CAFC Says Knit Gloves With Partial Plastic Coating Fall Under HTS Heading 6116
Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.
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.
Upholding a Court of International Trade decision in favor of CBP's classification of the gloves in heading 6116, Judges Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto rejected Magid's claims that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from the heading and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casings, precluded classification as textiles and apparel of Section XI.
"The reality of this case is that we felt that broad language in the court’s prior Kalle decision was applicable to the merchandise," Lawrence Friedman, counsel for Magid, said in an email. "We wanted to test that and appreciate the opportunity to present that issue to the Court of Appeals. Obviously, we argued for a different outcome, but respect the Court’s thoughtful decision."
The suit concerns eight models of Magid's knit textile gloves with a polyurethane coating covering the palm and parts of the fingers. The importer entered the gloves under heading 3926 as "other" articles of plastics or "other materials of headings 3901 to 3914." CBP changed the classification to subheading 6116.10.55, which covers gloves "impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber." Heading 3926 is duty free, while subheading 6116.10.55 is dutiable at 13.2%.
The Court of International Trade said the terms of heading 3926 didn't cover the gloves because they aren't "of plastics" or of other materials in headings 3901 to 3914 (see 2203280037). The trade court rejected Magid's argument that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from Section XI, which includes Chapter 61. The note says that the section doesn't cover woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics of Chapter 39. CIT said that the reference to "fabrics" in that note includes only fabrics "in basic uncut or rectangular form," so the exclusion doesn't cover Magid's gloves.
The importer made the same argument on appeal but was again met with disagreement. Reyna, the opinion's author, said that the court agrees with CIT's finding that, to fall under Section XI Note 1(h), the fabrics "not only must be 'impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics,' they must also be 'in basic uncut or rectangular form.'" Magid's gloves are "undisputedly not so, because they are in the advanced form of complete gloves when they come off the knitting machine."
Reyna also found heading 6116 to more specifically cover the gloves, because it is the only one of the two headings at issue that addresses gloves. While a subheading of 3926 addresses gloves, the heading itself doesn't. The judge noted that a "proper classification analysis starts with the terms of the headings, not the subheadings," adding that a subheading "cannot expand the plain meaning of the terms of a heading."
Magid also argued that the Federal Circuit must apply the court's reasoning in Kalle to determine whether the gloves are "completely embedded" in plastics and thus excluded from HTS Section XI if the gloves are classifiable in Chapter 39. Kalle dealt with the term "completely embedded in plastics" in Chapter 59, in particular as it relates to sausage casings made of a woven textile sheet coated with a layer of plastic on one side.
Reyna refused to opine on how the court's reasoning in Kalle maps onto the present spat since none of the "competing headings, HTSUS chapters, or merchandise," in Kalle are involved in Magid's case. The court said it rejects the importer's "attempt to take the interpretation of a term within Chapter 59 Note 2(a)(3) out of context and apply it in a case involving different provisions and merchandise."
(Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1793, dated 12/6/23; Judges: Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto; Attorneys: Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson for plaintiff-appellant Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing; Marcella Powell for defendant-appellee U.S. government)