US Says No Disputed Facts in Incontinence Underpants Classification Dispute
Importer Viecura’s argument that there were facts in its classification case that were in dispute, necessitating a trial, “amount[ed] to vague, unsubstantiated claims,” the U.S. said in a reply brief Dec. 5 (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).
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 importer is challenging the classification of certain entries of its imported knit underwear designed to keep incontinence pads in place (see 2506300063).
Viecura argues its products are “articles specially designed or adapted for the use of and benefit of the blind and other physically or mentally handicapped persons,” thus classifiable under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9817.00.96. CBP classified the entries as certain women’s or girls’ briefs or panties under subheading 6108.22.9020, which carries a 15.6% rate.
In a reply to the U.S.’s motion for judgment (see 2506300063), Viecura said the government made multiple erroneous factual statements (see 2509020071). Specifically, the importer claimed in its brief, the U.S. failed to mention several physical characteristics of its underpants that distinguish them from the regular product, including “wide waistband[s]” and seams across the underpants’ crotch area that aren’t covered by a gusset, a protective piece of fabric.
But the U.S. did mention these things, the government said. It said the U.S. did discuss “the elastic bands around the circumference of the pants” that appear in both Viecura’s products and “regular stretch-to-fit underwear.” And it did mention that Viecura’s underpants lack a gusset, comparing them to other “unisex disposable briefs” and calling the absence of a gusset “reflective of the frugal quality of the product.”
Viecura also claimed that the U.S. was wrong that Viecura’s underpants were meant primarily for post-partum care. It further added that the government misrepresented post-partum incontinence as “an ‘acute’ or ‘transient’ condition” when the condition can last up to two years after birth or even be lifelong.
But Viecura’s own expert witness also stated at one point that “postpartum is not typically a chronic condition” and that maternal postpartum incontinence is “typically” transient, the U.S. said.
“This makes logical sense because becoming a mother is not a chronic disease,” it said.
The government also argued again that most of Viecura’s underpants are used in acute care situations. And it noted that Viecura will sell the same products to customers in different packaging, depending on the customer’s preference -- with the packaging describing the underpants as either meant for incontinence or for maternity.