It makes absolute sense that men and women's hiking boots imported from China would be taxed at the same rate. Of course, that's not how the U.S. tariff system works and a number of companies including Asics, Columbia Sportswear and Steve Madden have filed lawsuits against the federal government challenging the system in place.
According to a report by The New York Times, the government places higher import tariffs on like items intended for women and men. For example, an imported men's bathing suit has a 28 percent tax placed on it while a woman's bathing suit is assessed a fee of 12 percent.
Columbia Sportswear imports its Diamond Peak hiking boot from China and while the men's and women's versions are said to be virtually the same, the tariff on the women's shoe is 10 percent compared to 8.5 percent for the men's model.
In one imported product after another, men's and women's items are taxed at different rates with no clear rationale to explain the discrepancy.
Peter Bragdon, the general counsel at Columbia Sportswear, called the practice "irrational."
Most companies in the apparel industry agree with Mr. Bragdon, but have taken the stance that this is the price of doing business.
"You grin and bear it," Alan Geller, president of Teri Jon Apparel, told the Times.
Now, others have taken the position that they no longer wish to deal with the difference in tariff rates based on gender and have taken their case to the courts. Of course, as the Times article pointed out, it may turn out (perhaps even likely that it will) that the federal government simply raises the lower tariff fee to meet the higher percentage. Still, the companies fighting the status quo believe that it is fight worth waging.
Discussion Questions: Is there any logic to support higher tariffs on certain products because they are designed and manufactured for a particular gender? What is likely to happen should the companies suing the federal government win? What will it mean for the manufacturers, retailers and consumers of these clothing items?