CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 954425 SK
Margaret R. Polito
Neville, Peterson & Williams
39 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10006
RE: Classification of two styles of woven nylon gloves;
subheadings 6216.00.3225; not ski gloves; knit fourchettes
and sidewalls not suitable for use in skiing; Stonewall
Trading Company v. U.S., 64 Cust. Ct. 482, C.D. 4023 (1970);
Castelazo & Associates, Stonewall Trading Co. v. U.S., 76
Cust. Ct. 299, Abs. P76/46 (1976); HRL 082336 (11/21/88);
HRL 088374 (6/24/91); HRL 952393 (8/28/92).
Dear Ms. Polito:
This is in response to your inquiry of May 13, 1993, in
which you request the tariff classification of two styles of
gloves. Samples were sent to this office for examination and, as
per your request, will be returned to you under separate cover.
FACTS:
Two styles were submitted to this office for classification:
styles 320 and 310.
Style 320 is a man's fully lined glove constructed from
woven nylon fabric which has approximately 1 millimeter (mm) of
foam bonded to the inner surface. The glove features acrylic
knit fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs. The lining is made of a
knit fabric and plastic foam. The gloves have overlaid textile-
backed vinyl palm and thumb reinforcement. The glove also has
internal textile-backed vinyl reinforcement and foam padding
across the back of the knuckles, a partially elasticized wrist,
and a hook and clasp closure. Style 310 is the same glove sized
for women.
- 2 -
ISSUE:
Whether the articles at issue are classifiable as ski
gloves?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is in accordance
with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) taken in order.
GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according
to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter
notes.
Our initial inquiry is whether the submitted gloves have
been designed for use in skiing and whether they are properly
classifiable as "other gloves ... especially designed for use in
sports, including ski[ing]", under heading 6216, HTSUSA. Several
characteristics deemed indicative of such design were enumerated
in Stonewall Trading Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482,
C.D. 4023 (1970). In Stonewall, the Court held that certain
vinyl gloves were classifiable as "other ski equipment" in item
734.97, TSUS, (now provided for in various HTS subheadings)
because the gloves were deemed to have been specially designed
for use as ski gloves by exhibiting the following:
1) A hook and clasp to hold the gloves together;
2) An extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb to
meet the stress caused by the flexing of the knuckles
when the skier grasps the ski pole;
3) An extra piece of vinyl with padding reinforcement and
and inside stitching which is securely stitched across
the middle of the glove where the knuckles bend and cause
stress;
4) Cuffs with an elastic gauntlet to hold the gloves firm
around the wrist so as to be waterproof and to keep it
securely on the hand.
These criteria are not prerequisites mandated of all ski
gloves; rather, they provide a guideline intended to aid in
determining whether certain gloves have been designed for use in
skiing. These criteria are neither mandatory, nor all-inclusive,
and a case by case analysis will be used by Customs in
determining whether a glove's design merits classification as a
ski glove under heading 6216, HTSUSA. See Headquarters Ruling
Letter (HRL) 082336, dated November 21, 1988, in which Customs
- 3 -
noted, "[t]he fact that the court found certain gloves to be
classifiable as other ski equipment cannot be construed as either
a limitation or as a blanket approval for any gloves that possess
such [the same] features." See also HRL 088374, dated June 24,
1991, in which this office held that "the factors cited in
Stonewall demonstrate prima facie that the subject merchandise is
specially designed for skiing; 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." We similarly noted in
HRL 952393, dated August 28, 1992, that the Stonewall Court
"created a rebuttable presumption that a glove possessing all
four of the enumerated characteristics has been designed as a ski
glove. Customs may consider other factors which effectively
refute this presumption. Such factors may include whether the
gloves are functionally practicable for use in skiing, whether
the gloves appear suitable for use in skiing, and whether the
gloves are marketed as ski gloves. While a glove's appearance,
and the manner in which it is marketed, are certainly indicators
of classification, it is the glove's suitability for use in
skiing that is determinative of whether classification as a ski
glove is proper. Even if the Stonewall characteristics have been
met, a glove is not classifiable as a ski glove if it is not
functionally practicable for use as such." As is apparent from
the above-cited rulings, Customs has consistently held that even
if a glove were to possess all the features enumerated in
Stonewall, it would not definitively serve to classify the glove
as a ski glove.
Our examination of the subject merchandise yields the
finding that while the gloves at issue may technically meet the
guidelines set forth in Stonewall, (i.e., both gloves have a hook
and clasp closure, an extra piece of vinyl reinforcement stitched
across the thumb, vinyl reinforcement stitched across the
knuckles, cuffs with elastic gauntlet) these gloves are
nevertheless ill-suited for use in skiing for several reasons.
First, the fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs on both styles are
constructed from knit acrylic fibers to which snow tends to
adhere. This fabric easily absorbs water and allows that water
to pass to the hands of the wearer. Also, the cuffs and
elasticized wrists on both styles of gloves are not sufficiently
tight so as to prevent snow and water from entering the gloves.
Obviously, these are not acceptable characteristics for a ski
glove. While you accurately state that neither the HTSUSA nor
case law mandates that ski gloves be completely water resistant,
common sense dictates that in order for a glove to be deemed as
designed for use as a ski glove it must be suitable for such use.
Gloves that are comprised of significant amounts of knit fabric
which allow moisture to penetrate directly to the wearer's hands
are not suitable for use is skiing.
- 4 -
These features speak to the overall suitability of the
gloves for use in skiing and indicate that these gloves may have
been designed as cold-weather gloves, but not specifically as ski
gloves. And, while not determinative of this matter, we further
note that no persuasive marketing evidence was submitted with
your ruling request which would help establish your claim that
the gloves at issue are designed, marketed and sold as ski
gloves.
You cite Castelazo & Associates, Stonewall Trading Co. v.
U.S., 76 Cust. Ct. 299, Abs. P76/46 (1976) as supporting your
contention that the use of knit fourchettes is acceptable in ski
gloves. Reliance on Castelazo is misplaced in that the glove in
that case only had textile inserts on the thumb of a plastic
glove; those gloves are clearly distinguishable from the gloves
in the instant case which have knit acrylic fourchettes,
sidewalls and cuffs.
You also submit photocopies of ski gloves referenced in your
submission as Exhibits A, B and C. These Exhibits are intended
to show a fair cross representation of ski gloves. We note that
none of the ski gloves depicted have cuffs like the those found
on styles 320 and 310, nor do any of the gloves resemble the
gloves currently at issue. Of great significance is the fact
that none of the gloves have knit fourchettes and most have wrist
tighteners and/or extended gauntlets. The knit cuffs visible on
three styles in Exhibit A are distinguishable from the gloves at
issue in that they are attached to the inside of the glove and
not at the top of the glove. This ensures greater protection
from ice, snow and water. We are not persuaded that the gloves
depicted in the submitted Exhibits resemble the gloves at issue
so as to warrant the latter's classification as ski gloves.
It is this office's position that neither of the gloves in
the instant case are properly classifiable as ski gloves. The
gloves are not suitable for use in skiing primarily because they
have loose cuffs and would allow a skier's hands to get wet by
virtue of knit fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs.
HOLDING:
Styles 320 and 310 are classifiable under subheading
6216.00.3225, HTSUSA, which provides for gloves, mittens and
mitts with fourchettes, impregnated, coated or covered with
plastics or rubber, subject to man-made fiber restraints. The
applicable rate of duty is 14 percent ad valorem and the textile
quota category is 631.
- 5 -
The designated textile and apparel category may be
subdivided into parts. If so, visa and quota requirements
applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since
part categories are the result of international bilateral
agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and
changes, to obtain the most current information available, we
suggest that your client check, close to the time of shipment,
the Status Report on Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an
internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service, which is updated
weekly and is available at the local Customs office.
Due to the nature of the statistical annotation (the ninth
and tenth digits of the classification) and the restraint
(quota/visa) categories, your client 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