tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post934747069206294430..comments2024-03-20T00:33:13.961-05:00Comments on Customs Law: A Case of NoteLarryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-73059850264103139692010-03-06T09:44:20.962-06:002010-03-06T09:44:20.962-06:00I agree with the position that apparel that is bot...I agree with the position that apparel that is both specifically dedicated to a sport and also not likely to be worn except in connection with the sport should be classified as sports equipment. I think that is the teaching of Bauer. I expect the plaintiffs in this case to appeal. I believe the Federal Circuit is trending away from reliance on the Explanatory Notes while the CIT seems to be trending toward greater reliance. The conflict (if it is not a figment of my imagination) is interesting to watch.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13659537105506728479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-9828761659669951042010-03-05T20:29:21.902-06:002010-03-05T20:29:21.902-06:00The EN should certainly be given legal weight; fro...The EN should certainly be given legal weight; from a CHB standpoint, it is an invaluable reference, and I think the IS's feel the same way. I would also concur that the list of equipment presented in the EN does not warrant inclusion of apparel, in and of itself. I do not know the basics of the hockey pants case, but I would look at the same issue in light of football pants. They are clearly, to any <i>reasonable</i> person, football equipment. They have no other use whatsover, due to the size and the pouches for the various pads. Therefore, I would say, if CBP has consistently classified such as garments, then I would say that motocross apparel, which may or may not be so specific to the sport as football pants, should be classified likewise. Same goes for classifying as sports equipment; the only caveat I would make is that the construction of the apparel would have to be extremely specific - if the pants were identical to the football pants for example, yes, classifiy as equipment, but the shirts, probably not - people wear football jerseys all the time, so I don't think you could genuinely say that jerseys are strictly limited to use as "equipment" in any case.<br /><br />Now if I can just get an importer to pay attention to CBP position on classification of aluminum cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-51155395803810559342010-02-26T20:58:09.345-06:002010-02-26T20:58:09.345-06:00Bauer was wrong. Hockey pants are no less pants j...Bauer was wrong. Hockey pants are no less pants just because they are worn to play hockey, and they certainly are not required to play hockey, even if dedicated for that use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-78409359183744094552010-02-25T17:14:46.690-06:002010-02-25T17:14:46.690-06:00Larry -
I wonder if counsel for LeMans asked the ...Larry -<br /><br />I wonder if counsel for LeMans asked the Court if its members would wear the subject apparel if they were going out for a stroll, going shopping, to the theatre, etc. The BEST argument here seems to be one of use, and the apparel in question is clearly intended solely for sports use, ergo "sporting equipment." Far from the first time Customs and the courts have gotten something wrong.<br /><br />Your faithful Customs retiree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-51450974786155644092010-02-24T08:18:25.491-06:002010-02-24T08:18:25.491-06:00I agree that the statute should control but the EN...I agree that the statute should control but the ENs have become a crutch that is relied upon by CBP and the courts in making classification decisions. As the ENs have become so important in classification, I expect to see more companies focus their efforts on modifications of the ENs to win classification disputes. Maybe we should forget the HTSUS and just use the ENs!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12154253.post-60014245516523446952010-02-22T16:39:16.994-06:002010-02-22T16:39:16.994-06:00I agree with you.
So unless the EN lists the sp...I agree with you. <br /><br />So unless the EN lists the specific type of equipment, then it is not considered equipment? Are the EN's supposed to be that exhaustive? Something about that doesn't seem logical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com