DiCarlo, Judge:
Garments invoiced as "men’s 100% nylon woven jackets” (jackets) imported from Taiwan were classified by the United States Customs Service (Customs) as "Other men’s or boys’ wearing apparel, not ornamented: * * * Of man-made fibers: Not knit” under item 380.84, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), at a rate of duty of 25 cents per pound and 27.5% ad valorem.
Plaintiff claims that the jackets are properly classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, at a rate of duty of 16.5% ad valorem, as:
Garments designed for rainwear, hunting, fishing, or similar uses, wholly or almost wholly of fabrics which are coated or filled, or laminated, with rubber or plastics, which (after applying headnote 5 of Schedule 3) are regarded as textile materials * * *. Other.
[310]*310The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment and agree that there are no disputed issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and defendant’s motion is denied.
The government contends that the garments are not classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, since they are not made of fabric sufficiently waterproof to pass the "cup test”.1 Since the parties stipulate that the fabric did not pass the "cup test”,2 the question presented in this action is whether the fabric must pass the "cup test” in order for the garments to be classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS.
I. Legislative History
The government contends that the legislative history of the "coated or filled” and "rainwear” provisions in item 376.56, TSUS, indicate that Congress intended that garments classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, be made of fabric which passes the "cup test”.
"As in all cases involving statutory construction, our starting point must be the language employed by Congress,’ ” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68 (1982) (citing Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337 (1979)). "Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).
A. "Coated or Filled”
"Coated or filled” is defined for purposes of the Tariff Schedules in Headnote 2(a), Subpart C, Part 4, Schedule 3, TSUS, which provides in part:
For the purposes of the tariff schedules—
(a) the term "coated or filled,” as used with reference to textile fabrics * * * means that any such fabric * * * has been coated or filled with * * * plastics materials * * * so as to visibly and significantly affect the surface or surfaces thereof otherwise than by change in color, whether or not their color has been changed thereby * * *.
Defendant admits that "the plastics material used to coat the fabric of which [the garment] is constructed both visibly and significantly affects the surface of the fabric otherwise than by a [311]*311change in color” and that the "fabric used to manufacture [the garment] is coated’ within the tariff understanding of the term.”3
Nevertheless, defendant contends that the legislative history of the headnote requires "coated” fabric to pass the "cup test”. Defendant points to the Tariff Classification Study of 1960 4 which says that the former provision for "waterproof cloth” was "assimilated with” the provision for "coated or filled” fabric when the Tariff Schedules were enacted in 1962.5
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 132 (1981) defines "assimilate” as "to appropriate and transform or incorporate into the substance of the assimilator.” The "assimilator” in this instance was the tariff provision for "coated or filled” fabrics. The requirements of the former tariff provision for "waterproof cloth” were "transformed” or "incorporated” into the requirements for "coated and filled” fabrics, not the reverse. The Tariff Schedules do not provide for "waterproof cloth”. If Congress intended that "coated or filled” fabrics be "waterproof’ it could have simply included that requirement in the headnote. But it did not.
The Court finds that the legislative history of the provision for "coated or filled” fabric is consistent with the plain meaning of Headnote 2(a), Subpart C, Part 4, Schedule 3, TSUS and that garments classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, must be made wholly or almost wholly of fabric which is "coated or filled” within the plain meaning of the headnote.
[312]*312B. "Rainwear”
Defendant also argues that the legislative history of the term "rainwear” in item 376.56, TSUS, indicates that Congress intended garments classified under that item to be made of fabric sufficiently waterproof to pass the "cup test”.
Item 376.56, TSUS, was enacted by Congress in 19656 to supercede items 376.50 and 376.58, which provided for "rainwear”.7 The scope of these items was discussed in the Tariff Classification Study, Schedule 3, 227 (1960) as follows:
* * * [D]omestic producers of rainwear have asked that attention be given to the present uncertainties and anomalies involved in the classification of rainwear made of textile fabrics which have been coated or filled with rubber or plastics. Items 376.50 through 376.58 would provide for such rainwear. It is understood that such rainwear is usually in chief value of rubber or plastics when such materials are on the outer surface of the garment * * *; and that the fabric is usually the component of chief value if it is expose to view and the rubber or plastic rainproofing is not exposed. The rates used in the proposed provisions reflect this distinction * * * [Emphasis added].
Defendant contends that this indicates that "rainwear” under the former items 376.50 and 376.58, TSUS, was intended to provide for garments made of fabric which passed the "cup test” since "rainproof’ is defined as "impervious to rain”8 and Customs jurisprudence, see e.g. D.H. Grant & Co., considered fabric "substantially impervious to water” if it passed the "cup test”.
But this Court has ruled that garments need not pass the "cup test” to be classifiable under item 376.56. In A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 378, C.D. 4218 (1971), the Court stated that item 376.56 was
not limited to garments which afford protection against rain but includes wearing apparel used in outdoor sports activities, such as hunting or fishing, which may be carried on in inclement weather, or in or upon water, and where protection from moisture and dampness is desirable [emphasis added].
[313]*31366 Cust. Ct. at 383.9 This interpretation was adopted in Pacific Trail Sportswear v. United States,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DiCarlo, Judge:
Garments invoiced as "men’s 100% nylon woven jackets” (jackets) imported from Taiwan were classified by the United States Customs Service (Customs) as "Other men’s or boys’ wearing apparel, not ornamented: * * * Of man-made fibers: Not knit” under item 380.84, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), at a rate of duty of 25 cents per pound and 27.5% ad valorem.
Plaintiff claims that the jackets are properly classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, at a rate of duty of 16.5% ad valorem, as:
Garments designed for rainwear, hunting, fishing, or similar uses, wholly or almost wholly of fabrics which are coated or filled, or laminated, with rubber or plastics, which (after applying headnote 5 of Schedule 3) are regarded as textile materials * * *. Other.
[310]*310The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment and agree that there are no disputed issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and defendant’s motion is denied.
The government contends that the garments are not classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, since they are not made of fabric sufficiently waterproof to pass the "cup test”.1 Since the parties stipulate that the fabric did not pass the "cup test”,2 the question presented in this action is whether the fabric must pass the "cup test” in order for the garments to be classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS.
I. Legislative History
The government contends that the legislative history of the "coated or filled” and "rainwear” provisions in item 376.56, TSUS, indicate that Congress intended that garments classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, be made of fabric which passes the "cup test”.
"As in all cases involving statutory construction, our starting point must be the language employed by Congress,’ ” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68 (1982) (citing Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337 (1979)). "Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).
A. "Coated or Filled”
"Coated or filled” is defined for purposes of the Tariff Schedules in Headnote 2(a), Subpart C, Part 4, Schedule 3, TSUS, which provides in part:
For the purposes of the tariff schedules—
(a) the term "coated or filled,” as used with reference to textile fabrics * * * means that any such fabric * * * has been coated or filled with * * * plastics materials * * * so as to visibly and significantly affect the surface or surfaces thereof otherwise than by change in color, whether or not their color has been changed thereby * * *.
Defendant admits that "the plastics material used to coat the fabric of which [the garment] is constructed both visibly and significantly affects the surface of the fabric otherwise than by a [311]*311change in color” and that the "fabric used to manufacture [the garment] is coated’ within the tariff understanding of the term.”3
Nevertheless, defendant contends that the legislative history of the headnote requires "coated” fabric to pass the "cup test”. Defendant points to the Tariff Classification Study of 1960 4 which says that the former provision for "waterproof cloth” was "assimilated with” the provision for "coated or filled” fabric when the Tariff Schedules were enacted in 1962.5
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 132 (1981) defines "assimilate” as "to appropriate and transform or incorporate into the substance of the assimilator.” The "assimilator” in this instance was the tariff provision for "coated or filled” fabrics. The requirements of the former tariff provision for "waterproof cloth” were "transformed” or "incorporated” into the requirements for "coated and filled” fabrics, not the reverse. The Tariff Schedules do not provide for "waterproof cloth”. If Congress intended that "coated or filled” fabrics be "waterproof’ it could have simply included that requirement in the headnote. But it did not.
The Court finds that the legislative history of the provision for "coated or filled” fabric is consistent with the plain meaning of Headnote 2(a), Subpart C, Part 4, Schedule 3, TSUS and that garments classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, must be made wholly or almost wholly of fabric which is "coated or filled” within the plain meaning of the headnote.
[312]*312B. "Rainwear”
Defendant also argues that the legislative history of the term "rainwear” in item 376.56, TSUS, indicates that Congress intended garments classified under that item to be made of fabric sufficiently waterproof to pass the "cup test”.
Item 376.56, TSUS, was enacted by Congress in 19656 to supercede items 376.50 and 376.58, which provided for "rainwear”.7 The scope of these items was discussed in the Tariff Classification Study, Schedule 3, 227 (1960) as follows:
* * * [D]omestic producers of rainwear have asked that attention be given to the present uncertainties and anomalies involved in the classification of rainwear made of textile fabrics which have been coated or filled with rubber or plastics. Items 376.50 through 376.58 would provide for such rainwear. It is understood that such rainwear is usually in chief value of rubber or plastics when such materials are on the outer surface of the garment * * *; and that the fabric is usually the component of chief value if it is expose to view and the rubber or plastic rainproofing is not exposed. The rates used in the proposed provisions reflect this distinction * * * [Emphasis added].
Defendant contends that this indicates that "rainwear” under the former items 376.50 and 376.58, TSUS, was intended to provide for garments made of fabric which passed the "cup test” since "rainproof’ is defined as "impervious to rain”8 and Customs jurisprudence, see e.g. D.H. Grant & Co., considered fabric "substantially impervious to water” if it passed the "cup test”.
But this Court has ruled that garments need not pass the "cup test” to be classifiable under item 376.56. In A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 378, C.D. 4218 (1971), the Court stated that item 376.56 was
not limited to garments which afford protection against rain but includes wearing apparel used in outdoor sports activities, such as hunting or fishing, which may be carried on in inclement weather, or in or upon water, and where protection from moisture and dampness is desirable [emphasis added].
[313]*31366 Cust. Ct. at 383.9 This interpretation was adopted in Pacific Trail Sportswear v. United States, 5 CIT 206, 210-11 (1983), the only other opinion to construe item 376.56. In Pacific Trail, the Court held that the snowjacket at issue need not pass the "cup test” for classification under item 376.56, TSUS.
Congress did not mention a "rainproof’ requirement when it repealed the "rainwear” items in 1965 by enacting item 376.56, TSUS, which includes within its coverage garments designed for hunting, fishing, or similar uses,10 and the Court will not infer one to deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language of the tariff provision.11
II. Defendant’s Design Arguments
Defendant also argues that the jackets are not "designed for rainwear, hunting, fishing or similar uses” within the meaning of item 376.56, TSUS, because their fabric does not pass the "cup test”.
The term "designed for” means "peculiarly and specially fitted” for the particular needs and requirements of the named articles. See Automotive Tire Service, Inc. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 305, C.D. 4208 (1971); American Astral Corp. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 563, C.D. 3827 (1969). Item 376.56 is not a "chief use” provision. A garment under item 376.56 could be "peculiarly and specially fitted” for the special needs of a variety of activities.
Where there is an enumeration of specific words of description (e.g., "rainwear, hunting, fishing”) followed by a general term (e.g., "other similar uses”) the rule of ejusdem g eneris aids in statutory interpretation. See Merck & Co. v. United States, 19 CCPA 16, 18, T.D. 44852 (1931). Under the rule of ejusdem generis, which means "of the same kind”, where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified. See European Trading Co. v. United States, 19 CCPA 82, 86, T.D. 45225 [314]*314(1935); see also 2 R. Sturm, Customs Law and Administration, § 51.10 at 48-51 (1984).
Applying the rule to item 376.56, TSUS, the Court must determine what characteristics are shared by garments designed for "rain-wear”, "hunting”, and "fishing”, and whether the jackets have these characteristics.
Drawing on its contention that "rainwear” is made of fabric which must pass the "cup test”, defendant argues that the primary characteristic shared by garments designed for rainwear, hunting, or fishing is that they are made of fabric which passes the "cup test”.12
But, again, the Court has held that garments need not pass the "cup test” to be classifiable under item 376.56, TSUS, which:
includes wearing apparel used in outdoor sports activities, such as hunting or fishing, which may be carried on in inclement weather, or in or upon water, and where protection from moisture and dampness is desirable [emphasis added].
A.N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 378, 383, C.D. 4218 (1971). See also Pacific Trail Sportswear v. United States, 5 CIT 206, 210-11 (1983).13
Defendant attempts to distinguish these cases, arguing that they do not decide whether a garment may be "designed for rainwear, hunting, fishing, or similar uses” if the fabric does not pass the "cup test”. But defendant gives no reason why a characteristic of a garment’s fabric should determine whether a garment is "designed for” particular activities.
It is not disputed that plaintiffs jacket is designed to be worn while participating in outdoor sports activities during inclement weather, including light to moderate rain.14 In the opinion of the Court, plaintiffs merchandise fulfills the design requirement of item 376.56, TSUS, as that provision has been defined in the A.N. Deringer and Pacific Trail decisions.
III. Conclusion
Defendant would exclude from the coverage of item 376.56, TSUS, garments designed, marketed, and used "for rainwear, hunting, fishing or similar uses” made of fabric which is "coated or filled” within the plain meaning of the headnote which is not sufficiently [315]*315waterproof to pass the "cup test”. If Congress intended this result it could, and should, have stated its intention in the language of the tariff provision or headnote. "[T]he intent of Congress to impose or increase a tax upon imports should be expressed in clear and unambiguous language.” Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583 (1901).
Item 376.56, TSUS, requires that garments be composed wholly or almost wholly of "coated or filled” fabric and that they be designed for rainwear, hunting, fishing or similar uses that require protection from moisture and dampness. The item does not require that the fabric of the garments pass the "cup test”.
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Judgment will be entered accordingly. So ordered