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, 845 F.3d 1158, 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, 140 F.3d 1437, 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, 741 F.3d 1263, 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, 757 F.3d 1349, 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. Id.

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, 195 F.3d 1375, 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, 29 F.4th 1359, 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, 140 F.3d at 1440. After determining the appropriate heading, the court then proceeds to identify the appr