CLA-2 CO:R:C:F 089895 STB
Mr. Billy J. Gwin
Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.
1400 Exchange Building
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
RE: Trolls
Dear Mr. Gwin:
This letter is in response to your request, dated July 8,
1991, concerning the tariff classification of a troll figure
manufactured in Hong Kong. A sample was included with your
request.
FACTS:
The sample figure is a pot-bellied, flesh-colored plastic
figure standing erect on two legs and is approximately 2-1/2
inches tall. The feet have four toes each and the hands have
four fingers. The figure has very long white textile hair which
extends from a flat head; there is virtually no forehead. The
portion of the head where the eyes are placed curves inward in a
sharp angle and then gives way to a large upturned snout rather
than a nose. The eyes are formed into very large pupils
surrounded by a brown iris. The ears stick straight out from the
head. A small piece of shiny silver material is attached to the
belly to simulate a jewel inside the belly button.
ISSUE:
Whether the troll figure should be classified as a doll or
as a toy?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is made in accordance with the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). The systematic detail
of the harmonized system is such that virtually all goods are
-2-
classified by application of GRI 1, that is, according to the
terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative
Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be
classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and
legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI's may
then be applied.
Heading 9502, HTSUSA, provides for "[D]olls representing
only human beings and parts and accessories thereof."
Explanatory Note 95.02 states that "the heading includes not only
dolls designed for the amusement of children, but also dolls
intended for decorative purposes (e.g., boudoir dolls, mascot
dolls), or for use in Punch and Judy or marionette shows, or
those of the caricature type." The Explanatory Note further
states that dolls "may be jointed and contain mechanisms which
permit limb, head or eye movements as well as reproductions of
the human voice, etc...."
Heading 9503, HTSUSA, provides for "other toys, reduced-size
("scale") models...parts and accessories thereof...."
Explanatory Note 95.03 states that, among other things, this
heading covers:
(A) All toys not included in headings 95.01 and 95.02.
Many of the toys of this heading are mechanically
or electrically operated.
These include:
(1) Toys representing animals or non-human
creatures even if possessing predominantly
human physical characteristics (e.g.,
angels, robots, devils, monsters)
including those for use in marionette
shows.
Customs has issued several decisions interpreting and
applying the above Explanatory Notes and discussing the
relationship of heading 9502 and 9503, HTSUSA, when they are
competing headings. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 086088,
dated February 21, 1990, we stated the following:
At their joint meeting on May 4, 1985, the Nomenclature
Committee and the Interim Harmonized System Committee
decided that angels and devils could not be regarded as
dolls within the meaning of heading 9502. This decision
was based on the argument that this heading restricts its
contents to dolls representing only human beings. The
majority of the participants adopted the viewpoint that
angels and devils should be regarded as toys under heading
9503.
-3-
It is Customs position that the intent of the
committees in reaching this conclusion is to deny the doll
classification to those figures which possess non-human
characteristics that are immediately apparent to the casual
observer. Where the non-human feature(s) can only be
discovered by close examination, the doll classification may
be appropriate. The phrase "close examination" may
encompass the need to look closely, the need to remove the
clothes of the figure, or perhaps even the need of the
observer to guess as to whether a feature that appears to
be non-human is, in actuality, such a feature. Most angels
and devils possess readily apparent non-human features,
i.e., halos, large wings, visible horns, pointed tails, etc.
However, if a figure is marketed as an angel or devil, and
yet appears human to the casual observer, then, again, the
doll classification may be appropriate.
In HRL 085855, dated August 9, 1990, we discussed the above
test and also noted that a person viewing a figure should be able
to identify the figure as non-human without the necessity of
viewing a particular movie or knowing a particular storyline.
However, we also stated in HRL 085855 that there must be an
"established popular culture" exception to the storyline rule.
Some knowledge of angels, devils and certain monsters is
necessary to immediately identify the typical characteristics of
these beings as rendering the figures non-human.
HRL 081201, dated October 3, 1988, concerned troll figures
very similar to those at issue here. In that ruling, we noted
that the Explanatory Notes state that dolls should "represent"
human beings and we cited Webster's Third New International
Dictionary (1961) which defines "represent" to mean "to portray
by pictorial, plastic, or musical art: delineate, depict...to
serve as the counterpart or image of: typify." In that case we
held that although certain troll figures may have, to some extent
"resembled" human beings, they did not "represent" human beings
and thus were not dolls.
As was the case with the trolls discussed in HRL 081201, it
is immediately apparent to the casual observer that the figure
which is the subject of this ruling does not represent a human
being, but rather represents a widely recognized non-human
creature, i.e., a troll.
-4-
HOLDING:
The troll figure is classified under subheading
9503.49.0020, HTSUSA, the provision for toys representing animals
or non-human creatures (for example, robots and monsters) and
parts and accessories thereof, other than stuffed, not having a
spring mechanism, other. The applicable duty rate is 6.8% ad
valorem.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division