CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 965714 ttd
TARIFF NO: 6216.00.5820
Marty Langtry
TowerGroup International
1114 Tower Lane
Bensenville, IL 60106
RE: Revocation of New York Ruling Letter F80802; Gloves
Dear Ms. Langtry:
This letter is pursuant to Customs reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) F80802, dated January 11, 2000, filed on behalf of Ironclad Performance Wear Corporation (Ironclad), regarding classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) of a pair of gloves. Per your request dated September 6, 2002, via facsimile, we have addressed this correspondence to you, rather than to your client, Mr. Eduard Jaeger of Ironclad. After review of NY F80802, Customs has determined that the classification of the gloves considered under subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, was incorrect. For the reasons that follow, this ruling revokes NY F80802.
Pursuant to section 625(c)(1) Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)(1)) as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-82, 107 Stat. 2057, 2186), notice of the proposed revocation of NY F80802 was published on September 4, 2002, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 36, Number 36. As explained in the notice, the period within which to submit comments on this proposal was until October 4, 2002. Two sets of comments were received in opposition to the notice of revocation. After careful consideration of the comments, as set forth in the LAW AND ANALYSIS section of this ruling, we have determined to proceed with the revocation.
FACTS:
The article under consideration is a pair gloves, identified as style IC-0200GRBBU. In NY F80802, Customs classified the merchandise under subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, which provides for "Gloves, mittens and mitts: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other gloves, mittens and mitts, all the foregoing specially designed for use in sports, including ski and snowmobile gloves, mittens and mitts." In that ruling, the merchandise was described as:
[A] glove with a complete palmside from fingertips to wrist constructed of a synthetic leather fabric. The balance of the glove is made of mesh fabric, with the exception of the backside thumb which consists of a terry cloth sweat panel. The glove features padded synthetic leather reinforcements at the palm and the base of the palmside fingers, a reinforced thumb/forefinger crotch, "Ironclad" embossed vinyl overlays sewn on the padded backside knuckle area and palmside pull on tab, and coated knit fabric trim at the vented wrist which is secured by a hook and loop fabric closure. The cumulation of features show [sic] a design for use in the sport of competitive biking.
ISSUE:
Whether the merchandise is specially designed for use in sports.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides, in part, that classification decisions are to be “determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes….” In the event that goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied.
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (EN) constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level (for the 4 digit headings and the 6 digit subheadings) and facilitate classification under the HTSUSA by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRI. While neither legally binding nor dispositive of classification issues, the EN provide commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUSA and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the headings. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127-28 (Aug. 23, 1989).
Subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, provides for, in part, gloves, mittens and mitts, specially designed for use in sports. As this is a "use" provision, to determine whether an article is classifiable in subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, requires consideration of whether the article has particular features that adapt it for the stated purpose. In Sports Industries, Inc. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 470, C.D. 4125 (1970), the court, in interpreting the term "designed for use," under the Tariff Schedules of the United States, the predecessor to the HTSUSA, examined not only the features of the articles, but also the materials selected and the marketing, advertising and sale of the article. The case suggests that, to be classifiable in subheading 6216.00.46, the subject gloves must be shown to be, in fact, specially designed for use in a particular sport.
Concerning the proper classification of sports gloves, numerous other court cases have examined the term "specially designed for use in sports." In American Astral Corp. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 563, C.D. 3827 (1969), the court held that certain gloves were properly classified as lawn tennis equipment because the evidence established that the gloves were specially designed for use in the game of tennis. At the time, the Tariff Schedules of the United States included provisions for tennis equipment covering specially designed protective articles, such as gloves. The court noted the glove's distinguishing characteristics, which set it apart from ordinary gloves worn as apparel. Those features included: (a) an absorbent terry cloth back; (b) a partially perforated lambskin palm designed to aid grip, provide protection, and prevent perspiration by allowing air circulation; (c) fourchettes made from stretch material; (d) elasticized wrist for a snug fit and support; and (e) a button positioned to prevent interference to the player. Additionally, the court considered factors such as the nature of the importer's business, how the gloves were advertised in the trade, the types of stores where the gloves were sold, and the fact that the gloves were sold only in single units and not in pairs. The court also noted that, the fact that the gloves had other possible uses did not preclude their classification as sporting equipment. See, U.S. Customs Service, What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Gloves, Mittens & Mitts, Not Knitted or Crocheted Under the HTSUS, 32 Cust. B. & Dec. 51 (Dec 23, 1998).
In Porter v. United States, 409 F. Supp. 757; 76 Cust. Ct. 97, Cust. Dec. 4641 (1976), the court held that certain motorcross gloves, which possessed features specially designed for use in the sport of motorcross, were accordingly, specially designed for use in sports, even though not used exclusively for the sport of motorcross. In Porter, the court based its conclusion on the fact that motorcross gloves featured special characteristics and construction, specially designed for the sport of motorcross. These characteristics included a shortened palm, a reinforced thumb, an elastic band, protective strips or ribbing, and an out-seam construction. These features complimented the particular protective needs of the driver while racing with the specially designed motorcross bike on a dirt track. It was also shown that motorcross racing encompasses internationally accepted rules and that the American Motorcycle Association Motorcross Competition Rule Book specifically requires certain protective clothing and equipment, of which the motorcross gloves at issue were one type that complied with the requirements for the gloves. While the court noted that the gloves were subject to use outside the sport of motorcross, the plaintiff had already demonstrated that the gloves were primarily designed for the sport of motorcross. Moreover, the features, which made the gloves ideal for the sport of motorcross, rendered them useless or cumbersome for other types of motorcycle riding. Thus, the court in Porter found that the merchandise considered was designed to meet the needs of the sport.
One commenter argued that neither the court in Sports Industries nor Porter considered “the gloves’ marketing and sales characteristics, or the actions of the relevant importers in selling such gloves.” The commenter further argued that the court in Sports Industries, Inc., only examined the characteristics and construction of the articles considered. We disagree.
First, in Sports Industries, Inc. (at page 472), the court noted that the gloves considered were “used primarily, if not exclusively, in the non-commercial, sports activity of underwater swimming, and are not suitable for any other practical use.” (Emphasis added). Likewise, in Porter (at page 761), the court found that the witnesses’ testimony “clearly establishes that the gloves in issue were specially designed for, and used by motorcross riders engaged in the sport of motorcross.” (Emphasis added). Accordingly, careful review indicates that the courts in both cases weighed factors such as marketing and sales characteristics as well as the disposition of the importer and the ultimate use of the gloves.
Thus, a conclusion that a certain glove is "specially designed" for use in a particular sport, requires more than a mere determination of whether the glove or pair of gloves could possibly be used in a certain sport. In determining whether gloves are specially designed for use in sport, Customs considers the connection the gloves have to an identified sporting activity, the features designed for that sporting activity, and how the gloves are advertised and sold in relation to the named sport.
While the term "sport" is not defined by the tariff, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 089849, dated August 16, 1991, Customs noted that common dictionaries defined the term "sport" as "an activity requiring more or less vigorous bodily exertion and carried on according to some traditional form or set of rules, whether outdoors, as football, hunting, golf, racing, etc., or indoors, as basketball, bowling, squash, etc." In Newman Importing Company, Inc. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 375, Cust. Ct. 143, Cust. Dec. 4648 (1976), in finding backpacking to be a sport, the court determined that the term "sport" is not solely defined in terms of competitiveness, but also arises from the development and pursuit of a variety of skills. In this respect, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, Customs found hunting, fishing, canoeing, archery and similar outdoor activities to fall within the purview of "sport." The American College Dictionary (1970) defines the term "sport" as "a pastime pursued in the open air or having an athletic character." Likewise, Webster's New Dictionary of the English Language (2001) defines "sport" as:
1: a source of diversion: PASTIME
2: physical activity engaged in for pleasure.
Notably, the term "sport" appears to also encompass activities in which individuals engage professionally (i.e., professional sports).
In HQ 965131, dated October 25, 2001, Customs found that gloves designed for use in the sports of hunting or competitive shooting were designed for use in sports. In HQ 965131, marketing materials were submitted, promoting the benefits and design features of the gloves, which made them ideal for the outdoor sportsman. Moreover, the gloves were marketed through, and sold in, outdoor sporting goods stores that catered to hunters and competitive shooters. Likewise, in HQ 958892, dated October 4, 1996, we found that gloves which were close fitting and unlined with palmside polyurethane coated fabric and nylon knit fourchettes were specially designed for equestrian sports. Based on the detailed advertising, the term "All Purpose" was found to refer to the multiple equestrian activities for which the gloves could be used within the sport.
Comparatively, in HQ 954704, dated November 12, 1993, Customs ruled that lined leather gloves were not "specially designed" for use in the sport of snowmobiling. After examining the gloves and accompanying advertisements, we found that the gloves were equally suited for use as either motorcycle or snowmobile gloves. Therefore, the claim that the gloves were "designed, marketed and sold specifically as snowmobile gloves" was unsupported due to ambiguous advertising. Similarly, in HQ 088374, dated June 24, 1991, Customs ruled that the gloves at issue were not ski gloves, because the importer provided no evidence that they were principally used in, or designed for, the sport of skiing. In HQ 088374, there was no evidence of marketing or sale of the gloves as ski gloves, absent a hang tag including the word "ski." Moreover, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, Customs found that the advertisement accompanying the gloves showed the wearer engaged in non-sport activities such as writing, playing a trumpet, looking through a bag and taking pictures. In that ruling, the gloves (half-fingered with synthetic palm patch) were not considered to be designed, marketed and sold specifically for use as sports gloves.
In HQ 083450, dated August 25, 1989, in determining whether gloves were "specially designed for use in sports," Customs found that a glove designed as a multi-sport glove and used in many different sports did not necessarily satisfy the meaning of "designed for use in sports." In that ruling, we interpreted the term "specially designed for sports" to mean that the gloves must have special design features particular to the identified sport. Comfort, breathability and a reinforced thumb were not sufficient to show that special design features pertained specifically to any one of the sports cited (bicycling, cross-country skiing, ATV-motorcycling racing and boating).
Most recently, in HQ 965157, dated May 14, 2002, Customs ruled that five styles of gloves were not properly classified as gloves specially designed for use in sports. In that ruling, the gloves had some features associated with sports gloves, such as hook and loop closures, and synthetic materials. However, they were not classifiable under subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, because they were not sufficiently marketed, advertised and sold for use in the sports for which they were alleged to be designed. Likewise, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, we declined to classify the gloves considered therein (half-fingered with synthetic palm patch) as being "specially designed for sport," since they were not designed, marketed and sold specifically for use as sports gloves.
In this case, when NY F80802 was originally issued on January 11, 2000, Customs ruled that the gloves at issue could be used in competitive biking, which is commonly recognized as a sporting activity. However, our finding that the gloves "show a design for use in the sport of competitive biking," is insufficient to support a finding that they were "specially designed" for use in sports. To show that gloves are specially designed for use in a sport (in this case, competitive biking), it must be shown that in addition to their features, they are regularly advertised, marketed and sold in suitable and customary channels associated with the intended sport. While the submitted gloves may have shown characteristics useful in the sport of competitive biking, it was an error to conclude that the gloves were specially designed for competitive biking.
One commenter claimed that Customs is “imparting a significantly more stringent standard” on the subject importer by requiring its gloves to be more than only “suitable” for use in the sport of competitive biking. The commenter cited NY H80723, dated June 20, 2001, NY F82119 dated January 24, 2000, and NY 879288, dated November 3, 1992, wherein Customs classified different types of gloves as sports gloves, based on a finding that they showed a “design for use” in a declared sport. We are currently in the process of reviewing the three rulings cited, to establish the proper classification for the merchandise in each situation. To the extent that any of the cited rulings, in addition to any other ruling not yet identified, are inconsistent with the holding in this ruling, such ruling will be revoked.
After review of NY F80802, we find no evidence to support the claim that the subject gloves are specially designed for the sport of competitive biking. There is no advertising or marketing material to establish any connection between the glove and the sport of competitive biking, and no indication that the subject gloves are sold to, and used by, competitive bikers. According to IronClad's marketing material, the company provides gloves for the workplace, revealing in part that:
Ironclad Performance Wear has revolutionized the way the world looks at gloves. Incorporating the precise features and high tech synthetic materials designed for use in sports, we have created gloves that offer increased protection without compromising dexterity. Available in eight task specific models, Ironclad Gloves help you tackle whatever job is at hand.
See Additional marketing information provides:
The most important connection between you and your tools is your hands, that's why we put so much into our gloves. We studied hand bio-mechanics and engineered these gloves to specific movements and tasks you perform each day on the job. We asked the tradesmen just like you what they need from a pair of gloves and researched hundreds of materials to find the most durable and cool, yet supple. When you try on these gloves you will find that they feel unique and let your hand move the way no other glove does.
In response to the demanding needs of the professional, IronClad Performance Wear offers the first and only line of task specific gloves ….
See However, missing from the company's marketing materials, either printed or on its website, is any reference to the sporting activity of competitive biking. Research into the retail sale of IronClad gloves reveals that the gloves are sold at hardware stores and industrial supply stores which sell products to workers in a variety of trades. Yet, the gloves are not advertised as being sold at retailers such as sporting goods stores or bicycle shops, where competitive biking gloves would typically be purchased. See
Similar to our findings in HQ 965157 (cited above), the marketing, advertising, and sales of the subject gloves fail to demonstrate that they have features specially designed for the sport of competitive biking. Unlike HQ 965131 (cited above), in which sufficient marketing materials were available and submitted promoting the benefits and design features of the gloves which made them ideal for the outdoor sportsman, such information does not appear to exist in this case. Rather, as in HQ 965157 and HQ 954704 (cited above), the claim that the subject gloves are specially designed for sport is unsubstantiated and ambiguous at best. Accordingly, the subject gloves are not properly classified in subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, as gloves specially designed for use in sports.
While the gloves may indeed be used by some for an athletic activity, such as competitive biking, Customs finds that the subject gloves are not specially designed for use in competitive biking, nor are they marketed, advertised or sold in channels indicating their use in the sport of biking. The gloves at issue will primarily be worn for industrial work and any athletic use would be a secondary or fugitive use. The likelihood that the subject gloves could have a fugitive use does not remove them from classification according to their primary use, in this case - industrial use. The design, construction and function of the subject gloves for industrial use determines their classification, whether or not there is an incidental or subordinate function in sports.
One commenter cited NY A86298, dated August 8, 1996, and NY B85790, dated June 5, 1997, where Customs classified "Mechanix" gloves as being specially designed for use by mechanics in the sport of automobile racing. The commenter contended that the subject gloves should be treated in the same manner as “Mechanix” and similar gloves. Another commenter argued that the subject gloves and the gloves considered in NY A86298 and NY B85790 are in fact physically identical.
We acknowledge that the subject gloves may have similar features to “Mechanix” gloves, however, we do not find that they are physically identical nor that the subject gloves should be treated as specially designed for use in sports. Physically, a careful side-by-side examination reveals that the Mechanix gloves considered in NY A86298 and NY B85790 have distinctive characteristics, including hidden fingertip seams, a smooth palm and modest vents in the fingers. In comparison, the IronClad gloves at issue have additional fingertip and palmside padding that is not present on the “Mechanix” gloves. Though subtle, differences nevertheless exist and in point of fact, the “Mechanix” gloves and subject IronClad gloves are not physically identical.
Beyond the physical differences, further review of NY A86298 and NY B85790, reveals that the gloves considered in those rulings, unlike the subject gloves, were specially designed for use in motorsports. In those rulings, the marketing materials convincingly showed that the gloves were specially designed for use in motorsports racing. The advertising and marketing materials for “Mechanix” gloves focus almost completely on motorsports racing and specifically market the gloves to racing enthusiasts. In fact, the great majority of “Mechanix” printed advertisements are placed in magazines and publications devoted to racing and racing enthusiasts. The printed Mechanix Wear advertisements and catalogs are almost entirely comprised of motorsports pictures, illustrating pit crews engaged in NASCAR, drag racing and motorcross. In addition, the company's website is also vastly devoted to the sport of motor racing, providing recent race results and including multiple Internet links to racing team home pages and NASCAR on the World Wide Web.
Among other factors, we considered the company’s advertising claims that the gloves were "designed with direct input from race teams” and that the company provides the right gloves "No matter what form of motorsports…." Mechanix Wear advertising provides in part:
Since its inception, Mechanix Wear has been the leading name in motorsports glove technology. After pioneering our Original Glove design for pit crews in NASCAR back in the late 80’s…
Moreover, the gloves considered in those rulings were officially licensed by NASCAR and used by multiple NASCAR racing team pit crews.
In this case, the marketing and advertising fail to demonstrate that the subject gloves have features specially designed for the sport of competitive biking. Unlike HQ 965131 (cited above), in which sufficient marketing materials were submitted that promoted the benefits and design features of the gloves which made them ideal for the outdoor sportsman, similar information does not exist here. Rather, like HQ 954704 (cited above), the claim that the subject gloves are specially designed for sport is supported only by unsubstantiated claims which are ambiguous at best. Accordingly, the subject gloves are not properly classified as gloves specially designed for use in sports.
One commenter argued that subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, is a “’designed for use’ provision, not a ‘use’ provision” and concludes that “an examination of the principal use of the class or kind of merchandise to which the subject gloves belong is not required.” This commenter contended that the subject gloves are specially designed for use in biking, based solely on their characteristics. We disagree.
To determine whether a particular tariff term constitutes a “use” provision, we turn to Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1, which reads in pertinent part:
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;
There are two principal types of classification by use: (1) classification according to the use of the class or kind of articles to which the imported merchandise belongs and (2) classification according to the actual use of the imported merchandise. Sturm, Customs Law & Admin § 53.3 (1995). “A designation by use may be established, although the word ‘use’ or ‘used’ does not appear in the language of the statute.” E.C. Lineiro v. United States, 37 C.C.P.A. 10, 14, C.A.D. 411 (1949). While some tariff provisions expressly declare that classification of the designated merchandise is dependent upon principal use, in most cases, principal use is implied from the language of the HTSUSA.
Here, while “actual use” is inapplicable, “principal use” does apply. The commenter argued that subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, is not a “use” provision essentially because the language of the provision includes the words “specially designed.” However, it is irrefutable that the word “use” actually appears in the language of the subheading. Therefore, subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, is, in any case, considered a “principal use” provision. When applying a principal use provision, we must ascertain the class or kind of goods, which are involved and decide whether the subject merchandise is a member of that class.
Additionally, we acknowledge the fact that a glove may be used for purposes other than sporting activities does not necessarily prevent it from being classified as a glove specially designed for use in sports. The test for principal use is not solely dependent on actual use of the specific merchandise at issue but rather the principal use of that "class or kind" of merchandise to which the goods belong. Determining whether goods fall into a particular "class or kind" of merchandise, requires consideration of certain commercial factors enumerated by the court in United States v. Carborundum Co., 63 C.C.P.A. 98, 102, 536 F.2d 373, 377, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979, 50 L. Ed. 2d 587, 97 S. Ct. 490 (1976). The factors cited are: the expectation of the ultimate purchaser, channels of trade, general physical characteristics, environment of sale, economic practicality of so using the import, and recognition in the trade of this issue.
In HQ 963746, dated May 16, 2001, we applied the Carborundum factors in finding that disposable latex gloves for non-medical (industrial) use and medical use latex gloves were not of the same "class or kind" of merchandise. In that ruling, the gloves for both the industrial use and medical use were made on the same machines and were composed of the same materials. In fact, the only differences between the gloves were the higher leak resistance and degradation qualities of the medical use gloves. Essentially, the quality differences and marketing of the gloves distinguished the medical use gloves from the industrial use gloves.
Customs determined in HQ 963746 that while any particular glove for industrial use is likely to be physically exactly like a medical use glove, a given box of industrial use gloves would likely contain a higher number of defective gloves than a box of the medical use gloves. In this case, the subject gloves may resemble gloves designed specially for the sport of competitive biking, with features that include synthetic leather material on the palm, coated fabric reinforcements, knitted fabric fourchettes, and an elasticized wristband with a rubberized tab closure secured with hook and loop fasteners.
In HQ 963746, we determined that the distinctions were based on real differences in the use of the gloves, whether or not any particular glove from a box labeled "not for medical use" could theoretically form an effective barrier against blood-borne pathogens and other bodily fluids. Here, the subject gloves, whether or not they could theoretically be used in competitive biking, may share similarities with gloves used in the sport of competitive biking. Yet, they are marketed and sold for industrial purposes and therefore, other factors must also be considered, including the expectation of the ultimate consumer, the channels of trade and the environment of sale.
In HQ 963746, the expectation of the ultimate purchaser of the medical gloves was the assurance of a higher quality product to the lower quality of the industrial use gloves. In this case, the ultimate purchaser expects that the subject gloves will provide necessary protection to the hands of workers in a variety of trades, not that they will be beneficial in the sport of competitive biking.
Unlike the latex gloves in HQ 963746, where the industrial use gloves were sold through the same retailers as the medical use gloves, the subject gloves are sold through different channels of trade than gloves used for sports. While the subject gloves are sold through retailers in the industrial and safety industries, gloves specially designed for the sport of competitive biking are sold primarily through retailers like sporting goods stores and outdoor outfitters. Moreover, as the industrial gloves did not enter the same industries as the medical use gloves in HQ 963746, the subject gloves do not enter the same channels of trade as gloves designed specially for use in sports.
After determining that the products were actually different in HQ 963746, we concluded that they did not belong to the same class or kind of merchandise. In this case, balancing the Carborundum factors, we find that while the subject gloves may have the general physical characteristics of gloves used in sports, they are not of the same class or kind of merchandise as gloves specially designed for use in sports. Weighing the expectation of the ultimate purchaser, combined with the channels of trade and the environment of sale of the subject gloves, we find that they are not specially designed for use in competitive biking.
As the gloves under consideration are not specially designed for use in sports, they are not properly classified in subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA. The subject gloves are properly classified in subheading 6216.00.5820, HTSUSA, as "Gloves, mittens and mitts: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: With fourchettes, Other."
HOLDING:
The subject merchandise is classified in subheading 6216.00.5820, HTSUSA, which provides for "Gloves, mittens and mitts: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: With fourchettes, Other." The applicable rate of duty is 21 cents per kilogram plus 10.5 percent ad valorem and the textile restraint category is 631.
NY F80802, dated January 11, 2000, is hereby REVOKED. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. §1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Customs Bulletin.
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 Quotas (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.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