Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 00-104

United States Court of International Trade

ROLLERBLADE, INC.,

Plaintiff,
Before: Pogue, Judge
v.
Court No. 97-12-02097
UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

[Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment granted. Judgment entered for
Defendant.]

Decided: August 21, 2000

Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, (Robert Torresen, Jr., Susan M.
Mathews, Leigh Fraiser) for Plaintiff.

David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph I. Liebman,
Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, Amy M. Rubin,
Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice; Sheryl A. French, Office of Assistant Chief
Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service, Of
Counsel, for Defendant.

OPINION

Pogue, Judge: Plaintiff, Rollerblade, Inc. ("Rollerblade"),

challenges a decision of the United States Customs Service

("Customs") denying Rollerblade’s protests filed in accordance with

section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1514
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 2

(1994). At issue is the proper tariff classification under 19

U.S.C. § 1202 (1994), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States ("HTSUS"), of Rollerblade’s imports of certain roller

skating protective gear.

Rollerblade claims that the subject merchandise is

classifiable under subheading 9506.70.2090, HTSUS (1996), covering:

Articles and equipment for general physical exercise,
gymnastics, athletics, other sports (including table-
tennis) or outdoor games, not specified or included
elsewhere in this chapter; swimming pools and wading
pools; parts and accessories thereof: . . . Ice skates
and roller skates, including skating boots with skates
attached; parts and accessories thereof: Roller skates
and parts and accessories thereof: . . . Other

Goods classifiable under subheading 9506.70.2090, HTSUS, were

subject to duty-free entry in 1996, the year in which the subject

imports were entered in the port of Minneapolis.

Customs classified the merchandise under a residual or

"basket" provision, subheading 9506.99.6080, HTSUS, covering:

Goods classifiable under subheading 9506.99.6080, HTSUS, were

subject to a general rate of duty of 4.4 % ad valorem in 1996.

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)(1994);
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 3

therefore, Customs’ classification is subject to de novo review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (1994). This action is before the

Court on summary judgment motions made by Rollerblade and

Defendant, the United States, pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.1 It has

been designated a test case pursuant to USCIT Rule 84.

Standard of Review

Under USCIT Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate "if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." USCIT R. 56(c); see

also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

1
Rollerblade contends that the United States’ summary
judgment cross-motion should be considered a response to
Rollerblade’s summary judgment motion rather than a cross-motion
for summary judgment, because the United States filed its cross-
motion after the deadline had passed on the Court’s Scheduling
Order for the filing of dispositive motions. See Pl.’s Reply to
Def.’s Resp. at 1 n.1. The parties did not, however, specify in
the Scheduling Order that all dispositive motions must be filed
concurrently. The practice of combining the cross-motion for
summary judgment with the party’s response to the original motion
for summary judgment is an efficient use of court resources. The
Court accepts the United States’ cross-motion for summary
judgment as such.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 4

The Court must address whether Customs’ classification

determination is reviewable as a matter of law. The Court analyzes

a Customs classification issue in two steps: "first, [it]

construe[s] the relevant classification headings; and second, [it]

determine[s] under which of the properly construed tariff terms the

merchandise at issue falls." Bausch & Lomb v. United States, 148

F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(citing Universal Elecs. v. United

States, 112 F.3d 488, 491 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Whether the subject

merchandise is properly classified is ultimately a question of law.

See id. Summary judgment of a classification issue is therefore

appropriate "when there is no genuine dispute as to the underlying

factual issue of exactly what the merchandise is."2 Id.

Here, the parties agree that "[t]he imported merchandise

consists of Rollerblade protective gear for in-line skating,

2
Following the Federal Circuit’s holding in Mead Corp. v.
United States, 185 F.3d 1304, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 1999), cert.
granted, 68 U.S.L.W. 3566 (U.S. May 30, 2000)(No. 99-1434), the
Court does not afford the deference articulated in Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45
(1984), to Customs’ standard classification rulings. Moreover,
although there is a statutory presumption of correctness, see 28
U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1), that attaches to Customs’ classification
decisions, that presumption is not relevant where the Court is
presented with a question of law in a proper motion for summary
judgment, see Universal Electronics, 112 F.3d at 492.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 5

including elbow pads, knee pads and wrist guards."3 Pl.’s

Statement Pursuant to Rule 56(i) ("Pl.’s Stmt.") at ¶ 1; see also

Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Stmt. at ¶ 3. Thus, Rollerblade and the

United States simply disagree as to how the merchandise should be

classified. Summary judgment of the classification issue is

therefore appropriate.

Discussion

The HTSUS consists of (A) the General Notes; (B) the General

Rules of Interpretation; (C) the Additional U.S. Rules of

Interpretation; (D) sections I to XXII, inclusive (encompassing

chapters 1 to 99, and including all section and chapter notes,

article provisions, and tariff and other treatment accorded

thereto); and (E) the Chemical Appendix.

General Rule of Interpretation ("GRI") 1 for the HTSUS

provides that, "for legal purposes, classification shall be

determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative

section or chapter notes . . . ." GRI 1, HTSUS; see also Orlando

Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1998);

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory

3
Protective helmets worn by in-line skaters are not at
issue. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 7.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 6

Notes (1st ed. 1986)("Explanatory Notes")4 at 2 ("[T]he terms of the

headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes are paramount,

i.e., they are the first consideration in determining

classification."). Here, the parties agree that the subject

imports should be classified under heading 9506, HTSUS, but dispute

the correct subheading. Therefore, the Court reviews the parties’

proposed classifications pursuant to GRI 6. See GRI 6, HTSUS ("For

legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of

a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those

subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis,

to the [GRIs], on the understanding that only subheadings at the

same level are comparable.").

Rollerblade argues that the imported goods are accessories to

in-line roller skates, and therefore, are correctly classified

under the provision for "roller skates and parts and accessories

thereof," in subheading 9506.70.2090. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at

6. The United States responds that the imported goods are not

4
The Explanatory Notes "provide a commentary on the scope of
each heading of the Harmonized [Tariff] System and are thus
useful in ascertaining the classification of merchandise under
the system." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 549
(1988). It has long been settled that, "[w]hile the Explanatory
Notes do not constitute controlling legislative history, they do
offer guidance in interpreting HTS[US] subheadings." Lonza, Inc.
v. United States, 46 F.3d 1098, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 7

accessories to roller skates, but are rather roller skating

equipment. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 2. Because there is no

specific provision for roller skating equipment in the HTSUS, the

United States concludes that Customs’ classification of the

merchandise as "other" sports equipment under the basket provision

of subheading 9506.99.6080 was correct. See id. at 2-3; see also

HQ 959376 (Sept. 3, 1996)(modifying HQ 957396 (Dec. 12, 1994) and

NY 895546 (Mar. 28, 1994)).

Classification of imported merchandise in a basket provision

is only appropriate if there is no tariff category that covers the

merchandise more specifically. See EM Indus. v. United States, 22

CIT , , 999 F. Supp. 1473, 1480 (1998)("’Basket’ or residual

provisions of HTSUS Headings . . . are intended as a broad catch-

all to encompass the classification of articles for which there is

no more specifically applicable subheading."); EM Chems. v. United

States, 20 CIT , , 923 F. Supp. 202, 206 (1996). See also

GRI 3(a), HTSUS ("The heading which provides the most specific

description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general

description."). Therefore, the Court must first address whether

the imported goods are more specifically classifiable under

subheading 9506.70.2090, HTSUS. The precise issue before the

Court, then, is whether Rollerblade protective gear constitutes
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 8

accessories to skates. If the protective gear does not constitute

accessories to skates, then the Court must consider whether Customs

correctly classified the subject goods under subheading

9506.99.6080, HTSUS, as "other" sports equipment.

I. Whether Rollerblade protective gear constitutes accessories to
skates

As recognized by both parties, neither the HTSUS nor its

legislative history defines "accessory." See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J.

at 7-8; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 4. See also HQ 958924 (June 20,

1996). "When a tariff term is not defined in either the HTSUS or

its legislative history, the term’s correct meaning is its common

meaning." Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079, 1082

(Fed. Cir. 1994)(citing Lynteq, Inc. v. United States, 976 F.2d

693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). To determine the common meaning of a

tariff term, "[a] court may rely upon its own understanding of

terms used, and may consult standard lexicographic and scientific

authorities[.]" Id. (citing Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United

States, 847 F.2d 786, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). "Additionally, a

court may refer to the Explanatory Notes of a tariff subheading .

. . ." Id. (citing Lynteq, 976 F.2d at 699).

The parties agree that the common meaning of the term
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 9

"accessory" should be applied by the Court. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ.

J. at 7; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 4. Rollerblade provides several

dictionary definitions, see Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 8-9:

something extra added to help in a secondary way;
specif., a) an article to complete one’s costume, as a
purse, gloves, etc. b) a piece of optional equipment for
convenience, comfort, etc.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 4 (2d

Concise Ed. 1978).

1.a A thing of secondary or subordinate importance;
adjunct;
1.b An object or device not essential in itself but
adding to the beauty, convenience or effectiveness of
something else.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 7 (2d Ed. 1977).

A subordinate or supplementary part, object or the like,
used mainly for convenience, attractiveness, safety, etc.

Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 11 (2d ed. 1998).

Additional or subordinate thing, adjunct; article not
absolutely essential that adds to the attractiveness,
convenience, effectiveness, or safety of something else.

Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary 7 (1991).

1.a A subordinate or supplementary item; an adjunct.
1.b Something non-essential but desirable that
contributes to an effect or result.

American Heritage Dictionary 10 (3d ed. 1996).

The United States notes that Customs also interprets the term

"accessory" according to its common meaning, and cites to a
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 10

representative Headquarters Ruling:

We have noted that the term "accessory" is not defined in
either the HTSUSA or the Explanatory Notes to the
Harmonized System (EN). We, however, have repeatedly
noted that an accessory is, in addition to being an
article related to a primary article, is [sic in
original] used solely or principally with that article.
We have also noted that an accessory is not necessary to
enable the goods with which they are used to fulfill
their intended function. They are of secondary
importance, not essential of themselves. They, however,
must contribute to the effectiveness of the principal
article (e.g., facilitate the use or handling of the
principal article, widen the range of its uses, or
improve its operation). We have also noted that
Webster’s Dictionary defines an accessory as an object or
device that is not essential in itself but adds to the
beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else.

HQ 958924 (June 20, 1996)(citations omitted)(quoted in Def.’s Mot.

Summ. J. at 5).

While Rollerblade and the United States agree that the common

meaning of the term "accessory" should be used, they disagree as to

whether the imported merchandise is properly considered accessories

to roller skates. Rollerblade asserts that the protective gear is

an accessory to roller skates because it is designed, tested,

manufactured and marketed solely for use with in-line skates. See

Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 9. In sum, the gear has "no function

independent of [its] relationship to the skates." Id. at 10.

Therefore, according to Rollerblade, the gear is "‘supplementary,’

‘secondary,’ ‘additional,’ ‘subordinate,’ and otherwise related to
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 11

in-line roller skates," and comes within the common meaning of

"accessory." Id. at 9.

The United States argues that the protective gear is not an

accessory to roller skates. According to the United States,

Rollerblade’s interpretation of the term "accessory" fails to

account for a key element of the definition: "‘Accessory’ is not

defined as something that is merely intended to be used at the same

time as something else; accessories must serve a purpose subordinate

to, but also in direct relationship to the thing they

‘accessorize.’" Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 5-6 (emphasis in original).

The United States asserts further that, although the protective gear

is designed, tested, and marketed solely or principally for use at

the same time as in-line skates,5 see Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Stmt. at

¶ ¶ 7-10, the protective gear does not relate directly to roller

skates because the gear "has no effect on whether or how well the

skates themselves will perform." Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 6.

The Court agrees with the United States the common meaning of

5
Rollerblade asserts, and the United States does not
dispute, for purposes of the case at bar, that the protective
gear is equipment used exclusively for in-line skating. See
Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 14-16; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 2-3. None
of the evidence presented to the Court indicates that the
protective gear at issue is generic protective gear that could be
used for several sports.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 12

the term indicates that an accessory must relate directly to the

thing accessorized. Indeed, the definitions cited by Rollerblade

indicate that an accessory exists only in relation to some other

thing.6 In addition, the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary

defines "accessory" as follows: "Of things: Coming as an accession;

contributing in an additional and hence subordinate degree;

additional, extra, adventitious." Oxford English Dictionary 74 (2d

ed. 1989)(emphasis added). Rollerblade itself states that the

required showing under the common meaning of the term accessory is

that "an article is ‘supplementary,’ or ‘secondary’ or ‘subordinate’

to some other article." Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 10 (emphasis added).

Moreover, the language of heading 9506, HTSUS, refers to

accessories either in relation to "articles and equipment"

6
See Webster’s College Dictionary at 7; Scribner-Bantam
English Dictionary at 7; American Heritage Dictionary at 10
(referring to an "adjunct," which is "[s]omething joined to
something else and auxiliary to or dependent on it," see The New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 27 (1993)).
Two of the definitions do not explicitly refer to the
relation between an accessory and another thing, but do support
the United States’ position. First, the Webster’s New World
definition does not make sense if read as Rollerblade suggests:
"something extra added [to the skater] to help [the skates] in a
secondary way." Webster’s New World Dictionary at 4. What is
added to the skater does not help the skates. Second, the Random
House definition continues with the following examples of an
"accessory" that emphasize the relationship to another thing: "a
spotlight on an automobile or a lens cover on a camera." Random
House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary at 11.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 13

generally, as in subheading 9506.40.00 ("Articles and equipment for

table-tennis, and parts or accessories thereof"), or to the specific

article named, as in subheading 9506.70, HTSUS ("Ice skates and

roller skates, including skating boots with skates attached; parts

and accessories thereof"). (Emphases added.) The language of the

HTSUS reflects the common understanding that accessories must be

"of" or "to" another thing.

Rollerblade has failed to convince the Court that its imported

merchandise "accessorizes" roller skates in accordance with the

common meaning of that term. Although Rollerblade claims that the

protective gear is "otherwise related" to in-line roller skates as

articles or equipment, see Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 9, Rollerblade has

not succeeded in demonstrating a direct relationship between the

protective gear and the roller skates themselves. Rollerblade’s

arguments rather support the conclusion that the primary

relationship is between the protective gear and the activity of

roller skating. For example, Rollerblade claims that the protective

gear is an accessory because it "is designed, tested and

manufactured for use with in-line skates," Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at

9, but describes the function of the gear as that of "protect[ing]

the wearer from skating related injury," id. The marketing of the

protective gear also emphasizes the benefits of the gear to one
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 14

engaged in in-line skating. See id. at 9-10.

Rollerblade’s next claim is that "protective gear increases the

safety, comfort and effectiveness of in-line roller skates and

expands their range of uses." Id. at 10. Its analysis, however,

supports a different proposition, namely that the protective gear

increases the safety, comfort and effectiveness of one engaged in

the activity of in-line skating, and allows the participant to

engage in expanded forms of the activity. See, e.g., id. at 12

("Skaters who wear protective gear are more likely to relax and

enjoy their skating experience."); id. ("Protective gear also allows

skaters to participate and achieve optimal performance in several

new and popular sporting activities . . . .").

By way of contrast, the articles Customs has classified as

accessories to roller skates include grind plates, skate lighting

systems, skate totes, power straps, lace kits, wheel guards, skate

maintenance kits, and skate covers. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 8

n. 4, and rulings cited therein. The United States explains that

these items were classified as accessories because "[t]he function

of each of these articles is intimately and directly related to the

articles called ‘roller skates,’ not simply related to the activity
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 15

called ‘roller skating.’"7 Id. (emphasis in original).

The Court finds this distinction persuasive, particularly in

light of other types of articles classified by Customs as

accessories. Rollerblade and The United States contest the meaning

of four Customs rulings, all of which concluded that the subject

merchandise was an accessory: 1) NY D83466 (Oct. 28, 1998)(finding

that probe covers are an accessory to thermometers); 2) HQ 960514

(Aug. 13, 1997)(finding that cargo-restraint nets are an accessory

to automobiles); 3) HQ 953896 (Feb. 2, 1994)(finding that swimming

pool test kits are an accessory to swimming pools); and 4) HQ 953713

(Aug. 11, 1993)(finding that brake lever extensions are an accessory

to mountain bikes).

Rollerblade cites these rulings in support of two propositions:

first, that "an accessory’s relationship to the primary article can

be to improve its safety," Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 11; and second,

that "Customs often classifies articles as accessories even though

the articles do not enhance the performance capabilities of the

object to which they relate," id. at 14. While both of these

7
The Court declines to comment on exactly how "intimately"
the accessory and the principal article must be related. The
Court finds only that to be considered an accessory, an article
must relate primarily to the thing accessorized, rather than to
an activity.
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 16

statements are true, both belie the weakness of Rollerblade’s

argument by emphasizing the relation between the accessory and the

primary article. In the four rulings cited above, each of the items

classified as an "accessory" added in some way to the thing

accessorized. In this case, however, the protective gear does not

add anything to the skates themselves, but rather improves the in-

line skating experience because of an "addition" to the in-line

skater in the form of protective gear. The skates themselves

continue to function exactly as they would if the skater were not

wearing the protective gear. Thus, because the primary relation

between the protective gear and the skates is not between the gear

and the skates themselves, the protective gear cannot be considered

an accessory to roller skates.8

8
Because the imported items are not accessories, Note 3 to
Chapter 95, which requires that "parts and accessories which are
suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of this
chapter are to be classified with those articles," does not
apply. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 16-17.
Rollerblade argues that "Note 3 does not require that a
covered accessory be an accessory to the article, or that it
perform some function directly related to the article, merely
that it be an accessory suitable for use solely or principally
with the article." Pl.’s Reply to Def.’s Response at 16.
Rollerblade misreads Note 3. "Suitable for use solely or
principally with the article" does not modify the term
"accessories" any more than it modifies the term "parts"; rather,
the phrase is a clause modifying "parts and accessories," in
effect indicating which items properly considered parts and
accessories should be classified under Chapter 95. See NY C85953
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 17

II. Whether Customs correctly classified the subject goods
under subheading 9506.99.6080, HTSUS, as "other" sports
equipment

As noted above, the United States argues that the protective

gear is not an accessory to roller skates, but is rather roller

skating equipment. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 2. As there is no

specific provision for roller skating equipment in the HTSUS, the

United States concludes that Customs’ classification of the

merchandise as "other" sports equipment under the basket provision

of subheading 9506.99.6080 was correct. See id. at 2-3.

"Equipment" must also be defined in accordance with its common

meaning, as it is defined by neither the HTSUS nor its legislative

history. The Court thus turns first to the dictionary definition

of "equipment." The American Heritage Dictionary defines

"equipment" as "Something with which a person, an organization, or

a thing is equipped"; "equip," in turn, is defined as "To supply

with necessities such as tools or provisions." The American

Heritage Dictionary at 622. The definition of "equipment" includes

the following synonym paragraph:

(Apr. 8, 1998)(interpreting Note 3 to mean that "if the articles
in question are accessories that are solely or principally used
with an article of chapter 95, they must be classified under that
heading, regardless of whether they are covered by another
provision elsewhere in the tariff schedule.").
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 18

Synonyms: equipment, apparatus, gear, material, outfit,
paraphernalia, rig, tackle. The central meaning shared
by these nouns is "the materials needed for a purpose
such as a task or a journey": hiking equipment;
laboratory apparatus; skiing gear; naval material; an
explorer’s outfit; sports paraphernalia; a climber’s rig;
fishing tackle.

Id. (emphasis added). "Paraphernalia" is defined as "The articles

used in a particular activity." Id. at 1313.

It should be noted that the use of "necessities" and "needed"

in these definitions is misleading, as "under the modern view . .

. sport equipment includes not only that which is ‘necessary’ but

also that which is specially designed for use in the sport . . . ."

Newman Importing Co. v. United States, 76 Cust. Ct. 143, 144, 415

F. Supp. 375, 376 (1976). Further, Customs has ruled that "[9506's]

scope includes the requisites needed in connection with the play of

sports and athletics, that being the equipment essential to the play

of the game, sport or athletic activity or the equipment designed

for use by the player in the training, practice and conduct of these

sporting activities." NY D85049 (Dec. 14, 1998)(emphasis added).

The kind of equipment that may properly be classified under 9506

plainly includes protective equipment. See Explanatory Note (B)(13)

("Requisites for other sports and outdoor games . . ., e.g.: (13)

Protective equipment for sports or games, e.g., fencing masks and

breast plates, elbow and knee pads, cricket pads, shin
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 19

guards.")(emphasis added). See also Slazenger’s Inc. v. United

States, 33 U.S. Customs Ct. Rpts. 338 (1954)(articles that serve "no

other purpose but to aid in a safer and more efficient game . . .

are within the designation of ‘equipment.’"); HQ 956582 (Mar. 14,

1995)(wrist protectors designed to perform a protective function are

not sports clothing, but rather sports are equipment classifiable

under 9506). Thus clarified, it is apparent that the protective

gear at issue may properly be considered "equipment." Rollerblade

and the United States do not disagree that the protective gear at

issue is specially designed for use in the conduct of the sport of

in-line skating. See Pl.’s Stmt. at ¶¶ 7-10; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s

Stmt. at ¶¶ 7-10.

Moreover, the protective gear at issue is not equipment that

may also be considered an accessory. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at

6 ("‘accessories’ may comprise a sub-set of ‘equipment’ in certain

circumstances"). An example of an accessory that could be considered

as falling within a sub-set of equipment is a swimming pool

thermometer. In a Headquarters Ruling, Customs explained that, "The

thermometers in question . . . contribute to the effectiveness of

the principal article by allowing the user to determine the pool or

spa’s temperature before entering the water. Thus, the thermometers

are accessories." HQ 952716 (Mar. 3, 1993). Because a thermometer
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 20

is designed for use by the swimmer "in the training, practice and

conduct of" swimming, it could be considered sports equipment. But

because of the direct relationship between the thermometer and the

principle article--the swimming pool--the thermometer is more

accurately classified as an accessory. It is in this sense that an

accessory may be defined as "a piece of optional equipment for

convenience, comfort, etc." Webster’s New World Dictionary at 4.

By way of contrast, personal flotation devices, which are also

designed for use by the swimmer "in the training, practice and

conduct of" swimming, have been routinely classified as sports

equipment under Heading 9506. This is justified because of the

close connection of this equipment to the activity of swimming, and

the lack of a connection to any principle article. See NY E84582

(July 21, 1999)("This swimming aid is designed solely to supply a

buoyancy support to the beginning swimmer."); HQ 961988 (Jan. 19,

1999)(modifying NY 829593 (July 25, 1988))("The flotation devices

here at issue are apparati for sports . . . ."); NY D85049 (Dec. 14,

1998)("inflatable arm sleeves . . . aid children to develop basic

swimming skills"). Like the personal flotation devices, the

protective gear at issue is designed primarily to help the skater

develop confidence while learning to skate, and protect the skater

from injury while engaged in the activity of in-line skating. If
Court No. 97-12-02097 Page 21

the connection of the secondary article is primarily to the activity

rather than to the primary article, the secondary article does not

"accessorize" the primary article, but is rather equipment for the

activity. Therefore, the protective gear is accurately considered

roller skating equipment.9

There is no specific tariff provision for roller skating

equipment that may not be considered an accessory. This Court will

not presume that a drafting error was committed. See, e.g., Brown

Group Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 919, 921 (1993)("If the drafters

of the statute erred it is up to Congress to correct the error.").

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the proper tariff

classification for Rollerblade’s protective gear is 9506.99.6080,

HTSUS.10

9
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court does not accept
Rollerblade’s position that the terms "equipment" and "accessory"
can be used interchangeably. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 17. To
do so would render the drafters’ use of the two terms
superfluous, and would lead to a lack of predictability in
determining whether merchandise should be considered "equipment"
or an "accessory" for classification purposes. See United States
v. Complex Mach. Works Co., 23 CIT __, __, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1307,
1314 (1999)("predictability of results . . . is the essence of
our legal system"); Atlas Copco N. Am. v. United States, 17 CIT
1163, 1168, 837 F. Supp. 423, 426-27 (1993)(approving of a
specific classification method because "[i]t is conducive to the
steady and predictable development of the tariff law").
10
Finally, the Court notes Rollerblade’s argument that GRI
3(a) requires the protective gear be classified as accessories to
roller skates because subheading 9506.70.2090 is more specific
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that Customs

correctly classified Rollerblade’s protective gear under subheading

9506.99.6080, HTSUS. Accordingly, Rollerblade’s motion for summary

judgment is denied. In turn, the United States’ motion for summary

judgment is granted and judgment is entered for the United States.

Donald C. Pogue
Judge

Dated: August 21, 2000
New York, New York

than the basket category 9506.99.6080. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J.
at 18. GRI 3 only applies if the goods are, prima facie,
classifiable under two or more headings; that is not the case
here, since the goods are not classifiable as accessories under
9506.70.2090.