Plastic Dipped Gloves Still Classifiable as Knit Apparel, CIT Says
The Court of International Trade ruled that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics. In a March 25 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government and ruled CBP correctly classified the gloves imported from China and South Korea in 2015 and correctly denied Magid's 2016 CBP protest (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT #16-00150).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case concerned the classification of gloves knitted from man-made fibers that, following the knitting process, are "dipped in polyurethane, which forms a flexible plastic layer covering the palm and portions of the thumb and fingers of each glove," CIT said. "Prior to the dipping process, the shell is in the shape of a complete glove, i.e., it is knitted from yarn directly to a shape that covers the entire hand."
CBP classified the gloves under subheading 6116.10.55 as "Gloves, mittens and mitts ...," dutiable at 13.2%. Magid argued for classification under subheading 3926.20.10 as “Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials ... Articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves, mittens and mitts): . . . Gloves, mittens and mitts: Seamless,” which is duty free.
In his ruling, Stanceu said, "the terms of heading 3926 do not describe Magid’s imported gloves because, while comprised in part of a plastic material, the gloves are not 'of plastics.'" The ruling went on to explain that while the plastic sections of the gloves were "not mere trimming" and "adds functional characteristics" that does not conclusively establish the gloves belong outside heading 6116, and cited explanatory note 61.16 that says that the heading covers “all knitted or crocheted gloves”
The judge also cited the explanatory note that included gloves "lined with furskin or artificial fur, or with furskin or artificial fur on the outside (other than as mere trimming)" within the heading as evidence that knitted or crocheted gloves to which non-knitted components have been attached still would be described as “knitted or crocheted" for the purposes of classification.