope; no broad expansion of 6109)