CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 953384 KCC
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
Lincoln Juarez Bridge, Building #2
P.O. Box 3130
Laredo, Texas 78044-3130
RE: Protest No. 2304-92-100135; glasses for half-yard-of-ale and
foot-of-ale; 7013.29.60; condition as imported; U.S. v.
Citroen; HRL 088579; parts; Willoughby Camera; yard-of-ale;
Riekes Crisa
Dear District Director:
This is in response to the Application for Further Review of
Protest No. 2304-92-100135, which pertains to the tariff
classification of glasses for half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). A further submission dated August 27, 1993, regarding
an August 20, 1993, meeting, and samples were submitted for
consideration.
FACTS:
The glasses at issue are in the shape of either a tall
drinking glass or vase. The half-yard-of-ale glass is 18" tall
and holds 25 oz. of liquid, and the foot-of-ale is 12" tall and
holds 12 oz. of liquid. After importation, the majority of
glasses are fitted with wooden stands and sold. A small portion
of the glasses are sold as replacements.
The entries of the glasses were liquidated starting March
13, 1992, under subheading 7013.29.60, HTSUS, which provides for
drinking glasses valued over $5.00 each. In a protest timely
filed on May 26, 1992, Crisa Corporation, contends that the
glasses are properly classified under subheading 7020.00.00,
HTSUS, which provides for other articles of glass.
The subheadings under consideration are as follows:
7013.29.60 Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen,
toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar
purposes (other than that of heading 7010 or
7018)...Drinking glasses, other than of glass-
ceramics...Other...Other...Valued over $3
each...Other...Value over $5 each (7.2%)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
7020.00.00 Other articles of glass (6.6%)
ISSUE:
Are the glasses for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale
properly classified as drinking glasses under subheading
7013.29.60, HTSUS, or as other articles of glass under subheading
7020.00.00, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is
governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1,
HTSUS, states in part that "for legal purposes, classification
shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and
any relative section or chapter notes...." Classification is
based upon the condition of the articles at the time of
importation. United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407 (1911).
The issue to be decided is whether, in their condition as
imported, the glasses are a part of the half-yard-of-ale or foot-
of-ale. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 088579, dated May
23, 1991, this office stated that "a part is generally an article
which is an integral, constituent or compound part, without which
the article to which it is joined could not function." See also,
United States v. Willougby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 CCPA 322, 324,
T.D. 46 (1933), cert. denied, 292 U.S. 640 (1934).
This issue has been addressed by the U.S. Court of
International Trade in Riekes Crisa Corp v. United States, 14 CIT
235 (1990). Riekes Crisa classified a glass for the yard-of-ale
as articles not specially provided for, of glass, in item 548.05,
Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (the precursor
provision to subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS). The court stated
that the glass was only a part of the completed yard-of-ale and,
therefore, could not be classified as a drinking glass in items
546.56 and 546.59, TSUS, depending upon the value of the article
(the precursor provision to subheading 7013.29, HTSUS). The
court stated that "[t]he evidence established that the imported
articles are not substantially complete in their condition as
imported, since the omission of the wooden stand is very signifi-
cant to the overall functioning of the complete article." The
court relied heavily on the evidence that in its imported condi-
tion the glass could not stand unless placed on the accompanying
wooden stand. Therefore, the glass was found to be a part of an
article and could not be classified as a drinking glass.
Congress has indicated that earlier tariff decisions must
not be disregarded in applying the HTSUS. The conference report
to the Omnibus Trade Bill of 1988, stated that "on a case-by-
case basis prior decisions should be considered instructive in
interpreting the HTS[US], particularly where the nomenclature
previously interpreted in those decisions remain unchanged and no
dissimilar interpretation is required by the text of the
HTS[US]." H. Rep. No. 100-576, 100th cong., 2d Sess. 548, 550
(1988). Since the subject nomenclature in the TSUS (items 546.56
and 546.59) and HTSUS (heading 7013) are similar, because they
are the respective tariff provisions which cover drinking
glasses, and the articles at issue in Riekes Crisa and the
instant case are similar, we find that Riekes Crisa is
instructive.
In rendering its decision, the court in Riekes Crisa
referred only to the "Yard-of-Ales." The protestant contends
that half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale were included within the
scope of Riekes Crisa. The protestant has submitted a letter
from the plaintiff's counsel in Riekes Crisa which states that
the case was brought to contest the tariff classification of the
entire "family-of-ales." In support of this contention, the
protestant states that the court ordered an entry of the half-
yard-of-ale to be reliquidated pursuant to its decision. As
evidence, the protestant has submitted the "Judgment Order" in
Riekes Crisa to show that style number 2326 which is described as
"yard-of-ale" was reliquidated pursuant to the courts finding.
However, the protestant submitted product brochures which state
that style number 2326 is actually a half-yard-of-ale.
Additionally, protestant has submitted "Decision and Judgment
Upon Agreed Statement of Facts" in Riekes Crisa Corp., v. U.S.,
case no. 78-1-00193 dated November 1, 1991, and case no. 78-5-
00755 dated October 29, 1991, which reliquidated style no. 2326,
"half-yard-of-ale", pursuant to Riekes Crisa, supra.
The protestant contends that classification of the glasses
for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale under heading 7013,
HTSUS, is inconsistent with Riekes Crisa, because Riekes Crisa
was concerned with the classification of glasses for the entire
"family-of-ales", and not just the glass for the "yard-of-ale."
However, if we do not find that Riekes Crisa case dealt with the
"family-of-ale", the protestant submits that the reasoning in
Riekes Crisa is applicable to the instant case. Except for the
size, the glasses for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale have
the same characteristics and are imported, sold, and used in the
same manner as the glass for the yard-of-ale.
We do not find that Riekes Crisa dealt with the glasses for
the entire "family-of-ales." We are limited to the language of
the court which dealt only with the glass for the "Yard-of-
Ales." If the court meant to include the half-yard-of ale or
foot-of-ale, it would have specifically stated that it was
examining the glasses for the entire "family-of-ales."
Regardless of this, we are of the opinion that the glasses at
issue are similar to the glass for the yard-of-ale and,
therefore, the reasoning in Riekes Crisa should be analyzed.
Like Riekes Crisa, the protestant has submitted evidence
that the glasses are not substantially complete in their
condition as imported, since the omission of the wooden stand is
very significant to the overall functioning of the completed
article. The Riekes Crisa court relied heavily on evidence that
the yard-of-ale glass could not stand unless placed in the wooden
stand. Although the glasses at issue can stand alone and, at
first glance, may look like drinking glasses, they do not have
the characteristics necessary to function as drinking glasses.
Generally, in glassware stability is provided either by
designing the base of the article with a diameter at least equal
to the diameter of the top opening (e.g., stemware) or by
designing an article with a base heavy enough to counterbalance
the weight of the rest of the article (e.g., tumblers). Neither
of these methods is used with the glasses at issue. The glasses
at issue are capable of standing alone when filled with ale,
however they are very susceptible to tipping over. The glasses,
with their long necks and with the diameter of the top opening
larger than the diameter of the base, are not stability designed
to stand alone. Stability is not built into the glass article
itself, as with a drinking glass, but is designed to be provided
by the separate wooden stand.
The protestant has submitted brochures which depict the
entire yard-of-ale, half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale. The
merchandise is marketed and sold as an article which consists of
two components, the stand and the glass. The protestant does
state that, at times, the glasses are sold individually as
replacement parts. However, the wooden stand is necessary for
the proper use of the article. Moreover, the glasses account for
less than 50 percent of the total cost for the half-yard-of-ale
and foot-of-ale.
Based on the above analysis and Riekes Crisa, we are of the
opinion that the glasses at issue are considered parts of the
half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale. It is well established that
where there is no provision for parts of articles under a tariff
provision, imported merchandise held to be parts will not be
subject to classification thereunder. As heading 7013, HTSUS,
does not provide for parts of drinking glass, classification
under that heading is impossible. Therefore, the glasses are
classifiable under subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS, which provides
for other articles of glass.
HOLDING:
The glasses of the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale are
classified under subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS, as other articles
of glass. The protest should be granted. A copy of this
decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided
to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director