Case: 22-1793   Document: 41     Page: 1    Filed: 12/06/2023




   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO.
                     LLC,
              Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1793
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of International
 Trade in No. 1:16-cv-00150-TCS, Senior Judge Timothy C.
 Stanceu.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn,
 LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

     MARCELLA POWELL, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, Department of Justice, New York, NY, ar-
 gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, JUSTIN
 REINHART MILLER; PAULA S. SMITH, Office of the Assistant
 Chief Counsel, United States Bureau of Customs and Bor-
 der Protection, United States Department of Homeland Se-
 curity, New York, NY.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1793    Document: 41     Page: 2    Filed: 12/06/2023




 2        MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US




  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and TARANTO, Circuit
                         Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. LLC
 (“Magid”) appeals a decision of the United States Court of
 International Trade regarding the tariff classification of
 certain knit gloves with partial plastic coating. Because we
 conclude that the gloves are properly classified under head-
 ing 6116 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
 States, we affirm.
         HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE FRAMEWORK
     The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
 (“HTSUS”) 1 governs the classification of imported mer-
 chandise. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 

, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The HTSUS is organized
 by four-digit headings, and each heading may contain one
 or more six-digit or eight-digit subheadings. See Orlando
 Food Corp. v. United States, 

, 1439 (Fed. Cir.
 1998). The headings set forth general categories of mer-
 chandise, while the subheadings provide a more particular-
 ized division of the merchandise within each category.
 Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 

, 1266
 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The headings and subheadings are enu-
 merated in Chapters 1 through 99 across various sections
 of the HTSUS. See R.T. Foods, Inc. v. United States, 

, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The HTSUS further con-
 tains, among other things, the “General Rules of Interpre-
 tation” (“GRIs”), the “Additional United States Rules of
 Interpretation” (“ARIs”), and various section and chapter
 notes. 

     1  Because the subject gloves were imported in 2015,
 the parties cite to HTSUS (2015) (Rev.1). See, e.g., J.A.
 286, 291.
Case: 22-1793     Document: 41      Page: 3    Filed: 12/06/2023




 MAGID GLOVE & SAFETY MANUFACTURING CO. LLC v. US             3

      The GRIs and ARIs govern the interpretation of the
 HTSUS provisions to determine proper classification of
 merchandise. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 

, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The GRIs are applied numer-
 ically, such that once proper classification is determined
 via a particular GRI, the classification inquiry terminates
 and the remaining successive GRIs become inoperative.
 StarKist Co. v. United States, 

, 1361 (Fed.
 Cir. 2022). According to GRI 1, a court first construes the
 terms of the heading and any relative section or chapter
 notes, to determine whether the merchandise at issue is
 classifiable under that heading. Orlando Food, 

. After