Submitted by admin on Sat, 2007-04-28 08:00. ::
There is no apparent pattern to the tariffs, which penalize men in some instances, and women in others. But the fees tacked onto clothing, shoes and swimwear as they enter the country's ports may be the last legal form of sex discrimination in the United States, approved year after year by lawmakers and passed on to consumers.
For decades, apparel companies have grudgingly tolerated the peculiar disparities, writing them off as a vestige of smoke-filled, backroom trade negotiations.
But now, several major apparel makers, like Steve Madden, Asics and Columbia Sportswear , are challenging the tariffs in lawsuits against the federal government that have broad implications for the clothing industry, not to mention the battle of the sexes.
If the clothing companies prevail, they could reclaim close to $1 billion worth of tariffs based on gender differences. For example, the lawsuit claims that the government earned $2.5 million last year from discriminatory tariffs on underpants (penalizing women), $93 million for cotton shirts (penalizing men), $16 million for silk shirts (penalizing women) and $71 million for shoes with leather tops (women again).
But after years of poring over dusty tariff lists, international trade court records and Congressional testimony, lawyers have found nothing that explains why, say, the tariff on an imported wool suit is 8.5 percent for a woman and zero for a man.
Columbia Sportswear imports a rugged hiking boot from China called the Diamond Peak. The men's and women's boots are virtually identical. But the tariff on the women's version is 1.5 percentage points higher than the men's (10 percent, compared with 8.5 percent).
The government's only known opinion on the matter appeared in 1960, during a study of the United States tariff system - and it appears to help the clothing companies' legal case, rather than hurt it.
Today, few in the government want to discuss the issue. Spokesmen for the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the Justice Department said they would not comment on the role of gender in determining tariffs because of the pending lawsuit.
The existence of different tariffs for men and women, imposed on similar clothing, would most likely have remained out of public view if not for a Manhattan lawyer named Michael T. Cone, who has spent nearly a decade researching the topic.
After all, thousands of clothing companies, fully aware of the disparities, have accepted it as a fact of life. "You grin and bear it," said Alan Geller, president of Teri Jon Apparel, which makes women's suits (with a higher tariff rate than for men's) for Saks, Neiman Marcus and Bloomingdale's.
But Mr. Cone, from the firm Neville Peterson, found the differences "offensive" and likened them to a federal sales tax based on gender. "Who would stand for that? If you were to buy a shirt and it was 5 percent more only because you are a man or a woman you would be outraged - and people should be equally outraged at what is happening with tariffs."
After years of resistance - no major apparel brand wants to sue the government if it can avoid it - several companies have come around to Mr. Cone's opinion.
The prospect of a big payoff does not hurt either. Lawyers and apparel companies stand to win tens of millions in refunded tariffs - not to mention future profits from lower tariffs, which they hope to secure in a settlement with the government.
There is a chance, however slim, that the case could backfire if the government chooses to eliminate sex differences by raising the lower tariffs, rather than reducing the higher ones.
Clothing executives said they had consumers' interests in mind, too. Tariffs based on gender, they said, discourage them from making dozens of products with the higher tariffs for either men and women, limiting shoppers' options.
The current system leaves apparel makers with few enviable options, executives said. They can stop making a product with a higher tariff, charge more for it or make less money on it.
Pearl Izumi, for example, makes a cycling sneaker in China called the Vagabond for men and women, charging $85 for both. But the company pays a tariff of 4.3 percent for the men's version, and zero for women. As a result, it makes less money on every Vagabond sold to a man.
This is cache, read story here
