Pool Floats Made of Plastic and Textiles Classifiable as Articles of Plastic, CIT Says
Pool floats with plastic air bladders and a seat made of woven elastomer mesh are classifiable as articles of plastics, not as made up textile articles, the Court of International Trade said July 23 in a decision overturning a recent CBP ruling. Though neither plastics nor textile materials predominate, the air bladders give the pool floats their essential character because they perform the most important function, CIT said, also ruling several models of pool floats for infants aren’t classifiable in a duty-free Chapter 95 provision for sports or exercise equipment.
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.
Swimways imported the “Spring Floats” and “Baby Spring Floats” between 2009 and 2012. Each of the several models contained an inflatable, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bladder that provides floatation; a plastic-coated, flexible steel rod that allows the floats to be folded for storage and then spring back open for use; a polyester covering for the PVC bladders and a woven elastomer mesh stretched across the inner opening of the floats to support the user. CBP classified the pool floats under subheading 6307.90.98 as other made up textiles, dutiable at 7 percent.
Swimways protested, arguing the adult “Spring Floats” should have been classified as inflatable articles of plastic under subheading 3926.90.75, dutiable at 4.2 percent, while the infant “Baby Spring Floats” should be classified in duty-free subheading 9506.29.00 as “articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics, athletics, other sports …: Water skis, surf boards, sailboards and other water-sport equipment: Other.” CBP subsequently denied the protests and confirmed its original classification as a textile article in the 2012 ruling HQ H145739.
First considering the adult floats, CIT found neither provisions for textiles or plastics directly on point, given that significant components are made of materials other than textiles or plastics, respectively. Turning to General Rule of Interpretation 3(b), which directs classification of composite goods according to their essential character, CIT found that neither the plastic nor textile materials determined how the pool float should be classified “because both the textile materials and the plastic materials are present in significant, but not clearly predominant, proportions.”
Instead, the pool floats are classifiable according to the component that imparts their essential character. The elastomer mesh and PVC bladder both provide essential functions, with the former supporting the user and the latter causing the float to float, CIT said. But though both are essential to function, the PVC bladder “imparts a defining characteristic that is fundamental to the commercial identity” as a “float,” is a more complex component to manufacture and contributes more to the value of the finished float.
As the bladder imparts essential character, the entire article is therefore classifiable as an inflatable article of plastic under subheading 3926.90.75, CBP said. Though CBP rulings may be entitled to deference -- and CBP’s ruling on the subject classified the pool floats as textile goods of heading 6307 -- the ruling on Swimways’ pool floats was not persuasive, CIT said. CBP did not consider whether any component imparted essential character, examining only which material predominated before deciding neither did and moving on to GRI 3(c). CBP also considered the polyester wrap and elastomer mesh as a single component. “This approach was not analytically sound,” CIT said.
Swimways’ Baby Floats are also classifiable as articles of plastics of heading 3926 for the same reasons, CIT said. Though the importer argued for classification as articles for exercise in heading 9506, citing their use as the first step in teaching babies to swim by getting them used to water, CIT held that the baby floats must be classified in their condition as imported, so any subsequent steps are irrelevant. The baby pool floats are only intended to hold the baby in water, and other models of pool floats with reduced levels of flotation designed as subsequent steps in the system are irrelevant to classification of the baby float at hand, CIT said. “Viewed by itself, the Baby Spring Float is designed and labeled as a product for introducing infants to water. That is not the same as swimming or learning to swim,” the trade court said.
(Swimways Corporation v. U.S., Slip Op. 18-91, CIT # 13-00216, dated 07/23/18, Judge Stanceu)
(Attorneys: James Cannon of Cassidy Levy for plaintiff Swimways Corporation; Jamie Shookman for defendant U.S. government)