## Facts

- Len-Ron imported small, supple, non-rigid cosmetic bags made of polyvinyl sheeting for use in cosmetic sales promotions.
- The bags came in varied shapes and sizes and were invoiced under multiple descriptions (e.g., cosmetic bag, pouch, tote, travel bag).
- The parties stipulated the bags were intended to contain, organize, and segregate cosmetics and toiletry products.
- Customs initially classified the merchandise under HTSUS subheading 4202.92.45 (“travel, sports and similar bags”), assessed at 20% ad valorem.
- Len-Ron protested and claimed classification under HTSUS subheading 4202.32.10 (“articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag,” with outer surface of plastic), with a lower duty rate.
- In litigation, the government defended the assessment and alternatively argued classification under HTSUS subheading 4202.12.20 as “vanity cases … with outer surface of plastics,” at 20% ad valorem.

## Issues

1. Whether the imported cosmetic bags are properly classified as “vanity cases” under HTSUS subheading 4202.12 or as “articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag” under subheading 4202.32.
2. Whether, if both subheadings are prima facie applicable, GRI 3(a) requires selection of the more specific provision.
3. Whether the Court of International Trade properly relied on dictionary definitions to construe “vanity case” and could sustain the duty assessment on an alternative classification not used in the initial administrative decision.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s grant of summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held the merchandise is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 4202.12.20 as “vanity cases” with an outer surface of plastics.
- The court agreed that even if the goods could also fit within subheading 4202.32, the “vanity cases” provision is more specific and controls under GRI 3(a).
- The court found no error in using dictionary sources to determine the common meaning of “vanity case.”
- The court upheld the government’s ability to defend the assessment using the correct tariff provision even if different from the one initially applied, absent prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Tariff classification generally involves (1) construing tariff terms (law) and (2) determining whether the merchandise fits those terms (fact); appellate review is de novo on construction and for clear error on factual findings.
- Undefined HTSUS terms may be construed according to their common meaning, and dictionaries are a permissible tool to ascertain that meaning when consistent with usage.
- When two tariff provisions each prima facie describe the merchandise, GRI 3(a) requires application of the provision that provides the most specific description over a more general one.
- An eo nomine provision naming a specific article (e.g., “vanity cases”) can be more specific than a broader “articles of a kind” provision covering items by general use or manner of carriage.
- In classification litigation, the government may defend the lawfulness of duties by establishing the merchandise is properly classifiable under a correct provision, even if different from the initial administrative classification, provided the importer is not prejudiced.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed that Len-Ron’s imported polyvinyl cosmetic bags are “vanity cases” under HTSUS subheading 4202.12.20 and that, where both “vanity cases” and “articles normally carried in a handbag” could apply, GRI 3(a) selects the more specific “vanity cases” provision.


Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003)