CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 952437 SK
TARIFF NO's.: 6201.93.3510; 6202.93.4500; 6210.40.1020;
6210.50.1020
Mark K. Neville, Jr.
51 Marion Road
Westport, CT 06880
RE: HRL 086504 (12/27/90) affirmed; classification of
floater jackets; filler of expanded PVC; "Gore-Tex";
essential character imparted by the outer shell
which forms the garment; T.D. 91-78; foam filler is
useful, but not essential for the use of these
garments as coats; NYRl's 847328, 847319, 847327.
Dear Mr. Neville:
This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1992, on behalf
of Mustang Industries, requesting reconsideration of Headquarters
Ruling Letter (HRL) 086504, dated December 27, 1990. Upon
further review, that ruling is deemed to be correct in its
affirmation of several New York Ruling Letters (NYRL's) which
classified "floater" coats under various headings in Chapter 62
of the tariff schedule.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue encompasses twelve styles of
"floater" coats. All the garments are constructed of a textile
outer shell and lining and a center layer of PVC foam. This is
not a lamination. The foam layer serves to provide buoyancy in
case the wearer should fall into water. The styles at issue are
referenced: MC1600; MC1700; MC1402; MC1520; MC1530; MC1550;
MC1510; MC1101; MC1400; MC1400T; MC1100; MC1102.
HRL 086504 affirmed New York Ruling Letters (NYRL's) 847328,
847319 and 847327 which had classified these articles under
various headings in Chapter 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
- 2 -
of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). HRL 086504 held that
the NYRL's were correct in their determination that the essential
character of these garments was imparted by the outer shell.
ISSUE:
Whether the center of expanded PVC imparts the essential
character to the subject merchandise?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is in
accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI
1 provides that classification shall be determined according to
the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter
notes. Where goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of
GRI 1, and if the heading and the legal notes do not otherwise
require, the remaining GRI's may be applied in order of their
appearance.
In Treasury Decision (T.D.) 91-78, Customs issued a final
interpretive rule with regard to the classification of garments
composed in part of linings or interlinings of specialized
fabrics, such as the "floater" coats at issue. The ruling held
that "a specialized fabric garment should be classified on the
basis of the outer shell of the garment instead of the fabric
which imparts a significant characteristic." This rule,
effective as of December 11, 1991, was issued after Customs had
reviewed comments submitted in response to this interpretive
rule's proposal. See Treasury Decision (T.D.) 91-78, Customs
Bulletin, vol. 25, 1991, at p. 195.
It is important to recognize that this rule is not absolute;
not all garments with linings will automatically be classified on
the basis of their outer shell by mandate of T.D. 91-78.
Reference to the "Supplementary Information" section of T.D. 91-
78 further elaborates on this and states, "Customs also believes
that while . . . linings, interlinings or nonwoven insulating
layers do impart desirable and, sometimes, necessary features to
garments, it is usually the outer shell which imparts the
essential character to the garment because the outer shell
normally creates the garment." [emphasis added] See T.D. 91-78 at
p. 196. This statement serves to refute your argument that
Customs has created a "hard-and-fast rule that the outer shell
always creates essential character." The carefully worded
exception in the T.D. recognizes that there may be circumstances
where a garment's lining is so important, and so indispensible to
the use of the garment, that it will indeed impart the essential
character to the garment and classification will be based on the
lining as opposed to the outer shell.
- 3 -
In the instant case, Customs is asked to make the
determination as to whether the garments' centers of PVC foam, or
the outer shells, impart the "essential character" to these
coats. Explanatory Note VIII to GRI 3 states:
"The factor which determines essential character will vary
as between different types of goods. It may, for example,
be determined by the nature of the material or component,
its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a
constituent material in relation to the use of the goods."
The information on relative values and weights, provided in the
submissions made to the file for HRL 086504, did not convince us
that the essential character of these coats was imparted by the
PVC. The nature of the PVC is such that it will enable the
wearer to float and while this is undeniably an important and
specialized function, it does not impart essential character.
The vast majority of the time, these garments will be used as
cold-weather or foul-weather coats. They possess features found
on many coats and they provide sound insulation against wind and
moisture. In other words, while these "floater" coats are
physically distinguishable from other outerwear garments in that
foam is not ordinarily used as a lining material, and it has
flotation properties making it suitable for a particular
activity, we see no fundamental difference between the foam and
other specialized materials used as linings, all of which have
been held not to impart the essential character. We note in
particular that coats with down linings are classifiable on the
basis of their outer shells and down linings offer such great
warmth that in very cold weather they, as with the PVC foam
linings, may possess life-saving capabilities.
You state in your submission that Customs uses faulty logic
in T.D. 91-78 and that the "'formation of the garment' is not
necessarily co-extensive with imparting the essential character
of the garment." We agree that the component which forms the
garment is not necessarily that which imparts essential character
but, absent unusual circumstances, this is usually the case. As
stressed above, to impart essential character a garment's lining
or center must be more than useful, it must possess such
exceptional qualities that it goes to the core of the garment's
usefulness. In the instant case, the PVC filler is significant,
but its role is not essential to the use of this garment as a
coat. To say that the PVC filler imparts the essential character
to these garments would be an overstatement of the importance of
its role as a constituent material in relation to the use of the
goods.
Lastly, you contend that Customs was wrong to state in T.D.
92-32 that "[t]he issues involved in T.D. 91-78 concern the rules
- 4 -
relating to the classification of textile articles which are
vastly different that (SIC) those involved in the tariff
classification of hiking boots with GORE-TEX liners." You state
that the principles involved in applying a GRI 3(b) analysis to
the classification of textiles and apparel are the same when
applied to the classification of footwear. We note, however, as
stated in GRI 3(b), "the factors which determine essential
character will vary as between different types of goods."
Therefore, the issues raised in the classification of textiles
and apparel may very well differ from those involved in
classifying footwear and no apt analogy of Customs disparate
treatment of the two can be drawn. The role of GORE-TEX in
hiking boots may indeed impart essential character, whereas with
regard to the coats at issue, the PVC lining does not.
Application of GRI 3(b) results in a finding that the outer
shells of the subject merchandise impart the essential character
to the subject merchandise in that they form the coats. The PVC
filler does not impart essential character because, while
undeniably important, the foam filler is not vital to these
garments' predominant use as coats and not as flotation devices.
Classification is proper under Chapter 62, HTSUSA.
HOLDING:
The instant merchandise remains classified under the
subheadings enumerated in the aforementioned New York Ruling
Letters and HRL 086504 is affirmed.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division