Opinion ID: 614580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apparel Under Chapters 61 and 62

Text: We first consider whether Customs correctly classified the subject merchandise as various types of apparel under subheadings of Chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS. On this point, LeMans does not challenge the definitions the CIT applied to the relevant terms (i.e., sweater, pullover, garment, and overcoat), nor does it challenge whether the subject merchandise falls within the ordinary meaning of those terms generally. Rather, LeMans asserts that the CIT incorrectly concluded that the articles at issue constitute wearing apparel because its merchandise is so highly specialized that any apparel-like features are incidental to the subject merchandise's primary purpose as sports equipment. In support of its argument, LeMans relies on our decision in Rubie's Costume Co. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1350, 1357-58 (Fed.Cir.2003), in which we found that Customs appropriately classified certain costumes as festive articles under Chapter 95 rather than as wearing apparel under Chapter 61. That case required us to consider Note 1(e) to Chapter 95, which provides that Chapter 95 does not include [s]ports clothing or fancy dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62. [4] See id. at 1356-57. Pursuant to Note 1(e), if the costumes at issue constituted fancy dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 and 62, which we held encompassed textile costumes classifiable as wearing apparel, they would be precluded from classification in Chapter 95. Id. In Rubie's, we determined that the costumes at issue were not wearing apparel, such that they could not be considered articles of fancy dress that are excluded from Chapter 95. Id. In so deciding, we relied on the fact that the costumes were worn only on rare occasions, such as during Halloween or at a costume party, included one-size-fits-all varieties, and were flimsy and lacking in durability. Id. at 1358. While acknowledging that the category of wearing apparel includes clothing worn for decency or comfort and adornment, we found that, to the extent the items at issue in Rubie's possessed those features, they were secondary or incidental to the costumes' festive value. Id. at 1357-58 (citing Antonio Pompeo v. United States, 40 Cust.Ct. 362, 364 (1958)). Unlike the articles in Rubie's, the subject merchandise in this case shares more characteristics with ordinary apparel, coming in different sizes and having the durability to be worn repeatedly. In addition, whereas the comfort features of the costumes were secondary, LeMans itself explains that all of the articles at issue here are designed to provide optimal fit and comfort while participating in the sport. [5] Appellant's Br. 8 (emphasis added). For these reasons, we find LeMans's reliance on Rubie's misplaced. The government is correct that the headings and subheadings of Chapters 61 and 62 do not distinguish between apparel designed for general or specific uses. The fact that articles are specialized or intended for specific purposes, such as for sports, does not alone remove them from the category of apparel. Indeed, Chapter 62 includes heading 6211 for track suits, ski-suits and swimwear; other garments, which are, by their nature, items used in particular athletic activities. It is true, moreover, that [v]irtually all wearing apparel is to a degree (often a high degree) designed and worn to provide comfort and protection, often for very specific situations. Daw Indus., Inc. v. United States, 714 F.2d 1140, 1143 (Fed.Cir.1983). Despite LeMans's argument to the contrary, the merchandise in this case does not contain protective or specialized features to the same degree as the crash helmets used by motorcycle and auto racers in Antonio Pompeo, 40 Cust.Ct. at 366 (finding that crash helmets would not be considered in ordinary parlance to be `wearing apparel'). Accordingly, because we find that the CIT correctly applied the dictionary definitions of the terms in the headings and subheadings and then correctly concluded that the subject merchandise was wearing apparel, we agree that Customs properly classified LeMans's goods under Chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS.