Opinion ID: 614580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of International Trade Decision

Text: LeMans initiated a civil action in the CIT contesting the denial of its protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1515. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the CIT issued a decision affirming Customs' classification as to all goods. It did so under General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 1, which requires review of the headings and relevant section and chapter notes of the HTSUS. CIT Decision, at 1385. As for the jerseys, the CIT looked to the common dictionary definition of sweater and pullover and the Headings of 6110 to determine that the jerseys fit within the definition of those terms. Id. at 1380-81. It also reviewed the Explanatory Notes to Heading 6110 (EN 61.10), which add that the heading encompasses a category of knitted or crocheted articles . . . designed to cover the upper parts of the body, specifically including jerseys as an example. Id. at 1381 (quoting EN 61.10). As for the pants, the CIT again looked to the common dictionary definition of garment to find that LeMans's motocross pants constitute an article of clothing that covers the human body, and that the pants are made up of materials under headings 5903 and 5906 (heavy duty nylon mesh, heavy duty ballistic woven nylon fabric, heavy duty woven polyester, and Keprotec®). Id. at 1381-82. Finally, the court affirmed Customs' classification of LeMans's motorcycle jackets as overcoats, finding that they fit within that general category and distinguishing them from men's or boys' suits under Heading 6203. Id. at 1382. The CIT also rejected LeMans's argument that its goods are prima facie classifiable as sports equipment under Heading 9506, which would require consideration of GRI 3(a) to determine which heading more specifically describes the merchandise. The court looked to the dictionary definition of equipment and our decision in Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2002), in which we stated that `equipment' includes those articles that are necessary and specifically designed for use in athletics and other sports. Id. at 1354. Based on these authorities and its review of the subject merchandise, the court found that, although LeMans's goods arguably constitute[] useful, if not necessary, articles to motocross and motorcycle riding, the Explanatory Notes to Heading 9506 (EN 95.06) demonstrate that the subject merchandise is not of the type typically classified as sports equipment. CIT Decision, at 1383-84. Those notes include, as examples of requisites for other sports, items such as snow skis, golf clubs, pingpong paddles, tennis rackets, basketballs, ice skates, hockey sticks, swings, and slides. See CIT Decision, at 1383 n. 15 (citing EN 95.06(B)). Although example (B)(13) of the Explanatory Notes identifies [p]rotective equipment for sports or games, e.g., fencing masks and breast plates, elbow and knee pads, cricket pads, shin-guards, the court found that these examples center on non-clothing articles and do not describe apparel like the subject merchandise. Id. at 1383-84. The court further found that Note 1(e) to Chapter 95, which excludes sports clothing . . . of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62 from Chapter 95, also supported its conclusion. Id. at 1384. Finally, the CIT distinguished our decision in Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1246 (Fed.Cir.2004), a case in which we found that ice-hockey pants were classifiable as sports equipment, on grounds that Bauer did not provide a broadly applicable definition of equipment and involved a GRI 3(a) analysis, not a GRI 1 finding. CIT Decision, at 1384-85. LeMans filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).