CLA-2 RR:TC:MM 958999 MMC
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
2nd & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
RE: Protest 1101-95-100484; Porcelain Spice Jars; Lenox v. U.S.,
Kraft, Inc, v.U.S, G. Heilman Brewing Co. v.U.S. and U.S. v.
Carborundum Company
Dear Port Director:
The following is our decision regarding the request for
further review of Protest 1101-95-100484, which concerns the
classification of porcelain spice jars under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Our decision is based on
protestant's original submission dated June 27, 1995, as well as an
additional submission of March 15, 1996.
FACTS:
The subject articles are ceramic spice jars shaped like
cottages. They are elaborately decorated and have the name of a
spice painted on each. The articles were entered under subheading
6913.90.50, HTSUS, as other ornamental ceramic articles. Entries
were liquidated on March 31, April 21, and June 6, 1995, under
subheading 6911.10.80, HTSUS. A protest was timely received on
June 27, 1995. The 1994 subheadings under consideration are as
follows:
6911.10.80 Tableware, kitchenware, other household
articles and toilet articles, of porcelain or
china: Tableware and kitchenware: Other:
Other: Other:
Other....................................................................................................25%
6913.10.50 Statuettes and other ornamental ceramic
article:
Of porcelain or china: Other:
Other..........................doz.pcs.
......9%
6913.90.50 Other:Other:Other........................................................................7%
U.S. Customs Laboratory Report No. 3-95-31123-001 dated March
22, 1995, indicates that the ceramic spice jars are composed of
porcelain. They have a white, translucent body and a water
absorption value of less than 0.5% by weight. It meets the
requirements of Additional U.S. Notes 1 and 5(a)of Chapter 69,
HTSUS, for a ceramic article of porcelain. Protestant's original
submission contained laboratory reports, conducted by an
independent lab, indicating that when the spice jars were tested
without their glaze, their water absorption was higher than 0.5% by
weight. Based on this evidence protestant argued that the subject
spice jars were not porcelain. By letter of March 15, 1996,
protestant withdrew their argument that the articles were not
porcelain. Additionally, protestant asserted that pursuant to the
finding of Lenox v. United States, No. 96-30 slip op. (CIT
February 2, 1996) [Lenox], their articles are classifiable under
subheading 6913.10.50, HTSUS.
ISSUE:
What is the proper classification for porcelain cottage-shaped
spice jars?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
In Lenox, the court ruled on the classification of a set of
small porcelain containers called the "Spice Village". Each
elaborately decorated container was shaped like a Victorian house
and came with a wood rack in which the articles could be displayed.
Customs had classified the articles in the class "kitchenware".
The importer believed they were classifiable in the class
"ornamental articles". Although, the set was advertised as
functional spice jars, and each had a named spice on the outside
and a fitted top to keep spices fresh, the court referred to
Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1(a), HTSUS, and the need to
focus on the principal use of the class or kind of goods to which
an import belonged, not the principal use of the specific import.
To determine the class or kind of goods to which the import
belonged, the court examined the factors set forth in Kraft, Inc,
v. United States, USITR, 16 CIT 483, (June 24, 1992); G. Heilman
Brewing Co. v. United States, USITR, 14 CIT 614 (Sept. 6, 1990);
and United States v. Carborundum Company, 63 CCPA 98, C.A.D. 1172,
536 F. 2d 373 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979.
Although the subject containers were capable of holding
spices, the court found that the physical characteristics suggested
that they were principally used for decorative purposes.
According to the court, the containers failed to hold spices as
efficiently as their plainer counterparts which have a grip area
and a shaker top Based on the significant difference in price
between a plainer spice jar set and the Spice Village, the court
stated purchasers pay more for the Spice Village because their
ultimate expectation is to use them to adorn their homes. The
court found that the channels of trade in which the merchandise
moved failed to indicate whether the articles belonged to the class
"kitchenware" or "ornamental articles". As to the environment of
sale, although the court recognized that the ads describe the Spice
Village as both decorative and functional, the court found that the
ads stressed the decorative nature of the articles. Finally, the
court found that because importer conducted surveys indicated that
70% of the containers were used entirely or primarily for
decorative display, the Spice Village was used principally for
decorative purposes. Accordingly, even though almost 30% of the
Spice Village was used entirely or principally in the kitchen for
cooking, the principal use of the class or kind of goods to which
it belongs was "ornamental articles".
The present articles are virtually identical to the jars ruled
upon in Lenox. Additionally, Customs sanctioned porcelain testing
methodologies, the results of which appear in Customs Lab report
No. 3-95-31123-001, clearly indicate that the subject spice jars
are porcelain. Therefore, the cottage-shaped spice jars are
classifiable under subheading 6913.10.50, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
The protest should be GRANTED. The porcelain cottage-shaped
spice jars are classifiable under subheading 6913.10.50, HTSUS,
with a 1994 column one duty rate of 9% ad valorem.
In accordance with section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099
3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office to the
protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any
reliquidation of the entry in accordance with this decision must be
accomplished prior to the mailing of the decision. Sixty days from
the date of this decision, the Office of Regulations and Rulings
will take steps to make the decision available to Customs personnel
via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and to the public via the
Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act and other
public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Tariff Classification Appeals
Division