Court Opinion

ID: 9907359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 14:00:50.841067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:34.940558
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1793   Document: 41     Page: 1    Filed: 12/06/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO.
                     LLC,
              Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1793
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of International
 Trade in No. 1:16-cv-00150-TCS, Senior Judge Timothy C.
 Stanceu.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn,
 LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

     MARCELLA POWELL, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, Department of Justice, New York, NY, ar-
 gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, JUSTIN
 REINHART MILLER; PAULA S. SMITH, Office of the Assistant
 Chief Counsel, United States Bureau of Customs and Bor-
 der Protection, United States Department of Homeland Se-
 curity, New York, NY.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41     Page: 2    Filed: 12/06/2023

 2        MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit
                         Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. LLC
 (“Magid”) appeals a decision of the United States Court of
 International Trade regarding the tariff classification of
 certain knit gloves with partial plastic coating. Because we
 conclude that the gloves are properly classified under head-
 ing 6116 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
 States, we affirm.
         HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE FRAMEWORK
     The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
 (“HTSUS”) 1 governs the classification of imported mer-
 chandise. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845
 F.3d 1158, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The HTSUS is organized
 by four-digit headings, and each heading may contain one
 or more six-digit or eight-digit subheadings. See Orlando
 Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir.
 1998). The headings set forth general categories of mer-
 chandise, while the subheadings provide a more particular-
 ized division of the merchandise within each category.
 Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266
 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The headings and subheadings are enu-
 merated in Chapters 1 through 99 across various sections
 of the HTSUS. See R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States, 757
 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The HTSUS further con-
 tains, among other things, the “General Rules of Interpre-
 tation” (“GRIs”), the “Additional United States Rules of
 Interpretation” (“ARIs”), and various section and chapter
 notes. Id.

     1  Because the subject gloves were imported in 2015,
 the parties cite to HTSUS (2015) (Rev.1). See, e.g., J.A.
 286, 291.
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41      Page: 3    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US             3

      The GRIs and ARIs govern the interpretation of the
 HTSUS provisions to determine proper classification of
 merchandise. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d
 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The GRIs are applied numer-
 ically, such that once proper classification is determined
 via a particular GRI, the classification inquiry terminates
 and the remaining successive GRIs become inoperative.
 StarKist Co. v. United States, 29 F.4th 1359, 1361 (Fed.
 Cir. 2022). According to GRI 1, a court first construes the
 terms of the heading and any relative section or chapter
 notes, to determine whether the merchandise at issue is
 classifiable under that heading. Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at
 1440. After determining the appropriate heading, the
 court then proceeds to identify the appropriate subheading.
 See id.; see also GRIs 1 & 6, 2 HTSUS.
                         BACKGROUND
      At issue are eight models of knit textile gloves with par-
 tial plastic (polyurethane) coating. The gloves consist of a
 shell made of man-made fibers that is directly knitted to
 shape on an industrial knitting machine. See Magid Glove
 & Safety Mfg. Co. v. United States, 567 F. Supp. 3d 1334,
 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (“Decision”). The complete shell
 then goes through a dipping process, where the palm and
 portions of the fingers are coated with polyurethane. Id. at
 1336. Magid markets these gloves for use in automotive,
 metal handling, and other industrial and commercial set-
 tings. Id. at 1337; J.A. 42–53 (product specifications).
     The relevant HTSUS headings and subheadings for the
 classification of these imported gloves are:
         Heading 6116: Gloves, mittens and mitts,
         knitted or crocheted:

     2    Under GRI 6, “the classification of goods in the sub-
 headings of a heading shall be determined according to the
 terms of those subheadings and any related subheading
 notes[.]” GRI 6, HTSUS.
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41      Page: 4    Filed: 12/06/2023

 4       MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

         Subheading 6116.10.55: Impregnated,
         coated or covered with plastics or rubber:
         Other: Without fourchettes: Other: Con-
         taining 50 percent or more by weight of cot-
         ton, man-made fibers or other textile fibers,
         or any combination thereof
 J.A. 291.
         Heading 3926: Other articles of plastics
         and articles of other materials of headings
         3901 to 3914:
         Subheading 3926.20.10: Articles of apparel
         and clothing accessories (including gloves,
         mittens and mitts): Gloves, mittens and
         mitts: Seamless
 J.A. 286.
      In January 2015, Magid imported into the United
 States two entries of the subject gloves from China and
 South Korea. Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. The
 United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) clas-
 sified the gloves under subheading 6116.10.55 of the
 HTSUS, subject to duty at 13.2% ad valorem. Id. at 1338.
 After the CBP liquidated the two entries of gloves, Magid
 filed a protest, contending that the gloves should have been
 classified under subheading 3926.20.10, a duty-free provi-
 sion. Id. at 1336, 1338. The CBP denied Magid’s protest.
 Id. at 1336.
       Magid sued in the United States Court of International
 Trade (“CIT”) challenging the denial of its protest. See id.
 The parties cross moved for summary judgment. Id. The
 CIT determined that the terms of heading 6116, “Gloves
 . . . knitted or crocheted,” more appropriately described the
 gloves at issue. See, e.g., id. at 1340, 1342–43. The CIT
 explained that the terms of heading 3926 did not describe
 the subject gloves because, “while comprised in part of a
 plastic material (polyurethane), the gloves are not ‘of plas-
 tics’ or of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914 (which
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41      Page: 5    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US             5

 pertain to various plastics and similar substances in pri-
 mary forms).” Id. at 1339.
      The CIT rejected Magid’s contention that Section XI 3
 Note 1(h) excluded the subject gloves from heading 6116.
 Id. at 1340–43. Section XI Note 1(h) states that Section XI
 does not cover “[w]oven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or
 nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated
 with plastics, or articles thereof, of chapter 39 [(‘Plastics
 and Articles Thereof’)].” J.A. 287. According to the CIT,
 the “express terms” of this note would exclude the gloves
 from heading 6116 “only if they are ‘articles’ of” knitted fab-
 rics “impregnated, coated, covered or laminated” with plas-
 tics, and “only if those fabrics are classified within”
 Chapter 39. Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1340.
      The CIT concluded that the gloves were not of such fab-
 rics. Id. at 1342–43. In reaching that conclusion, the CIT
 examined provisions in Chapter 39 to determine what “fab-
 rics” this chapter may encompass. Id. at 1341. The CIT
 found heading 3921 pertinent because it covered “some
 plastic sheet or film products that have a textile component
 and could be described as ‘fabrics.’” Id. The CIT next con-
 sulted relative notes, including the limitation imposed by
 Chapter 39 Note 10 4 on the scope of such Chapter 39

     3   Section XI (“Textiles and Textile Articles”) covers,
 among other chapters, Chapter 61 (“Articles of Apparel and
 Clothing Accessories, Knitted or Crocheted”) and the head-
 ings within Chapter 61, including heading 6116.
     4   Chapter 39 Note 10 provides,
         In headings 3920 and 3921, the expression
         “plates, sheets, film, foil and strip” applies
         only to plates, sheets, film, foil and strip
         (other than those of chapter 54) and to
         blocks of regular geometric shape, whether
         or not printed or otherwise surface-worked,
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41     Page: 6    Filed: 12/06/2023

 6       MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

 “fabrics.” Id. at 1342. Under Chapter 39 Note 10, the CIT
 explained, to fall within Chapter 39, “the knitted fabrics
 must be in uncut or basic rectangular form and thus cannot
 be in more complex shapes.” Id.
     Accordingly, the CIT determined that in order to be
 considered fabrics of Chapter 39, as required by Section XI
 Note 1(h), the fabrics must not only be “impregnated,
 coated, covered or laminated with plastics,” but they must
 also be “in basic uncut or rectangular form.” Id. (internal
 quotations omitted). Because the textile component of the
 gloves “is complete when it comes off the [knitting] ma-
 chine,” the CIT held that the gloves were not “of” fabrics
 encompassed by Chapter 39. Id. at 1342–43 (citation and
 internal quotations omitted; alteration in original). The
 CIT thus determined that Magid’s gloves were not ex-
 cluded from heading 6116 by Section XI Note 1(h). Id.
 at 1343.
     After concluding that heading 6116 was the appropri-
 ate heading, the CIT then applied GRI 6 to arrive at sub-
 heading 6116.10.55 for the classification of the subject
 gloves. Id. at 1343–44. The CIT accordingly upheld the
 CBP’s classification and granted summary judgment in the
 government’s favor. Id. at 1344.
    Magid timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review de novo the CIT’s grant of summary judg-
 ment and apply anew the standard used by the CIT to as-
 sess the subject classification. Otter Prods., LLC v. United

        uncut or cut into rectangles (including
        squares) but not further worked (even if
        when so cut they become articles ready for
        use).
 J.A. 283.
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41      Page: 7    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US           7

 States, 834 F.3d 1369, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Despite
 our de novo review, we begin our analysis with the CIT’s
 opinion, which “is nearly always the starting point of our
 analysis.” Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1162 (quoting Nan
 Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341
 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
      Proper classification of merchandise under the HTSUS
 requires a two-step process. First, we ascertain, without
 deference, the meaning of the specific terms within the rel-
 evant provisions. Orlando, 140 F.3d at 1439. Second, we
 determine whether the merchandise at issue falls within
 the description of those terms as properly interpreted. Id.
 This second step presents a factual inquiry that we review
 for clear error. Id. Where, as here, there is no factual dis-
 pute regarding the nature, structure, and use of the mer-
 chandise, the proper classification turns on the first step.
 Faus Grp., Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.
 Cir. 2009).
                         DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Magid challenges the CIT’s classification of
 the subject gloves under heading 6116. 5 Appellant Br. 2–
 3. To support its proposed alternative heading 3926, Magid
 relies on Section XI Note 1(h) and contends that this note
 excludes the gloves from heading 6116. Id. at 16–18; Reply
 Br. 13–14. According to Magid, the CIT’s interpretation of
 this note was erroneous because it failed to apply the rea-
 soning in Kalle USA, Inc. v. United States, 923 F.3d 991
 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Appellant Br. 11; Reply Br. 1. We disa-
 gree with Magid’s arguments. For reasons discussed be-
 low, we conclude that the subject gloves were appropriately
 classified under heading 6116.

     5  Magid does not separately challenge classification
 under the relevant subheading.
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41      Page: 8    Filed: 12/06/2023

 8       MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

                      A. Knitted Gloves
     To determine the tariff classification of merchandise,
 GRI 1 instructs us to consider first the “terms of the head-
 ings” and any relative section or chapter notes. GRI 1,
 HTSUS (emphasis added). As part of the legal text of the
 HTSUS, section and chapter notes have the force of statu-
 tory law. See BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646
 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Unlike section and chap-
 ter notes, the Explanatory Notes 6 are not legally binding,
 but they “may be consulted for guidance and are generally
 indicative of the proper interpretation of the various
 HTSUS provisions.” Id.
     Absent contrary legislative intent, we construe HTSUS
 terms based on their common and commercial meanings,
 which we presume to be the same. Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at
 1379. And when determining which heading is more ap-
 propriate for classification, “a court should compare only
 the language of the headings and not the language of the
 subheadings.” Orlando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440; see also
 Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1163 (noting that subheadings
 “cannot be used to expand the scope of their respective
 headings” (internal quotations omitted)).
     The subject gloves involve two competing headings:
 (1) heading 3926: “Other articles of plastics and articles of
 other materials of headings 3901 to 3914”; and (2) head-
 ing 6116: “Gloves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted.”
 J.A. 286; J.A. 291. Of the two, we conclude that head-
 ing 6116 is the appropriate heading.

     6   The Explanatory Notes are published by the World
 Customs Organization (“WCO”). See Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v.
 United States, 713 F.3d 640, 644 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013). They
 represent the WCO’s official interpretation of the Harmo-
 nized Commodity Description and Coding System, the
 global system on which the HTSUS is based. Id.
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41     Page: 9    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US            9

     Heading 6116 plainly describes “[g]loves . . . knitted.”
 J.A. 291. Magid does not seem to dispute that its imported
 products are “gloves” and that they are “knitted.” See Ap-
 pellant Br. 18. Magid also markets these products as “work
 glove[s]” and describes the construction of these products
 as “machine knit[ted].” See J.A. 42–53 (product specifica-
 tions listing the products as “work glove[s]” and “machine
 knit”). So, the record shows that these “gloves” are ma-
 chine “knitted,” as heading 6116 describes. Heading 3926,
 in contrast, recites “articles of plastics,” and the term
 “gloves” only appears in the terms of subheading 3926.20.
 J.A. 286. But a proper classification analysis starts with
 the terms of the headings, not the subheadings. See Or-
 lando Food, 140 F.3d at 1440. In addition, a subheading
 cannot expand the plain meaning of the terms of a heading.
 See Schlumberger, 845 F.3d at 1163. Here, as the CIT
 noted, while the exterior of the gloves has a partial plastic
 coating, the gloves are not “of plastics,” as heading 3926 re-
 cites. See Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1339. The terms of
 heading 3926 therefore do not describe the subject gloves.
     The Explanatory Note to heading 6116 supports this
 interpretation. See J.A. 317. This note establishes that
 heading 6116 contemplates and covers knitted gloves with
 a non-knit component, whether in the shell or as covering.
 See id. Following a listing of several subheadings, the ex-
 planatory remarks of the note states that heading 6116 “co-
 vers all knitted or crocheted gloves,” whether for males or
 females, short or long, and it further covers certain gloves
 in “unfinished” form. 7 Id. While the remarks provide that
 certain gloves with a fur component are excluded from
 heading 6116, they do not similarly exclude gloves with a
 partial plastic coating. See id. As the CIT explained, this

     7   Before the explanatory remarks, the note lists:
 6116.10 (“Impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or
 rubber, Other:”), 6116.91 (“Of wool or fine animal hair”),
 6116.92 (“Of cotton”), 6116.93 (“Of synthetic fibres”), and
 6116.99 (“Of other textile materials”). See J.A. 317.
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41      Page: 10    Filed: 12/06/2023

 10       MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

 note thus evidences the legislative intent that the terms of
 heading 6116 “include[] as a general matter those [gloves]
 to which a non-knitted component, such as a plastic layer,
 has been affixed.” Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1340.
      Contrary to Magid’s contention, Section XI Note 1(h)
 does not exclude the subject gloves from Section XI and
 hence heading 6116. Under Section XI Note 1(h), Sec-
 tion XI does not cover “[w]oven, knitted or crocheted fab-
 rics, felt or nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or
 laminated with plastics, or articles thereof, of chapter 39.”
 J.A. 287. That is, if the “fabrics” and “articles thereof” fall
 within Section XI Note 1(h), they would be excluded from
 Section XI by the operation of this note.
       To ascertain the scope of such “fabrics” and “articles
 thereof” covered by this note, we begin with the plain lan-
 guage of Section XI Note 1(h). This note sets forth several
 qualifiers that collectively describe and limit the expres-
 sion “fabrics.” Id. The first two qualifiers are not in dis-
 pute: the “fabrics” must be “[w]oven, knitted or crocheted,”
 and they must also be “impregnated, coated, covered or
 laminated with plastics.” Id. The ending segment of the
 note, however, adds another qualifier which requires the
 “fabrics” be “of [C]hapter 39.” Id. We therefore must, as
 the CIT did, look to Chapter 39 and locate pertinent provi-
 sions that may shed light on what “fabrics” Chapter 39 en-
 compasses. This inquiry takes us to heading 3921 because
 this heading contemplates “Other plates, sheets, film, foil
 and strip, of plastics” combined with “textile materials” or
 “textile components.” See, e.g., subheading 3921.13 (cover-
 ing items “[c]ombined with textile materials: Products with
 textile components . . .”); subheading 3921.90 (covering
 items “[c]ombined with textile materials . . .”). Compare
 heading 3921 (covering “[o]ther plates, sheets, film, foil and
 strip, of plastics”), with heading 3920 (covering “[o]ther
 plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics” that are “not
 . . . combined with other materials” (emphasis added)).
     And as instructed by GRI 1, we then consider pertinent
 notes that inform or limit the scope of heading 3921 and
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41      Page: 11    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US           11

 the items it covers. See GRI 1, HTSUS. In this regard, we
 must give effect to the express limitation set forth in Chap-
 ter 39 Note 10, which states that the expression “plates,
 sheets, film, foil and strip” of heading 3921 “applies only
 to” those that are “uncut or cut into rectangles (including
 squares) but not further worked (even if when so cut they
 become articles ready for use).” J.A. 283. That is, the “fab-
 rics” or textile materials heading 3921 may encompass
 must be “uncut or cut into rectangles (including squares)
 but not further worked.” Id.
     Taking the above into account, we agree with the CIT’s
 conclusion that to fall within Section XI Note 1(h), the “fab-
 rics” not only must be “impregnated, coated, covered or
 laminated with plastics,” they must also be “in basic uncut
 or rectangular form.” Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1342.
 The textile fabrics of the subject gloves are undisputedly
 not so, because they are in the advanced form of complete
 gloves when they come off the knitting machine. J.A. 58
 (Magid representative testifying that “[t]he entire glove,
 finished glove, comes out of the knitting machine” and then
 goes through a dipping process). As the CIT explained, be-
 cause the textile fabrics of the gloves are knitted “directly
 from yarn [in]to an advanced shape,” these gloves are not
 “of” a Chapter 39 fabric. 8 Decision, 567 F. Supp. 3d at
 1342–43. The exclusion of Section XI Note 1(h) therefore
 does not apply to the subject gloves.
            B. Kalle and “Completely Embedded”
     Magid contends that the CIT erred in interpreting Sec-
 tion XI Note 1(h) by failing to follow Kalle to determine
 whether the gloves are “completely embedded” in plastics
 and therefore “excluded from HTSUS Section XI if the
 gloves are classifiable in Chapter 39.” Reply Br. 1–2 (citing

     8    On reply, Magid clarified its arguments and con-
 ceded that “[f]or the exclusion [in Section XI Note 1(h)] to
 apply, the Note also requires that the fabric or article be
 classifiable in Chapter 39.” Reply Br. 2.
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41      Page: 12    Filed: 12/06/2023

 12       MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

 Kalle, 923 F.3d 991); see also Appellant Br. 11–16. In
 Magid’s view, Kalle controls “the application of Section XI[]
 Note 1(h)” and requires an analysis of the subject gloves
 under the “completely embedded” test applied in that case.
 Reply Br. 1. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
     Kalle involved the interpretation of the term “com-
 pletely embedded in plastics,” which appears in Chapter 59
 Note 2(a)(3) 9 and addresses coverage and exclusions under
 heading 5903. Kalle, 923 F.3d at 994. The merchandise at
 issue in Kalle were certain sausage casings “comprised of a
 woven textile sheet that is coated with a layer of plastic on
 one side.” Id. at 993. The importer contended that the cas-
 ings should be classified under heading 3917 as plastics
 subject to a lower duty rate, rather than under head-
 ing 6307 as made-up textiles. 10 Id. On appeal, the parties
 agreed that the interpretation of the term “completely

      9   Chapter 59 Note 2(a)(3) provides that,
          Heading 59.03 applies to: (a) Textile fab-
          rics, impregnated, coated, covered or lami-
          nated with plastics, whatever the weight
          per square metre and whatever the nature
          of the plastic material (compact or cellular),
          other than: . . . (3) Products in which the
          textile fabric is either completely embed-
          ded in plastics or entirely coated or covered
          on both sides with such material, provided
          that such coating or covering can be seen
          with the naked eye with no account being
          taken of any resulting change of colour
          (Chapter 39).
 J.A. 318.
     10   The two competing headings in Kalle were: head-
 ing 3917, which covers “[t]ubes, pipes and hoses and fit-
 tings therefor (for example, joints, elbows, flanges), of
 plastics;” and heading 6307, which covers “[o]ther made up
 articles, including dress patterns.” Kalle, 923 F.3d at 993.
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41     Page: 13    Filed: 12/06/2023

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US          13

 embedded in plastics” as used in Chapter 59 Note 2(a)(3)
 was determinative. Id. at 994. This court then interpreted
 the “completely embedded” language and affirmed the
 CIT’s classification. Id. at 995–97.
     Kalle’s “completely embedded” test does not apply to
 the classification here. None of Kalle’s competing head-
 ings, HTSUS chapters, or merchandise, are involved here.
 The term “completely embedded” does not appear in Sec-
 tion XI Note 1(h) or the two competing headings in this
 case.     Magid concedes that the text of Chapter 59
 Note 2(a)(3) “specifies that th[is] Note applies to Head-
 ing 5903,” not to the headings at issue here. Reply Br. 13.
 We reject Magid’s attempt to take the interpretation of a
 term within Chapter 59 Note 2(a)(3) out of context and ap-
 ply it in a case involving different provisions and merchan-
 dise. 11
                          *   *   *
     Magid’s proffered classification approach departs from
 GRI 1’s instruction to start a proper classification analysis
 by focusing on the language of the headings. The partial
 plastic coating does not, as Magid contends, remove the
 gloves from heading 6116 and make them classifiable un-
 der Chapter 39 as articles of plastics. Further, Magid’s ap-
 proach would effectively eviscerate the subheadings under
 heading 6116 where the HTSUS drafters specifically ad-
 dress the very merchandise Magid imported. See J.A. 291
 (subheading      6116.10      covering    knitted      gloves

     11  Notably, Magid relies on Kalle for its appeal, but it
 simultaneously requests that this court reconsider Kalle
 en banc and overrule that case. Reply Br. 11–16; id. at 11
 (Magid contending that Kalle’s “use of Chapter 59[] Note 2
 to determine the scope of headings within Chapter 61 ap-
 pears to be inconsistent with the instruction in [GRI 1]”).
 We find Kalle inapplicable for the classification at issue
 and decline to reach the merits of Magid’s en banc request.
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41     Page: 14   Filed: 12/06/2023

 14      MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US

 “[i]mpregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber”).
 We reject such an approach.
     Accordingly, we conclude that the subject gloves are
 properly classified as “Gloves . . . knitted” under head-
 ing 6116.
                        CONCLUSION
      Based on the foregoing, we hold that the CIT correctly
 classified Magid’s imported gloves under heading 6116.
 We have considered Magid’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the CIT’s judgment
 is affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.