CIT Dismisses Totes-Isotoner Gender/Age Discrimination Claim on Glove Duty Rates
The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that Totes-Isotoner Corporation, which had challenged the constitutionality of different U.S. tariff rates for men's and other gloves, had standing to bring its claims but did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. Therefore, the CIT dismissed the case without prejudice.
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.
(In January 2007, Totes-Isotoner filed a complaint with the CIT against the U.S. to recover customs duties assessed on the basis of gender or age, alleging that the higher U.S. tariff rate1 for certain men's seamed leather gloves was unconstitutional.)
Totes-Isotoner Failed to Allege Sufficient Facts, "Show" Entitlement to Relief
According to the CIT, Totes-Isotoner's complaint does not allege sufficient facts to establish that the government has engaged in gender-based discrimination or "show" what the basis of Totes-Isotoner's entitlement is.
The CIT states that the complaint does not allege discrimination "based on" gender, i.e., that the duty or tax imposed by the tariff classification, or any burden resulting from that tax, is imposed because of or based on gender or otherwise disfavors individuals because of their gender. This is because the tariff provisions at issue do not require that the imported goods be actually sold to or used by people of one sex or of some age category. While classification of goods as "for" men - or for other persons - may suggest discrimination, it does not "show" it.
CIT Does Rule Totes-Isotoner Raised Reviewable Question, Had "Standing"
Despite the U.S. claim that Totes-Isotoner's complaint was not appropriate for judicial resolution because the tariff provisions at issue involve the negotiation of agreements with foreign governments, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing the results of these international trade agreements, the CIT disagreed.
According to the CIT, Totes-Isotoner's challenge to the discriminatory operation of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) properly invokes the Court's traditional role of - and standards for - constitutional review.
The U.S. also claimed that Totes-Isotoner lacked "standing"2 because, among other things, the company's injury was too indirect and tariff rates tax products, not people. However, the CIT ruled that there was no prudential reason to deny Totes-Isotoner's "standing" to litigate its claim because as alleged, the claim was within the zone of interests protected by the Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee.
1When imported for men, the subject gloves are classified under HTS 4203.29.30 at a duty rate of 14%. However, when not imported for men, the gloves are classified under HTS 4203.29.40 at a duty rate of 12.6%.
2To establish a sufficient stake for purposes of "standing," plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) that they have suffered some injury-in-fact; (2) that there is a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and this injury-in-fact; and (3) that this injury is redressable by the court.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 08/07/07 news, 07080725, for BP summary of Totes-Isotoner and Target Corp. filing cases with the CIT alleging gender/age bias in certain tariff rates.)
CIT ruling (Totes-Isotoner Corporation vs. U.S., Slip Op. 08-73, dated 07/03/08) available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op08/08-73%20corrected.pdf