Ruling of the Week 215.4: CBP as Fashion Snob

Men's ties are an odd thing. They are completely useless in terms of functionality, unless the function is collection samples of soup and occasionally operating as a choking hazard. It is high time someone took ties to the proverbial next level. It appears that the fine folks at Seasons USA, Inc. have done just that. Apparently, they import a "novelty" tie that incorporates LEDs that light up in amusing patterns of joy.

Seasons requested a ruling on the classification of these ties.

According to the fashionistas at Customs and Border Protection, ties and bow ties conform to some preconceived notion of acceptable dress. To me, that is just a lack of imagination and fashion adventurism. Who says a light up tie is not acceptable wherever a tie might normally be worn? At a funeral or bar mitzvah, for example. Or a Cabinet Meeting? That's only true if you are not bold enough to do it.

But, Customs says a light up tie made of 100% polyester with an elastic band going around the wearer's neck is not a tie. Rather, it is classifiable in 6217.10.9530, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for "Other made up clothing accessories; parts of garments…Accessories: Other: Other: Of man-made fibers." The rate of duty will be 14.6 percent ad valorem. Actual polyester ties, by the way, are classified in 6215.20.0000 (24.8 cents/kg + 12.7%).

You can read this failure of creativity in NYRL N257651 (Oct. 20, 2014).

Note: In law school, the professor who taught me copyright law said any student who could find him the original Balinese dancer lamp that was at issue in the famous copyright case of Mazer v. Stein would get an automatic A. That was a joke, in case you are wondering. But, I have periodically looked for that lamp for Professor McGrath. Similarly, I have scoured the internet for a picture of this particular light up tie. It is Seasons Style Number AC 15-0065. Anyone who can find it will get my thanks and gratitude.

Comments

Unknown said…
I don't think this is the tie you're looking for, but it's pretty fantastic nonetheless: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNLJZY2Oivs&autoplay=1
Feb 4, 2015, 9:25:00 AM
Larry said…
Thanks! I don't think that is the right tie, but I want one anyway.
Feb 4, 2015, 11:53:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance topic. So, let's
Read more

Precious Tritium

Image
One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The
Read more