US Files Cross-Motion for Judgment in Classification Dispute Regarding Mastectomy Brassieres
The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).
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.
Even if Amoena’s mastectomy brassieres, which secure artificial breast forms to the body, can be classified under either heading, the heading for bras is more specific, it argued.
Amoena argued that the products don’t fit under the government’s preferred heading, 6212. But “[a] visual review of them establishes that there is no dispute that the goods at issue in this action are brassieres classifiable as such,” the U.S. said.
It said the Court of International Trade has defined a bra as a “woman’s close-fitting undergarment having cups for bust support, varying in width from a band to a waist length bodice, made with or without straps, and often boned or wired for additional support or separation.” This describes Amoena’s products, it said.
The importer was wrong to argue that because the products are intended for women who have undergone mastectomies or lumpectomies and are choosing to wear artificial breasts, “this changes the classification of the good,” it said. The heading is an eo nomine provision, it said, and its explanatory notes clarify that it includes “fittings and accessories of non-textile materials,” such as the artificial breast forms, it said. An eo nomine provision “includes all forms of the named article, including improved forms,” it said.
It also disagreed that the mastectomy bras were accessories for artificial breasts under heading 9021.
“The brassieres are not accessories of the breast form,” it said. “If anything, the breast forms are accessories of the brassieres.”
The breast forms, it said, “are subordinate to the brassiere” because, while the bras can be worn with or without the breast forms, the breast forms require the bras, it said. The bras are essential, meaning they don’t fit the definition of an accessory, it said.
Even if they did, however, heading 6212 is more specific, it argued. It said that “the term brassiere is more specific than the term accessory,” as, unlike an accessory -- which can cover many different items -- a bra “has a specific definition and identity.” It said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on the issue in a similar case, Totes, Inc. v. U.S., finding that a heading covering “similar containers” was more specific to a trunk organizer than a heading for motor vehicle accessories.