CIT Again Rules Against 'Sports Footwear' Classification for Teva Sandals
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 ruled against an importer in the third in a long-running series of cases on the tariff classification of Teva sandals. That importer, Deckers Corporation, again said its shoes should be classified as sports footwear, rather than as footwear with open toes or open heels, despite two earlier decisions, including by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that found to the contrary. CIT ruled that Deckers did not raise any new arguments that could override the appeals court’s binding precedent that sports footwear must have an enclosed upper.
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.
Deckers said courts committed an error in their previous two decisions by finding that shoes with open toes and heels can’t be classified as sports footwear. It said a trial was necessary so it could present evidence against the court’s rulings that no footwear can be classified in subheading 6404.11 unless it has a fully enclosed upper.
Specifically, Deckers said it wanted to force the government to expand on an expert witness’ statement in one of the earlier trials that some training shoes have openings in the uppers, and also require the government to present evidence that all training shoes have enclosed uppers. But Deckers did not, “in the significant length of time purposely afforded this third test case to lie fallow,” present any evidence that training shoes might not have enclosed uppers, CIT said. Nor did it ask the court to delay its consideration while it gathers evidence to that effect.
CIT said the question of whether open-toed shoes can be considered sports footwear is a legal question, not a factual one, declining to proceed to trial. And given that the Federal Circuit ruled that sports footwear must have enclosed uppers, CIT “does not have the authority to go beyond that binding legal interpretation” unless the appeals court’s decision was in clear error, the trade court said.
“Because there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the nature of the merchandise, this third, arguably repetitive, test case re-presents a purely legal issue, namely, interpretation of the operative language of subheadings 6404.11.80 and 6404.11.90,” CIT said. “Plaintiff’s repeated position does not persuade now that the Federal Circuit’s … analysis was clearly erroneous or otherwise improper.” The Teva sandals at issue in this case, though different from those covered by the earlier cases, do not have enclosed uppers, so they aren’t classifiable as sports footwear of subheading 6404.11, CIT said.
(Deckers Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 19-18, CIT # 02-00730, Judge Aquilino)
(Attorneys: Patrick Gill for plaintiff Deckers Corporation; Marcella Powell for defendant U.S. government)