CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084247 PR; NY 838583
6114.30.3070
Donald J. Unger, Esquire
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Ill. 60601
RE: Classification of a Woman's Pullover and "Cape"
Dear Mr. Unger:
This ruling is in response to your letters of March 21 and
31, 1989, on behalf of Spiegel, Inc., concerning the tariff
status of a woman's knit garment and accompanying "cape".
FACTS:
The submitted samples are a modified turtle neck long
sleeve hip length pullover and a short length pullover which
fits over the shoulders but which has no sleeves or armholes.
For ease of reference only, the long sleeve pullover will be
referred to in this ruling as the pullover and the sleeveless
pullover will be referred to as the cape.
The cape, which is shaped to conform to and cover the
shoulders, has a straight neckline and a straight bottom that is
approximately 10 inches below the neckline. It is made from a 6
x 6 allover knit fabric, which presents a distinctly ribbed
effect. The pullover is constructed with a 1 x 1 allover knit
fabric that presents a relatively plain knit appearance. It is
stated that both articles will, when imported, be 50 percent wool
and 50 percent acrylic by weight. The cape is not normally
offered for sale separately.
ISSUE:
The primary issues presented are: (1) Whether the cape is a
garment or an accessory? (2) In either event, are the two
articles classifiable as composite goods or as sets?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
It is contended that the cape is an accessory and not a
garment. Therefore, the cape and pullover should be classified
as a composite good, classifiable as a single garment under the
provision for other sweaters, pullovers, and similar garments, in
Subheading 6110.30.1560, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA). The rationale for this
classification is that the two articles are mutually
complementary, practically inseparable, form a whole, and would
not normally be sold separately.
The first question that must be resolved is whether the cape
is a garment or an accessory. If the former, following General
Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 1, HTSUSA, and Note 13, Section XI,
HTSUSA, the combination must be broken up for classification
purposes and the components classifiable separately. If the
latter, and if meeting the requirements under the HTSUSA for
either a set or a composite good made up of different
components, then, in accordance with GRI 3, HTSUSA, they may be
classifiable as a single unit.
The classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is
governed by the General Rules of Interpretation in the order in
which they appear. GRI 1 provides generally that for legal
purposes, classification shall be determined according to the
terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes.
In this instance, we believe that we need go no further than GRI
1 in order to classify the instant merchandise.
Note 13, Section XI, provides that, in the absence of a
context to the contrary, "textile garments of different headings
are to be classified in their own headings even if put up in sets
for retail sale." GRI 6 provides that, for legal purposes, the
classification of goods at the subheading levels shall also be
governed by the General Rules of Interpretation. Accordingly, if
it is determined that the cape is a "garment" and classifiable
under a different heading than the pullover, the two garments are
required to be classified separately.
In our view, the cape is a garment within the purview of
Note 13. We see no real distinction between the cape here at
issue and bolero-type tops imported as parts of "two-piece
dresses", which, under the predecessor to the HTSUSA, the Tariff
Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA), were
considered to be separately classifiable garments. While the
bolero-type tops may have had armholes, they were usually of the
identical fabric and color, formed a whole outfit, and would not
normally be either worn or sold separately.
In the instant case, the cape is of a different fabric than
its accompanying garment and it does not resemble a real cape, to
which it has been likened, except in use. It has a hole in the
center through which the head of the wearer is inserted and the
article is shaped to fit snugly around the wearer's shoulders.
In our view, the lack of armholes does not preclude the cape from
being a garment.
Since the two articles are separate garments, it must be
determined whether the garments are classifiable under different
headings. In this case, while both garments are knit, the
pullover is classifiable under Heading 6110, HTSUSA, as a
sweater, pullover, or similar article, while the cape, because of
limited body coverage and a lack of armholes, is classifiable
under Heading 6114, HTSUSA, as an other knitted garment. Since
the two garments are classifiable in different headings, Note 13
is applicable and those garments cannot be classified either as a
set put up for retail sale or as composite goods.
Even if Note 13 did not apply in this instance, the garments
still could not be classifiable as composite goods. The
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory
Notes, which is the official interpretation of the HTSUSA at the
(the 4 and 6 digit headings) international level, provide,at page
4, that combinations of components, if separable, may be
considered composite goods provided they (1) are adapted to each
other; (2) are mutually complementary; and (3) form a whole that
would not normally be offered for sale separately.
In this instance, the two garments fail each of the above
tests. They are not particularly adapted to each other. Not
only can they be worn separately, but, in our view, the long
sleeve pullover would have significant wear without the cape.
While the garments may be the same color, we do not believe that
they are mutually complementary because their fabric is different
and the use of one is not dependent on the use of the other. It
is true that the cape cannot be worn without another upper body
garment, but it is capable of being worn with other garments.
Further, we are unaware of what "whole" the combination of
garments form when worn together, other than a coordinated
outfit. The mere combination of coordinated components which are
capable of separate use should not automatically result in the
classification of those components as composite goods.
It is indicated that the merchandise will be 50 percent wool
and 50 percent acrylic by weight. Pursuant to Section XI Note
2(A), HTSUSA, and Section XI Subheading Note 2, HTSUSA, the
garments, will each be classified according to which component
predominates by weight. If deemed appropriate, the classifying
officer may submit the garments to a Customs laboratory to
determine the fiber of chief weight.
HOLDING:
The pullover is classifiable under the heading for
sweaters, pullovers, sweat shirts, and similar articles: If in
chief weight of wool, in Subheading 6110.10.2080, HTSUSA, or if
in chief weight man-made fibers, in Subheading 6110.30.1560,
HTSUSA. In either event, the garment is dutiable, as a product
of Taiwan, at the rate of 17 percent ad valorem, and falls
within textile restraint category 438.
The cape does not fall within that class of garments which
are known commercially either as "capes" or as "tops".
Accordingly, it is classifiable under the heading for other knit
garments: If in chief weight of wool, in Subheading
6114.10.0070, HTSUSA, with duty, as a product of Taiwan, at the
rate of 17 percent ad valorem, and in textile restraint category
459; or, if in chief weight man-made fibers, in Subheading
6114.30.3070, HTSUSA, with duty at the rate of 30 percent ad
valorem, and in textile restraint category 659.
Due to the changeable nature of the statistical
annotation (the ninth and tenth digits of the classification) and
the restraint (quota/visa) categories, you should contact your
local Customs office prior to importing the merchandise to
determine the current applicability of any import restraints or
requirements.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division