CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 961447 ASM
Tariff No.: 9505.90.6000; 6209.30.3040
V. James Adduci, II, Esquire
Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P.
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
RE: Domestic Interested Party Petition Concerning Tariff Classification of
Textile Costumes
Dear Mr. Adduci:
This letter concerns Customs decision regarding a petition filed on behalf of the Rubie’s Costume Co., Inc. (hereinafter "Rubie’s"), pursuant to Section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), involving the tariff classification of certain textile costumes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).
FACTS:
Rubie’s filed a Request for Information pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516, wherein Customs was asked to rule on five samples as follows: Witch of the Webs (No. 11062), Abdul Sheik of Arabia (No. 15020), Pirate Boy (No. 12013), Cute and Cuddly Clown (No. 11594), and Witch (No. 11005). All items had been produced from man-made textile materials
Customs issued Headquarters Ruling (HQ) 959545, June 2, 1997, in response to Rubie’s request and determined that, if imported into the United States, the Witch of the Webs (No. 11062), Abdul Sheik of Arabia (No. 15020), Pirate Boy (No. 12013), Witch (No. 11005) and the accessories retail packaged with each set, would be classified under subheading 9505.90.6090, HTSUSA, which provides for "Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke articles; parts and accessories thereof: Other: Other: Other." Effective August 1, 1997, the provision was amended and now reads as follows: 9505.90.6000, HTSUSA, "Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke articles; parts and accessories thereof: Other: Other," which provides for duty-free entry under the general column one rate of duty. In HQ 959545, it was also determined that if imported into the United States, the Cute and Cuddly Clown (No. 11594) costume with hat, would be classifiable under subheading 6209.30.3040, HTSUSA, which provides for "Babies’ garments and clothing accessories: Of synthetic fibers: Other; Other: Other." The applicable rate of duty for this provision was 16.7 (now 16.6) percent ad valorem and the textile restraint category is 239.
In July 1997, and in accordance with the procedures of Section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), and Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 175 (19 CFR Part 175), Rubie’s filed a Domestic Interested Party Petition. Notice of the Petition was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 245, Monday, December 22, 1997. The notice invited written comments on the petition from interested parties. The comment period closed on February 20, 1998, and Customs received 767 comments.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject items in HQ 959545, were properly classified as festive articles under Chapter 95, HTSUSA, or should all imported textile costumes be classified as wearing apparel under Chapters 61 or 62, HTSUSA, as asserted in the Domestic Interested Party Petition.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRIs taken in order. The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (ENs), which represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level, facilitate classification under the HTSUSA by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRIs.
The classification of textile costumes has long been the subject of controversy under both the Tariff Schedules of the United States (predecessor to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, " HTSUSA"), as well as the HTSUSA. Under the Tariff Schedules of the United States ("TSUS"), children's Halloween costumes were classified as toys; however, adult costumes were classified as wearing apparel.
The Traveler Trading Company sued the Government over the classification under the TSUS of adult costumes as apparel. In its decision which granted attorneys' fees and other expenses to Traveler Trading, the court did not accept as reasonable Customs position that adult party costumes should be classified as apparel. See Traveler Trading Co. v. United States, 13 C.I.T. 380, 713 F. Supp. 409 (1989). The court drew a distinction between the costumes at issue in the case and costumes such as "expensive, well constructed ballroom gowns, safari outfits, certain types of uniforms, and other adult garments [which] may serve both as Halloween costumes and wearing apparel, and therefore, could have more than one function." The court further stated:
Given the unreasonableness of classifying these flimsy Halloween costumes as wearing apparel, neither the government’s prompt acquiescence in settlement nor the absence of improper motive or recalcitrant position on the part of the government warrants a finding that the position of the United States was reasonable in fact and law (supra at pg. 382).
Under the HTSUSA, Heading 9505, includes articles which are for "Festive, carnival, or other entertainment." It is also important to note, that Note 1(e), Chapter 95, HTSUSA, excludes articles of "fancy dress of textiles, of Chapters 61 or 62" from classification in Chapter 95. Initially, Customs took the view that fancy dress included "all" textile costumes regardless of quality, durability, or the nature of the item. However, Traveler Trading once again sued the U.S. Government over the classification of their textile costumes as articles of "fancy dress" excluded from classification in Chapter 95, HTSUSA.
In the case of Traveler Trading Co. v. United States, Civil Action , #91-02-00084, Traveler claimed that Customs had wrongfully classified certain textile costumes as wearing apparel under the HTSUSA. Although the tariff had changed, Customs reviewed the recent court cases under the Harmonized Tariff and determined it was clear that the earlier decision under the TSUS in which the court had taken the Government to task for classifying costumes as wearing apparel would have been very persuasive to the court in rendering a decision under the HTSUSA. Thus, Customs reexamined its view regarding the scope of the term "fancy dress" as it relates to costumes.
On October 18, 1994, Customs reached a settlement agreement with Traveler in the pending litigation and agreed to classify flimsy, non-durable costumes as festive articles under section 9505.90.60, HTSUSA. The Court of International Trade issued a stipulated judgement based on the settlement agreement with Traveler and Customs believes that it is bound by the principles on which that judgement is predicated.
On November 15, 1994, Customs issued Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 957318, which referred to the settlement agreement of October 18, 1994, reached by the United States and Traveler Trading. In HQ 957318, Customs stated that it would classify as festive articles in subheading 9505.90.6090 (now 9505.90.6000), HTSUSA, all imported textile costumes of a flimsy nature and construction, lacking in durability, and generally recognized as not being normal articles of apparel.
The petitioner has asserted that the examples cited in the ENs to heading 9505 are indicative of "accessories" to fancy dress. The ENs to heading 9505.90 set forth specific examples of "articles of fancy dress", covered in the heading, as follows:
This heading covers:
(A) Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles,
which in view of their intended use are generally
made of non-durable material. They include:
* * * * *
(3) Articles of fancy dress, e.g., masks, false ears
and noses, wigs, false beards and moustaches
(not being articles of postiche - heading 67.04),
and paper hats. However, the heading excludes
fancy dress of textile materials, of Chapter 61 or
62. [emphasis supplied]
* * * * *
We find support in the ENs for assessing the durability of textile costumes in determining whether or not it is classifiable in Chapter 95 because the language of the note clearly suggests that "festive, carnival or other entertainment articles" are for temporary use and generally made of "non-durable material." Several of the "articles of fancy dress" cited in the EN may be made from textile materials which implies that certain articles of fancy dress of textile materials are classifiable under heading 9505, unless they are durable enough to be classified as wearing apparel in Chapters 61 or 62. Additionally, the examples contained in note (A)(3), above, are just that, examples, and not all inclusive of the types of articles classifiable as "fancy dress."
Petitioner argues that Customs interpretation of what constitutes "fancy dress, of textiles, of Chapter 61 or 62", Note 1(e), Chapter 95, HTSUSA, is not consistent with the view taken by the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. While uniformity in the interpretation of the international Harmonized Tariff System, is a desired outcome, the U.S. Customs Service is not bound by classification decisions made by other governments. Where there exists a difference between signatory countries to the WCO concerning the classification of a particular good, the WCO has procedures for those countries to follow in resolving that difference.
The Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1(a), HTSUSA, states that "in the absence of special language or context which otherwise requires--"
A tariff classification controlled by use (other than actual
use) is to be determined in accordance with the use in the
United States at, or immediately prior to, the date of
importation, of goods of that class or kind to which the
imported goods belong, and the controlling use is the
principal use [emphasis supplied].
The petitioner cites the case of Arnold v. United States, 147 U.S. 494, 496 (1892), wherein the Supreme Court noted that the term "wearing apparel ...[embraces] all articles which are ordinarily worn -- dress in general." We believe that this case provides support for our present standard of classification because textile costumes that are flimsy and non-durable in construction are not ordinarily worn by people in their daily lives. The purchaser expects to use such costumes only for a single event or a limited number of events and as entertainment on a festive occasion (e.g., Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and Thanksgiving). Thus, flimsy and non-durable textile costumes whose principal intended use is for a one time festive occasion are distinct from "wearing apparel" which the courts have held to be used for decency, comfort, adornment or protection. See Dynamics Classics Ltd., 10 C.I.T. 666 (1986); Admiral Craft Equipment v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 162 (1979).
Petitioner argues that the case of Admiral Craft, supra, supports their position that Customs should apply a "use" test in classifying textile costumes and the case of Dynamics Classics, supra, as setting forth factors to be considered in applying the "use" test. In the Dynamics case, which was decided under the TSUS, the court stated that wearing apparel is used "to provide comfort and protection" but that "items are not wearing apparel that go far beyond that of wearing apparel." The court held that exercise suits of plastic material chiefly used for weight and girth reduction were not classifiable as wearing apparel.
Customs recognizes that the provisions for toys and festive articles in Chapter 95 as well as those provisions for wearing apparel in Chapters 61 and 62 are "eo nomine by use" provisions under the HTSUSA (classifications controlled by the use of the class of goods to which the article belongs, not by the actual use of the goods--See Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1(a) quoted above). However, the definition of what comprises "wearing apparel" under the HTSUSA is broader than under the TSUS. For example, Chapter 61, HTSUSA, provides for articles of apparel and clothing accessories (knitted or crocheted) and the ENs to heading 6113 illustrate those garments of knitted or crocheted fabrics that are covered under this heading, i.e.," ... divers’ suits and anti-radiation protective suits, not combined with breathing apparatus." Under the TSUS, items that were worn and used for very specific situations became more than wearing apparel and were classified elsewhere in the tariff. There are still limits as to what may be classified as wearing apparel under the HTSUSA and Customs has endeavored to provide guidance in our rulings that would clearly identify those costumes having characteristics of "fancy dress" making them classifiable in Chapters 61 or 62 and those that are not considered "wearing apparel" under the HTSUSA.
In order to distinguish between costumes of Chapter 95 ("festive articles") and costumes of Chapters 61 and 62 ("fancy dress"), Customs separately identifies characteristics in each article that would determine whether or not it is of a flimsy nature and construction, lacking in durability, and generally recognized as a normal article of apparel. HQ 957948 and 957952, both dated May 7, 1996, set forth in great detail certain styling and sewing features of costumes which exemplify the characteristics of "textile articles of fancy dress" under Chapters 61 and 62. These rulings cited numerous examples of features that were indicative of substantial and durable garments. These garments had zipper closures and abundant styling features such as a fitted bodice with darts, a clown suit with a fabric encased wire hoop to add fullness, petal shaped panels sewn into a waistline, and sheer/decorative panels sewn into the seams of costumes.
Highly specific examples of features comprising a costume of Chapter 62 have been set forth in HQ 959064, dated June 19, 1997, involving the classification of two children’s princess costumes. In this ruling, each garment was adorned with lace panels which had been incorporated into the seams of the costume and secured with ribbon so that no raw edges are present. The necklines and slight back openings had been finished with durable bias capping so that no raw edges were exposed in an area where the garment typically receives a great deal of wear. Although some of the ornamentation displayed an exposed raw edge, it only appeared on lace or netting fabrics that tend to resist runs/frays.
In our response to Rubie’s Request For Information (HQ 959545, June 2, 1997), we set forth detailed features that appeared in each of the five costumes resulting in either a Chapter 95 or Chapter 62 classification. Four of the costumes (Witch of the Webs, Abdul Sheik of Arabia, Pirate Boy, and Witch) were classified in Chapter 95. The styling featured simple pull-on type garments with no zippers, inset panels, darts, or hoops. Although the necklines and waistlines had either been hemmed (fabric folded over once and sewn with a straight stitch) or finished with bias tape, all other edges on these costumes had been left raw and exposed. In particular, we found that a raw edge on this type of knit fabric made it more susceptible to runs and frays. However, one of the costumes, Cute and Cuddly Clown, was particularly well-constructed and had a substantial amount of finishing work (i.e., the sewing used to construct the article). A durable bias tape was used to cap the ruffled collar, wrist, and ankle. The elastic used to gather material at the wrists and ankles was substantial and securely sewn to the fabric. No raw edges were present on the Cute and Cuddly Clown Costume. In considering the article as a whole, the costume was comparable to a normal article of wearing apparel which could withstand multiple wear and cleaning and was properly classified in Chapter 62. It was, therefore, determined to be durable and classifiable as wearing apparel in Chapter 62.
HOLDING:
In light of our evaluation of the comments received in response to the Federal Register notice, the court cases, the settlement agreement in the case of Traveler Trading Co. v. United States, Civil Action #91-02-00084, and the previous rulings on costumes, Customs hereby denies the domestic interested party petition requesting the reclassification of certain imported textile costumes as wearing apparel of Chapters 61 or 62, HTSUSA. Customs affirms the classification determinations set forth in HQ 959545, dated June 2, 1997, regarding Rubie’s Request For Information.
It is Customs determination that all five costumes which were the subject of HQ 959545, dated June 2, 1997, Rubie's Request for Information, were properly classified in heading 9505.90.6090 (now 9505.90.6000) or heading 6209.30.3040, as set forth therein. Specifically, we affirm our classification in heading 9505.90.6090 (now 9505.90.6000) of the four costumes that were found to be flimsy, nondurable, and not normal articles of wearing apparel (Witch of Webs, No. 11062; Abdul Sheik of Arabia, No. 15020; Pirate Boy, No. 12013; and Witch, No. 11005), which were the subject of the petition.
Please be advised that pursuant to 19 CFR 175.23, if you wish to contest the decision in this letter, you should file a notice that you desire to contest the classification of the subject items within 30 days of the date of the letter. Such notice should also designate the port or ports at which the merchandise is being imported into the United States, and at which the petitioner desires to protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division