CIT Issues Order Regarding Bench Trial in Customs Suit on Wearable Blanket
The Court of International Trade on June 18 issued an order regarding the bench trial, set for Oct. 21, in a customs case brought by importer Cozy Comfort Co. on its wearable blanket, the Comfy. To prepare for the trial, Judge Stephen Vaden set a pretrial conference for Sept. 19 and told the parties to conduct a "good faith attempt to settle this matter and avoid trial" (Cozy Comfort Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
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.
Before the trial, both the U.S. and Cozy Comfort must submit a "joint certification of settlement efforts including a representation that they have discussed settlement" and considered options for overcoming the obstacles to settlement. The parties must exchange "copies of all documents proposed to be used in evidence and of their lists of witnesses no later than 6 weeks before the pretrial conference."
The trade court sent the case to trial last week, following oral argument (see 2406130028). The government classified the Comfy under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110 as a pullover or similar article, while Cozy Comfort said the garment should fall under eithern HTS heading 6301 as a blanket, heading 6307 as "other made-up textile articles" or heading 6114 as "other garments."
Vaden said the government and importer disagreed on three main facts: whether the Comfy "protects against extreme cold"; how the Comfy compares to the Snuggie, a similar item; and the product's "use factors."
The Comfy can't fit under heading 6110 if it protects the wearer from "extreme cold," the judge said, adding that there's a genuine factual dispute on whether the product "protects against such cold." Regarding the similarity to the Snuggie, Vaden noted a separate case in which the trade court said the Snuggie fits under heading 6301 as a blanket.
The judge also cited a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that told CIT to "consider use while examining eo nomine tariff provisions when a 'provision's name "inherently suggests a type of use"' or when use is relevant to 'determining whether [an article] fits within the classification's scope.'" Vaden said use "is a relevant consideration to classify" the product, including physical characteristics, design and intended use and marketing.