US Defends Classification of Plastic-Dipped Gloves at Federal Circuit
The Court of International Trade properly classified knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The heading provides for "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted" and is "sufficiently broad" to include knit gloves. The plaintiff-appellant, Magid Glove, puts forth a host of "inconsistent and unpersuasive arguments" to vie for classification under HTS heading 3926, which provides for "[o]ther articles of plastics," the brief said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1793).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case concerns CBP's classification of gloves knitted from man-made fibers that, following the knitting process, are "dipped in polyurethane resulting in plastic only covering the palm and portions of the gloves and fingers of each glove." Before the dipping process, the shell is in the shape of a complete glove and is knitted from yarn directly to a shape that covers the entire hand.
CBP classified the gloves under subheading 6116.10.55 as "Gloves, mittens and mitts ...," dutiable at 13.2%. Magid argued for classification under subheading 3926.20.10 as “Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials ... Articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves, mittens and mitts): Gloves, mittens and mitts: Seamless,” which is duty-free.
In the ruling, the trade court said that heading 3926 does not describe Magid's gloves because, "while comprised in part of a plastic material, the gloves are not 'of plastics'" (see 2203280037). The ruling went on to explain that the plastic sections of the gloves were "not mere trimming" and "add functional characteristics" that do not conclusively establish the gloves belong outside heading 6116.
Responding to Magid Glove's opening brief at the Federal Circuit, the U.S. defended the classification of the gloves under heading 6116 and the rejection of classification under heading 3926. The appellant took issue with the trade court's interpretation of Section XI, Note 1(H), which excludes two types of goods from Section XI heading: "(1) woven, knit or crocheted fabrics, felt, or nonwoven, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics of Chapter 39 and (2) articles made from woven, knit or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics of Chapter 39."
The U.S. argued that CIT properly focused on the fact that the gloves were partially dipped in polyurethane after the knitting process, finding that Note 1(h) fails to describe Magid Glove's imports since they are not knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwoven, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with Chapter 39 plastics. Magid Glove said that the trade court's ruling imposes a temporal limit to the Note that is not in the text, and that the Note applies to articles to which a plastic coating is applied after the knitting process.
"Simply put, for an article to be excluded from Section XI under Note 1(h), the plastic must be present on the fabric before it is made into an article of Chapter 39," the U.S. said. "The trial court’s interpretation of Note 1(h) is sound and correct and should be affirmed. ... Magid Glove’s proffered interpretation of Note 1(h) does not give effect to the terms 'articles thereof' and 'of Chapter 39' in Note 1(h). The 'cardinal rule of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy.' ... Section Note 1(h) only excludes certain fabrics and articles made from those fabrics that are classified in Chapter 39 in the first instance."
Magid Glove further argued that the 2019 Federal Circuit decision in Kalle USA v. U.S. controls the classification of the gloves. In response, the U.S. said this decision is "inapplicable because it involved materially different tariff provisions than those at issue in this case."