as various articles of apparel and chapters sixty one and sixty two we firmly believe that these goods are properly classifiable as ports equipment before we get to the issue of what is equipment as an initial matter in order to be considered equipment for other sports the goods must be used in sports equipment we believe that street motorcycle riding and motor  meaning which is ascertained by reference to dictionaries here we believe the common meaning of the term sport is broader than an activity that involves competition or or multiple players or set of rules that decision below really turned on the question of whether these sports are no your honor did not and i can go into the issues that actually were addressed below if you'd like me of past time healthy active past time if you look at the definition of sport in webster is it something that is a source of pleasant diversion a pleasing or amusing pastime or recreation if you look in the oxford english dictionary the definition is similar it's a pleasant past time entertainment or amusement recreation or diversion or a particular form of pastime especially when played or carried out in the open air involving some form of bodily exercise but  which i think skipping rope is more an activity that well it can be athletics potentially yes your honor i think i'm having trouble i see the difference in my mind and i'm afraid i'm having trouble articulating it to you i think the difference is there has to be more involved than simply you know intermittent picking up a rope and jumping over it there has to be a greater degree of purposeful activity regional  activity which i think is present in both street motorcycling and motocross activities even if it's to mean that it is but even assuming that one or both of these are sports how do you deal with the doing headnotes are doing exclusionary notes there is this specific exclusion for sports clothing classifiable in chapter sixty one or sixty two from chapter ninety five there's a similar exclusion for goods that are is to engage in a g r a three a relative specificity analysis that's the proper place to start and we believe that that is where the analysis should have started here but  it then the common and commercial meaning of the term equipment for other sports that had a ninety five zero six and we also believe that they fall within the test of what is considered to be equipment that's been laid out by the course in by this court i'm sorry in two prior he dictionary meaning of the term equipment is something that is necessary useful or perper it for whatever you're talking about here it's something that's necessary useful or appropriate for the sports activities that the participants are engaging that's because their lives are just pacifically provided for by name in terror head in this within chapter sixty one or sixty two i think in that case you would again go to a relative specificity analysis you would look and see ok sports equipment which can cover many things for many different sports versus a swimsuit which is very specific and how did i fail i'm sorry about what's i do not believe your honor because it's the court of international trade we also believe that the case in fandom was wrongly decided and that it's been at least implicitly overruled by both rollerblade and our nike one of the main point that case turned was the court's rejection of the plaintiff's argument that goods that were specifically designed and intended for use in sports were to be considered equipment perhaps were to be considered sports equipment the court said that that used test was incorrect and unnecessary but that was the exact test that was used by this court in both roller blade and barrel nike in roller blade that because the protective equipment for inline skating was specifically designed for use in inline skating it was for its equipment in better nike this court held that because that ice hockey pants were specially already your honor i do not believe that pulling that that would make a difference it didn't make a difference to the sport in baronet ikey this court specifically addressed the classification separate lake of goods the model that had the removable hip to we believe that the result that should obtain is that these skills are worse specifically provided for as sports equipment then as mere articles of apparel the sports equipment had believe more specifically describes then it has its requirements that are harder to satisfy the apparel headings in which the government believes that these goods should be placed are very broad  protective or not is really not an issue to be considered in terms of whether something is sports equipment it's whether something is necessary to useful or appropriate for the sport at issue or a turn perhaps hand in hand whether something has been specially designed intended for use only in that sport we think both the pants and the jerseys fully satisfy both of those tests there's you disagree with the government that we ought to be doing a given in proportion to the decisions power to persuade we don't believe that the decision below customs decision has the power to persuade because we believe that the basis on which it's formed i sports equipment unless they give me i'm sorry i have padding unless the pattern is a certain proportion of the garment unless the padding has a certain thickness unless the padding has certain hardness unless the guards and pants however if you look at the language of the decision itself number one the court also specifically noted that the pants head a number of the peril like characteristics they specifically comfortably to provide ventilation to the players in addition the reasoning of the decision the did not turn those specific aspects of the the quote looked at both things the way that the fact that the pants had the pads and the fact that the pants worst pacifically designed for use in produced by the players in hockey and said ok since these pants are should be weighed case by case as your honor knows they're not binding they're not statutory law we believe that in this case research the explanatory notes is unnecessary and in fact may even be improper it's unnecessary because we're term is undefined you look to the common meaning of the church the explanatory notes are resorted to where the term is am big us we don't believe that the mere fact that the term is undefined or morning your honour's may please the core of this court should affirm the decision of the trial court below for the following reasons having sixty two or one sixty two ten and sixty one ten fully describe the pants jackets and jerseys in their entirety as garments these provisions make no distinction of articles of apparel general use or of specific functions whether they have some protective features or not there are included within these headaches whereas the articles of qui under ninety five six are more protective in nature and how that sole purpose of being protected the least with the articles of ninety five six that has some apparel like qualities stood out how much  what makes something rise to the level of protective sports equipment as contemplated by ninety five six is substantial contact specific protection with minimal textile components these are components that classifiable ninety five zero six which we don't maintain because it does not rise to that level of protection and will months here as the trial court found where is are doing it when they're going on these motor cross or motorcycle rides in a competitive fashion strapping on elbow pads you know wrist cards shin pads these sort of protectors that are described by yes to ninety five zero six that contact substantial specific pattern with minimal and when we look at the terror if we look at the heading and we look at a quick minute as counsel pointed out it's not defined as equipment so we go into the counting and then we have necessary useful and appropriate but then what does that mean where do we go from there itself that set and so then bauer power got rid of an ethic and now is just specially designed and intended for use once again how much direction can that given a case when you're dealing with sports clothing versus sports equipment you wear you know i mean you wear a baseball hat and a baseball shirt and you're playing in a baseball game does that make it sports equipment what about the terror of terms of sixty two then you know what since as you as brought up before as an example why suits were classifiable as a sports clothing under the under chapter sixty one sixty two you know if we were deduce the specially in terms of to just sort of give some guidance as to you know of is this moral like sports equipment or sports clothing but in a case like this where you know there are some there are some attributes i think that the only recourse is to look to the events as the trial subsection at the end is where it lists fourteen different categories of merchandise that is contemplated as equipment only one of them is remotely apparent like and that's thirteen in what way do you think we get that here i think reference point and what do we think about well you know i mean they don't you know they're not controlling by any means you know it's out the court's election if the d e s are helpful and as long as they don't contradict that will fit a wrist guard that is being worn in hockey or some other sort of competitive sport where you have that wear that textile component is just fitting that on the wears body and it's minimal only for that because only for that purpose of positioning and fastening the aerial that's what i think would would rise to a criminal as well as that having itself is substantial and durable and fair so that would be sports equipment i think in that sense  that i have to say that that rises to the level of protective sports equipment because of this even though i can deflate it and walk out and go to the party next door after i'm finished playing football even though it might be dirty money and wear the same suit you know first of all i think if you could create such a suit you could be very something special but i think in terms of that would make it in a way almost more like a moral more sports clothing because you mentioned before the chapters sixty one and sixty t included articles of parrot that have protected teachers there's that dual purpose it can be worn as clothing for decency for dorman but it could also have that protective function whereas ninety five of the six is solely protect article has any padding in it whatsoever and that's and select portions i mean nine percent is textile you know when it comes to questions like you know the pants where you're almost double you know so i think that there are some gradations between the merchandise itself but they're still predominantly textile i believe the jackets it's twenty to twenty five percent of the weight are the powder that means we're dealing with seventy five to eighty percent that's textile you know worries and by our we had eighty percent that we're dealing with i know we're getting into percentages here but i think that's just more representative of that in a different task and when you previously articulated which is what is the purpose of the out so if you've got fifty percent padding but the whole purpose of the text out is to keep that two percent padding where it is doesn't that satisfy your first task even though it doesn't satisfy your percentage as if it's solely protective in not being more in his clothing and it's just a position and it's substantial once again it's substantial padding i think that's where the weight comes into it because it it goes into the pattern of the nature of it is it durable is it hard is it protective that's where the waiting comes into the standard but yes if it's just to fasten you know with him on the courts analysis i mean with the power of the courts and also this was a little different because there was this specific icehockey subheading which of which the court was contemplating is this going to be ice hockey equipment here we're just dealing with equipment in general and so i think that's a distinguishing factor and barbara as well but it is a matter to a certain degree it is a matter of degree yes clearly if if there are no furthe racks from the heading it issue here there is no such specific inclusion or exclusion there is merely a list of examples and this court has decided a number of cases that hold that you cannot the sports in which they are but you thank you