CIT Rules That CamelBak Hydration Packs are Backpacks (17.8% Rate)

In a test case, CamelBak Products, LLC1, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled in favor of Customs that CamelBak “Hydration Packs” or “Hydration Systems” are properly classified as “”travel, sports, and similar bags” under HTS subheading 4202.92.30 at 17.8%.

At issue were ten models of merchandise imported during September and October 2003, which CamelBak referred to as “Hydration Packs” or “Hydration Systems”. Each model was a textile bag with padded, adjustable shoulder straps, designed to be worn on the back during a recreational activity, such as hiking, biking, snowboarding, or rock climbing. Each of the models featured both a “cargo” compartment (designed to hold food, clothing, gear, and other supplies), with different capacity and configuration, depending on the activity for which the model was designed. In addition, each model contained a “reservoir” (bladder) compartment, with a capacity of between 35 and 100 ounces, surrounded by closed-cell polyethylene foam that was designed to carry and maintain the temperature of water or other beverage.

CamelBak argued that subheading 4202.92.30 did not completely describe their specially designed products that included a fully integrated, insulated bladder component. According to CamelBak, the Hydration Packs or Systems at issue should be considered a “composite good” consisting of two components. Further, CamelBak concluded that the special “hydration” feature gave the subject merchandise its essential character, and the merchandise should be classified as an insulated food or beverage bag under subheading 4202.92.04 or 4202.92.04, both dutiable at 7% ad valorem.

The CIT stated there was no merit to CamelBak’s claims, and the mere fact that a piece of merchandise may consist of more than one component does not necessarily make that merchandise a “composite good” subject to classification under GRI 3(b). GRI 3(b) applies only if “no one provision exists that provides for the composite good as a whole. The CIT, however, stated that the items were described in their entirety by the sub-heading “travel, sports, and similar bags,” and that an “essential character” analysis was therefore, unnecessary.

The CIT ruled that despite the inclusion of a special feature which allowed the wearer to efficiently carry and dispense cool water or other beverages, which may have rendered the product an upscale, specialized or improved traditional backpack, it was still a backpack, and as such, classified under subheading 4202.92.30 as “travel, sports and similar bags” at 17.8 % ad valorem.

(All citations to the HTS are to the 2003 edition.)

1successor-in-interest to CamelBak Products, Inc.

Slip Op 10-52 (dated 05/10/10) available at http://1.usa.gov/1PWD9zX