LeMANS CORP. v. United States

675 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 156, 34 C.I.T. 156, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1173, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 19
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedFebruary 8, 2010
DocketSlip Op. 10-14; Court 06-00038
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 675 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (LeMANS CORP. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
LeMANS CORP. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 156, 34 C.I.T. 156, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1173, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 19 (cit 2010).

Opinion

OPINION

BARZILAY, Judge:

This case concerns the U.S. Customs & Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of certain motocross jerseys, motocross pants, and motorcycle jackets under Chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Defendant United States moves the court for summary judgment, arguing that Customs classified the subject merchandise under the appropriate provisions of the HTSUS. Plaintiff LeMans Corporation (“LeMans” or “Plaintiff’) contests the classification and cross-moves the court for summary judgment, alleging that subheadings within Chapter 95 of the HTSUS covering sports equipment most accurately describe the subject jerseys, pants, and jackets. In view of the applicable General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and for the reasons explained below, the court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Background

A. The Subject Merchandise

LeMans imported the subject merchandise into the United States through the ports of Chicago and Los Angeles between July 20, 2004 and September 17, 2004. 1 Summons 3-4. The merchandise consists of “highly specialized” jerseys, pants, and jackets “designed, engineered, and produced exclusively for use while participating in motocross activities and other power sports riding.” PL’s Resp. to Def.’s First Interrogs. & Reqs. for Produc., Def. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 5 (“PI. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs.”). The dual purposes of the goods “prevent injury to the rider from abrasion and impacts with motorcycle parts and the surrounding elements, as well as ... provide optimal fit and comfort while participating in the sport.” PL Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 5.

Synthetic, abrasion-resistant mesh and ventilated knit patterned fabric, which also wicks away moisture, makes up the five *1377 motocross jerseys at issue. 2 Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. “The jerseys have padded elbows for abrasion and impact protection” and “form an integrated protection system” with the use of “a tacky silicon print on the lower back to keep the jersey tucked into the motocross pant when riding.” Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. An oversized, multi-panel cut allows for a non-binding fit so that other safety equipment, which if permanently affixed in the good would result in improper fit and inadequate safety, 3 may be worn under the jersey. Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6.

Six different models comprise the subject pants, 4 and riders generally use the goods off-road on motocross tracks, super-cross tracks, or on other off-road courses. Dep. of Jeffrey T. Hart, Def. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. B at 12:12-16 (“Hart Dep.”). Heavy-duty nylon provides riders with impact and abrasion protection, and the pants contain additional comfort features, such as “mesh panels for venting, heat resistant inner leg areas (made of leather or man[-]made fibers) to prevent burns from the engine and exhaust pipe, and spandex and stretch panels to allow freedom of movement and a non[-]binding fit in the legs, seat, and crotch area.” Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 5. To ensure freedom of movement, the pants also include [¶] ]] hip padding instead of alternative rigid protective elements. 5 Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 5.

Finally, the LeMans motorcycle jackets at issue are the Super Duty, Merc, Tarmac, and the Airtex Sport. 6 Compl. ¶ 9. Heavy-duty materials provide protection to the rider on the public street from impact and abrasion injuries “which may result from a crash or fall, including the initial impact and the sliding contact with the pavement.” Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. Internal armor pads, constructed of [[special material]], appear in the shoulders and elbows, “the highest impact areas *1378 in the event of crashes or falls.” PL Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. The jackets also feature a[[]] back pad for added protection. PL Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. LeMans designed the jackets to fit closely to the rider’s body and tapered the sleeves snugly around the wrist “to keep the jacket in proper position while riding or during a crash.” Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6. The jackets also accommodate a rider’s posture with a cut that has longer sleeves and fuller shoulders, with zippered vents or mesh providing “airflow into the jacket for various riding conditions.” Pl. Resp. to Def. First Interrogs. 6-7.

In summary, all. the subject merchandise are readily recognizable as articles of clothing albeit with certain specialized protective features, some minimal, some more significant.

B. The Subject Classification

Customs classified the subject mercham dise under five subheadings within Chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS. 7 The agency entered the relevant motocross jerseys as “Sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted: Of man-made fibers: Other” under subheading 6110.30.30 of the HTSUS at a duty rate of 32% ad valorem. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 20. Customs classified the subject motocross pants as “Garments, made up of fabrics of heading 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907: Other men’s or boy’s garments: Of manmade fibers: Other” under subheading 6210.40.50 of the HTSUS at a duty rate of 7.1% ad valorem. 8 Compl. ¶¶ 11, 19. Finally, Customs found that the various motorcycle jackets fit within three separate provisions of Heading 6201, HTSUS, and classified and liquidated the Airtex Sport and Merc models under subheading 6201.93.30 at a duty rate of 7.1% ad valorem, the Tarmac jacket under 6201.93.35 at a rate of 27.7% ad valorem, and the Super Duty model under 6201.92.15 at a rate of 6.2% ad valorem. 9 Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 21; Answer ¶ 15.

*1379 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Standard of Review

The Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1515 that contest Customs’s denial of a protest. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). An action before the court warrants summary judgment “if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Allstar Marketing Group, LLC v. United States
211 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (Court of International Trade, 2017)
Riddell, Inc. v. United States
906 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Court of International Trade, 2013)
Lemans Corp. v. United States
660 F.3d 1311 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Graphite Sales v. United States
768 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (Court of International Trade, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 156, 34 C.I.T. 156, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1173, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemans-corp-v-united-states-cit-2010.