CAFC Says Bound by Own Precedent in Tariff Classification Case on Teva Sandals
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 13 denied a challenge from Deckers on the tariff classification of its Teva sports sandals, finding itself bound by its own precedent. CAFC had already ruled in 2008 that the sports sandals were classifiable in the tariff schedule as open-toed or open-heeled footwear rather than sports footwear, which carries a lower rate of duty.
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 argued that this time, its legal arguments were different. Its proposed classification in subheading 6404.11 includes “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like.” Deckers said that, while in the 2008 case the court decided the meaning of the phrase “and the like,” this time it was being asked to decide whether the sports sandals fall under the term “training shoes.”
CAFC ruled that, although the ejusdem generis analysis used to determine meaning of the phrase “and the like” is slightly different from the eo nomine analysis used to decide the common meaning of a tariff term such as “training shoes,” many of the issues it decided were relevant under either test. In its 2008 ruling, for example, it found that Deckers’ Teva sports sandals lack the enclosed upper that is fundamental to all of the examples of sports footwear, including training shoes. It also said that the sports sandals are “not of the kind of shoes” to which the sports footwear subheading applies.
Faced with the same issues it had already decided in 2008, the Appeals Court found itself bound by its own precedent. Deckers had argued that the court could reverse itself if it found it had earlier ruled in “clear error.” But CAFC said only through a full en banc review by all of its judges could it reverse itself. A three-judge panel cannot go against the ruling of a previous three-judge panel, it said. “Only through an en banc opinion, intervening Supreme Court precedent, or a change in the underlying statute by Congress can we deviate from our prior construction through a showing of clear error,” said CAFC. “If Deckers seeks to overturn the [earlier CAFC] construction of subheading 6404.11, it will need to seek review en banc.
(Deckers Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. 13-1356, dated 05/13/14, Judges Prost, Schall and O’Malley)
(Attorneys: Patrick Gill of Rode & Qualey for plaintiff-appellant Deckers Corporation; Marcella Powell for defendant U.S. government)