Riddell Me This: When are Football Uniforms Not Sports Equipment?

Answer: when they are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

This classification decision in Riddell v. United States, addresses one of my pet questions. At some point, is apparel designed for use in conjunction with participating in sports "sports equipment" rather than apparel?

The products at issue in this case are football jerseys, pants, and girdles. Each of them is designed to be worn in conjunction with protective football pads (both hard and soft). However, no pads were included with the merchandise when imported. Customs and Border Protection classified these items under chapters 61 and 62 if the HTSUS. Riddell argued that the merchandise was more properly classified as "Football . . . equipment . . . ." under subheading 9506.99.20. Because the imported goods were not imported with or otherwise incorporate padding or other protective features, the Court of International Trade held that the merchandise is clothing, not sports equipment.

On appeal, Riddell argued that these items constitute football equipment because . . . well, because hockey pants are sports equipment. We know that because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said so in Bauer Nike Hockey USA v. United States. But, those pants came imported with protective pads. Furthermore, the CAFC found that motorcycle jackets with foam padding were still apparel because they were not protective enough when compared to the helmets worn by motorcycle riders. In that case, the Court held that apparel will only classified as sports equipment when it is "almost exclusively protective in nature."

Stated another way, the Court said that "sports equipment" does not include merchandise that, as imported, would be understood as clothing. Rather, it must have a "transformative element" such as the pads in the hockey pants.

Lacking such transformative elements, i.e, protective padding, the Riddell products did not qualify as sports equipment.  The facts that they were designed for use in conjunction with playing football and that they were often required equipment, were not sufficient to transform them into protective equipment. Everyone involved, though, agreed that the girdles, if not sports equipment, are also classifiable in 6114 because they are not support garments of 6212.

To me, this case raises two questions. First, does Riddell have an opportunity to tariff engineer these products by importing them with the pads?

Second, what about this?


Specialized padding? Check. Designed specifically for cycling? Check. Not something you choose to wear off bike? Check. Lack of pockets and fly? Check. Seriously, if you import these, feel free to call.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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 t...
Read more