CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 089769 JS
T.A. Galantowicz
District Director
7911 Forsythe Blvd., Ste. 625
St. Louis (Clayton), MO 63105
RE: Request for Internal Advice; hunting gloves; ski gloves:
cold weather gloves
Dear Mr. Galantowicz:
This is in response to your request for internal advice,
dated March 25, 1991, regarding the classification of Kmart
gloves claimed to be designed for hunting.
FACTS:
Glove style no. BUU 80-35-37 is a full-fingered glove with
an outer shell fabric of 65 percent polyester/ 35 percent cotton
which has a green, brown and tan camouflage design. The inner
surface of the shell fabric has a thin layer of foam bonded to
it. The next layer is a thicker piece of foam, over a plastic
sheet in the dimensions of the glove, over more foam backed with
a layer of Thinsulate (TM). There is a piece of textile-backed
vinyl placed into the glove at the area of the knuckles.
The palm side of the glove has a plastic coated textile
reinforcement which extends across the palm to the thumb,
forefinger and middle finger. Fourchettes are sewn into the
glove, and the cuff has an elasticized gathering on one side to
which a hook is attached. The glove is bulky in its general
appearance and fit.
The other glove, style no. 5812, is identical in appearance
and design, except that the shell fabric is a solid neon orange
color. This glove also has point-of-sale tags which advertise
the glove as a waterproof "Taslon Hunting Glove."
ISSUE:
1) Whether the present gloves show special design for
hunting
2) If these gloves are not considered hunting gloves,
whether they may be classified as ski or cold weather
gloves under the HTSUSA
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is in
accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), taken
in order. GRI 1 provides that classification shall be in
accordance with the terms of the headings and any relevant
section or chapter notes. Where goods cannot be classified
solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the heading and legal notes
do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may be applied, in
the order of their appearance.
Counsel for Kmart Corporation asserts that the gloves at
issue are classifiable as hunting gloves, or in the alternative,
ski gloves, under the provision for gloves specially designed
for sports, subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA. In support of this
position, counsel presents the following:
- the non-skid reinforcement, which includes the two
shooting fingers, allows the hunter to grip his rifle
without slipping, and to fire weapons in a safe and
secure manner;
- the outer shell of each glove has been specifically
designed with hunting in mind: the neon orange color
of one glove identifies the wearer during the busy
season, and the camouflage print of the other glove allows
the hunter to conceal his hands when necessary;
- the gloves are insulated for warmth and have a hook clasp
Since the subheading for textile hunting gloves, HTS 6216.00.46,
is a use provision, it is important to consider the glove as a
whole in order to determine its use as a hunting glove. The
characteristics set forth above indicate some intent to design
these gloves as hunting gloves. The considerable bulk of the
gloves, however, counteracts the features for grip and
camouflage/visibility. The thick padding throughout the gloves
serves to inhibit crucial sensitivity and movement of the
trigger finger, which is necessary to the handling of a gun. A
hunter could otherwise discharge the firearm accidentally when
attempting to insert his or her finger into the trigger housing.
The permanent padding in this instance indicates that these
gloves are not specially designed for hunting. Guns have several
small or movable parts, and must be handled with care, therefore
requiring better fit and grip of a glove designed for such use.
The fact that the gloves are insulated and have a hook clasp is
not dispositive of special design for use during hunting.
In the alternative, counsel argues that these gloves fit the
criteria for ski gloves set forth in Stonewall Trading Company v.
United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482, C.D. 4023 (1970). As we have
previously stated, we believe that presence of the four Stonewall
criteria in a glove demonstrate prima facie that the subject
merchandise is specially designed for skiing; however, failure of
a glove to meet all of the Stonewall criteria will not prevent
its classification as a ski glove, nor will satisfaction of the
criteria automatically dictate classification as a ski glove.
Instead, the language of Stonewall must be interpreted in
conjunction with the design for use of the manufactured articles.
Again, it is important to consider the glove as a whole in order
to determine its use as a ski glove. In the present instance,
each of the Stonewall requirements have been met in the glove at
issue. However, the colors of the glove are those traditionally
associated with hunting, which is also true of the forefinger
reinforcement. Moreover, the hang tags on the neon orange glove,
at least, indicate that the importer and/or manufacturer intended
to market these gloves as hunting gloves, for use as such. Thus,
we determine that the present merchandise is not principally used
in or specially designed for the sport of skiing.
HOLDING:
For the reasons stated above, these gloves are classified as
cold weather gloves under subheading 6216.00.3225, HTSUSA, which
provides for gloves, mittens and mitts: impregnated, coated or
covered with plastics or rubber: other: with fourchettes,
containing 50 percent or more by weight of cotton, man-made
fibers or any combination thereof: subject to man-made fiber
restraints, textile category 631, dutiable at the rate of 14
percent ad valorem.
Due to the changeable nature of the statistical annotation
(the ninth and tenth digits of the classification) and the
restraint (quota/visa) categories, the importer should contact
the local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise
to determine the current status of any import restraints or
requirements.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division