Viecura Inc. v. United States
1:21-cv-00154
| Ct. Intl. Trade | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Viecura Inc. imported unisex knit underpants from China and sought duty-free treatment for these goods under a secondary classification, subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
- This subheading implements the Nairobi Protocol and provides for duty-free importation of articles "specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons."
- The underpants are marketed to healthcare distributors and hospitals primarily for temporary needs (such as post-partum maternity care and post-surgical applications), as well as for incontinence.
- Viecura contested U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) denial of their request for secondary classification, which led to additional duties being assessed.
- CBP argued—and the court concurred—that the underpants are not specially designed for the chronically disabled, but are suitable for a broad range of uses, primarily acute/temporary situations.
- The matter was resolved on summary judgment, with the court finding no genuine issue of material fact about the nature, design, or predominant use of the underpants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the underpants "specially designed" for the chronically handicapped under 9817.00.96, HTSUS? | Viecura: Features amount to special design for the handicapped. | U.S.: Features are generic; same design used for maternity/acute needs. | Not specially designed; secondary treatment denied. |
| Can the same product qualify if marketed for both chronic and temporary/acute uses? | Viecura: Dual use (incontinence & maternity) doesn't preclude eligibility. | U.S.: Design and marketing for acute (maternity) use excludes eligibility. | Dual-purpose excludes eligibility for duty-free status. |
| Do the underpants differ meaningfully from regular underpants? | Viecura: Product modifications make them eligible as special articles. | U.S.: No significant modification distinguishing from regular underpants. | No meaningful difference; not "specially designed." |
| Should summary judgment be granted on the classification issue? | Viecura: Factual disputes exist about design and intended users. | U.S.: No material fact dispute; legal issue only. | Summary judgment granted for government. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (approves summary judgment when the nature of the merchandise is undisputed and only classification is at issue)
- Orlando Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (explains the application of the General Rules of Interpretation for tariff classification)
- Sigvaris, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (sets out the five-factor test for what constitutes "specially designed" under the Nairobi Protocol and HTSUS)
- Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United States, 847 F.2d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (court may consult its own understanding and authorities to interpret tariff terms)
- Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (tariff terms to be construed by their common and ordinary meaning)