CAFC Says Football Uniforms Not 'Sports Equipment'
“Sports equipment” does not include clothing, confirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit June 20 as it upheld a lower court ruling that football uniforms imported by Riddell should be classified as apparel. Regardless of whether it is for exclusive use in a sport, apparel should be classified as apparel in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule unless it contains a “character-transforming” amount of protection, said CAFC. Riddell’s football uniforms, imported without pads, do not, it said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
CBP had indeed classified Riddell's football pants, jerseys, and girdles as apparel in HTS headings 6110, 6203, and 6207, dutiable at 10.5 to 27.9 percent. Riddell argued that its goods should instead be classified as sports equipment in heading 9506, which is duty free. The Court of International Trade in March 2013 affirmed CBP’s classification (see 13032221). Two cases in particular informed its decision: in Bauer Nike Hockey USA v. U.S. (2004), CAFC had held that hockey pants containing 80% by weight padding were sports equipment; in Lemans Corp. v. U.S. (2011), CAFC had found that motorcycle uniforms with minimal padding were apparel. CIT had found that Riddell’s uniforms were more similar to the latter, having been imported with no padding at all.
CAFC agreed, finding the football uniforms are classifiable as apparel. “The strong general rule is that ‘sports equipment’ does not include an article that, as imported, would be understood as clothing … based on the predominance of textile material and the usual predominant function of covering portions of the body,” said Circuit Judge Richard Taranto in the opinion. Although such garments protect against skin exposure and abrasion, they wouldn’t be considered “sports equipment” even if designed exclusively for use in a sport, he said. “A narrow exception exists for an item that, as imported, contains a character-transforming amount of material not ordinarily found in mere body-covering clothing that functions to provide forms of protection not inherent in common body coverings,” said Taranto. But because Riddell’s uniforms don’t include pads, they do not “become ‘sports equipment’ just because, after importation, it will be used, even exclusively, in conjunction with non-clothing impact-protecting equipment.”
(Riddell, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. 13-1384, dated 06/20/14, Judges Newman, Lourie and Taranto)
(Attorneys: Daniel Gluck of Simon Gluck for plaintiff-appellant Riddell, Inc.; Marcella Powell for defendant-appellee U.S. government)