## Facts

- Pollak Import Export Corp. (Pollak) imported waist-length women’s boiled-wool garments described as jackets.
- U.S. Customs classified the merchandise as knit-wool “coats” under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), resulting in a less favorable classification for Pollak.
- The TSUS did not define the tariff term “coat,” and there was no legislative history clarifying the intended meaning of the term.
- Customs based its classification on the Textile Category Guidelines for Fabric and Garments (Customs guidelines) and Customs’ asserted past practice of treating jackets as coats for classification purposes.
- Both parties presented dictionary definitions of “coat,” and the definitions described a coat as an outer garment.
- Customs introduced provisions from the Customs guidelines addressing coats and presented testimony that the guidelines treated certain jacket-like garments (including tailored cardigans) as coats.
- Customs also introduced prior Customs decisions that had classified waist-length jackets as coats.
- Pollak presented testimony that the common meaning of “coat” is limited to garments worn mainly outdoors, over other clothing, for protection from the elements.
- Pollak presented testimony from two witnesses that a jacket should be treated as a coat only if it is designed to protect against the elements.
- Pollak presented additional testimony distinguishing jackets treated for water repellency and worn as outerwear (coats) from jackets primarily worn indoors (not coats).
- On principal use, Pollak submitted evidence found credible and convincing that the imported jackets were primarily worn indoors.

## Issues

1. Whether Pollak’s waist-length women’s boiled-wool jackets were properly classifiable as “coats” under the TSUS, given the common meaning of “coat,” the Customs guidelines and prior practice, and evidence of the garments’ principal use.

## Decision

- The Court of International Trade ruled for Pollak.
- The court rejected Customs’ classification of the imported garments as knit-wool coats.
- The court determined that, applying the common meaning of “coat” and considering the record evidence on use and function, the merchandise did not fall within the tariff meaning of “coat.”
- The court’s ruling resolved the classification dispute in Pollak’s favor and served as the dispositive outcome for the challenged classification approach applied to these jackets.

## Legal Principles

- When a tariff term is not defined in the TSUS and legislative history does not supply meaning, the court determines the term’s meaning by its common meaning, using sources such as dictionaries and evidence of trade understanding.
- Where the tariff term describes an article by function (such as a “coat” as an outer garment used for protection from the elements), evidence about the article’s function and principal use may be considered in deciding classification.
- Administrative materials such as classification guidelines, and claimed agency past practice, may be considered but do not control if they conflict with the common meaning of the tariff term and the evidence about the merchandise.
- The importer may rebut Customs’ classification by presenting credible evidence that the merchandise, as imported and as used, does not meet the common-meaning characteristics of the tariff term applied by Customs.

## Conclusion

The court held that Pollak’s waist-length boiled-wool jackets were not “coats” under the TSUS because “coat” carried a common-meaning focus on outdoor outerwear protection, and Pollak proved the garments’ primary use was indoors rather than as protective outerwear; Customs’ reliance on its guidelines and prior classifications did not overcome that record evidence.


Pollak Import Export Corp. v. The United States, WL Inv. No. 88-08-000649 (1992)