CLA 2 RR: CR: TE 963767 SG
TARIFF NO: 6203.42.4015
Ms. Esta Knipper, Import Representative LCHB
UTC Overseas, Inc.
55 Inip Drive
Inwood, New York 11096
RE: Reconsideration of NY F81111, dated January 5, 2000; Classification of men’s pants; sleepwear vs. loungewear
Dear Ms. Knipper: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 2000, requesting reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) F81111, dated January 5, 2000, issued on behalf of your client, Bobbi Sawyer Corporation. NY F81111 was issued in response to your correspondence dated December 15, 1999, requesting a binding tariff classification ruling for a pair of men's pants. In support of your request for reconsideration you submit information (what appears to be a specification sheet) that you indicate is from the ultimate buyer, and a circular (advertisement). A sample was submitted.
FACTS:
NY F81111 classified a sample, identified as style 4247. It is a pair of men’s woven 100% cotton pants. It has an elasticized waist with a functional drawstring, a fly with a substantial one-button closure, side seam slit pockets, and hemmed leg bottoms. Provided with your request for reconsideration was a preliminary sketch and detail sheet for merchandise identified as style 4247, as well as a page from a K-Mart advertising circular featuring a pair of men's flannel pants. The detail sheet describes the garment as a "lounge pant". In addition, the pant has a hang tag identifying the garment as a "lounge pant" and "for the times you just want to relax". In NY F81111, the pants, style 4247, were classified in subheading 6203.42.4015, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provides for, among other things, men's or boy's cotton trousers. The pants were found to be dutiable at the 2000 general rate of 17 percent ad valorem.
You indicate that the garment is designed, manufactured and sold as a sleepwear garment, and should be classified accordingly under subheading 6207.91. HTSUS.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject merchandise was properly classified as an outerwear garment under heading 6203, HTSUS, or is a sleepwear garment under heading 6207, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by 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. Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's taken in order.
Heading 6207, HTSUS, provides for, inter alia, men’s nightshirts, pajamas and similar articles. Customs has consistently ruled that pajamas are generally two piece garments worn for sleeping. One piece garments such as sleep shorts and sleep pants used for sleeping are not classifiable as pajamas, instead they fall into a residual provision within heading 6207, HTSUS, for similar articles.
If it is determined that the subject bottoms are classifiable as outerwear or loungewear, the applicable heading for the bottoms is heading 6203, HTSUS, which provides for, inter alia, men’s trousers and shorts.
In determining the classification of garments submitted to be sleepwear, Customs usually considers the factors discussed in two court cases that addressed sleepwear. In Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 549, 552 (1985), aff’d 786 F.2d 144 (CAFC, 1986), the Court of International Trade considered the classification of a garment claimed to be sleepwear. The court cited several lexicographic sources, among them Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which defined “nightclothes” as “garments to be worn to bed.” In Mast, the court determined that the garment at issue therein was designed, manufactured, and used as nightwear and therefore was classifiable as nightwear. Similarly, in St. Eve International, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 224 (1987), the court ruled the garments at issue therein were manufactured, marketed and advertised as nightwear and were chiefly used as nightwear. Finally, in Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 248 (1995), the court was faced with the issue of whether women’s boxer style shorts were classifiable as “outerwear” under heading 6204, HTSUS, or as “underwear” under heading 6208, HTSUS. The court stated the following, in pertinent part:
[P]laintiff’s preferred classification is supported by evidence that
the boxers in issue were designed to be worn as underwear and that
such use is practical. In addition, plaintiff showed that the intimate
apparel industry perceives and merchandises the boxers as underwear.
While not dispositive, the manner in which plaintiff’s garments are
merchandised sheds light on what the industry perceives the
merchandise to be.*** Further evidence was provided that plaintiff’s merchandise is marketed as underwear. While advertisements also
are not dispositive as to correct classification under the HTSUS, they
are probative of the way that the importer viewed the merchandise
and of the market the importer was trying to reach.
Additionally, as this office has noted in prior rulings, “the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use.” See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 957809, dated June 21, 1995, citing Mast Industries at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co., 50 CCPA 43, 46 C.A.D. 817 (1963).
Furthermore, we bring your attention to International Home Textile, Inc., Slip Op. 97-31, March 18, 1997, which classified garments similar to those at issue here as loungewear in heading 6103, HTSUS. The court therein stated:
Based upon a careful examination of the loungewear as well as the
testimony of the various witnesses, the court finds that the loungewear
items at issue do not share that essential character of privateness or
private activity. As the parties have already stipulated, the loungewear
is used primarily for lounging and not for sleeping. The court finds
no basis in the exhibits, the witness testimony, or the loungewear’s
construction and design to find that it is inappropriate, at a minimum,
for the loungewear to be worn at informal social occasions in and
around the home, and for other individual, non private activities in
and around the house, e.g., watching movies at home with guests, barbequing at a backyard gathering, doing outside home and yard maintenance work, washing the car, walking the dog, and the like....
In the instant case, a physical examination of the garment at issue reveals several features that make it suitable for modesty purposes. The pants have side seam pockets, fly opening with substantial one-button closure, and hemmed leg bottoms. As we have stated previously, a substantial one button fly closure is not a useful feature on sleepwear, but on loungewear or a multi-purpose garment it serves to ensure modesty. In addition, we note that the waistband of the garment here at issue is both elasticized and has a functional drawstring. A waistband that is both elasticized and contains a drawstring is not needed on a sleep garment. This, as well as the other features listed above, are not indicative of sleepwear, but of a multi purpose garment that may (and probably will) be principally worn for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textiles, Inc. Finally, although the sample before us may be worn to bed for sleeping, it is our opinion that its principal use is for “home comfort” and lounging. This garment can easily make the transition from inside the home (in a private setting) to outside the home (and a more social environment). See for example HQ 958594, dated January 26, 1996, in which we held that a placketed fly opening with a substantial one button closure on similar bottoms was indicative of multi-purpose garments which will be worn for purposes other than sleeping. In addition, the sample submitted is made of fabric heavy enough for outdoor use.
In past rulings, Customs has stated that the crucial factor in the classification of a garment is the garment itself. As the court pointed out in Mast, "the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use." Mast at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co., 50 CCPA 43, 46, C.A.D. 817 (1963). However, when presented with a garment which is somewhat ambiguous and not clearly recognizable as sleepwear or underwear or outerwear, Customs will consider other factors such as environment of sale, advertising and marketing, recognition in the trade of virtually identical merchandise, and documentation incidental to the purchase and sale of the merchandise, such as purchase orders, invoices, and other internal documentation. It should be noted that Customs considers these factors in totality and no single factor is determinative of classification as each of these factors viewed alone may be flawed. For instance, Customs recognizes that internal documentation and descriptions on invoices may be self serving as was noted by the court in Regaliti, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 92 80 (May 21, 1992).
Pursuant to your request for reconsideration, the National Import Specialist for men's woven trousers visited a K-Mart store and viewed similar merchandise. In the store visited there were no separate "departments" for men's wearing apparel. All of the men's apparel was in one area, under a large overhead sign that read "MEN". The "lounge pants" were on a rack marked "pants", and mixed with chinos and pants that were clearly outerwear merchandise. Additionally, the pants in the store that closely resembled the instant merchandise were labeled as part of a line of "casual clothing". Adjacent to the pants rack was a rack that contained men's belts. On the back wall there were jeans and next to them, underwear. The next "aisle" contained men's colored pocket tee shirts. On the further most edge of the entire area containing men's clothing was a rack containing no more than a dozen-packaged sets of pajamas. The "lounge pants" were not located near the pajamas.
Based on our examination of the garment supplied, we find that it is loungewear, i.e., loose, casual clothes that are worn in the home for comfort. The garment's fabric, construction and design are suitable for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textile, Inc. In addition, the limited information you submitted is, at best, ambiguous as to exactly how it will be marketed. Finally, although the garments may be worn to bed for sleeping, in our opinion its principal use is for lounging. Accordingly, the classification in NY F81111 as loungewear is affirmed.
HOLDING:
The bottoms with a fly opening with a one button closure, side seam pockets, and hemmed leg bottoms are properly classified in subheading 6203.42.4015, HTSUSA, which provides for “Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Trousers and breeches: Men’s: Other.” The general column one rate of duty is 16.8 percent ad valorem and the textile quota category is 347.
NY F81111 is affirmed.
The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, the 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 you 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 for inspection at your local Customs office. The Status Report on Current Import Quota (Restraint Levels) is also available on the Customs Electronic Bulletin Board (CEBB) which can be found on the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.treas.gov.
Due to the changeable nature of the statistical annotation (the ninth and tenth digits of the classification) and the restraint (quota/visa) categories, you should contact your local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of any import restraints or requirements.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Acting Director
Commercial Rulings Division