CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 950027 JS
Area Director
U.S. Customs Service
Hemisphere Center
Routes 1 and 9 South
Newark, New Jersey 07114
RE: Modification of HQ 087628; men's knit and leather garments
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is a decision on two requests, dated June 13, 1991 and
submitted by Singer and Singh on behalf of their client, Young
Woo Corp., for modification of HQ 087628 (issued November 28,
1990) which involved ten requests for further review relating to
twelve styles of men's knit and leather tops. These two requests
involved protest no. 1001-9-000662, regarding style no. 1865 and
protest 1001-9-000660, which involves style no. 1883. Upon
further review, we find that an error occurred based on the
style number applied to one of the garments in that case. The
Headquarters decision on the above referenced protests have not
yet been communicated to the importer on Customs Form 19.
Accordingly, it is still possible to administratively modify
that decision.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue are two of the twelve styles which
were ruled upon in HQ 087628; we note that the holding of that
case states that no sample was provided for protest no. 1001-9-
000662, which, based on the facts (we assume here that your
client's assertions are correct, and that the top labeled style
no. 1883 was actually style no. 1865, and the top designated
style no. 1865 actually described style no. 1883) indicates that
the missing garment was in fact style no. 1883.
A sample of style no. 1865, as well as sketches of both
styles 1883 and 1865, were provided with this request. Importer
asks that HQ 087628 be revised to properly reflect the
classification of style no. 1865; the additional letter requests
that the same principals used to classify other style numbers as
in chief value of leather be applied to the classification of
style no. 1883, for which we have a description and a sketch.
2
Correspondence attached to both protests indicates that the
descriptions of styles 1865 and 1883 were inadvertently
transposed in the original protest submissions. Corrected
descriptions were subsequently submitted to Customs but the
mistake nonetheless resulted in the mislabeling of one sample.
Copies of Form 19, CF 7501, the commercial invoice, and sketches
of the relevant garments correctly identified, are provided as
supporting documents.
Specifically, these documents indicate that style 1865 was
described in the corrected submission as "a man's knit pullover
sweater of acrylic with a back yoke of leather and a deep leather
front yokes on each shoulder. The yokes are sewn into the seams
at the shoulder arm holes. Inch-wide leather strips run from
the shoulder seam to the knit waistband, covering the raw edges
of the front yokes and the raw seam that joins two types of knit
fabric on the front of the pullover."
Style 1883 was described as "a man's knit pullover sweater
of acrylic with leather patch pockets, an oval leather yoke on
each shoulder covering the seam and extending about four inches
down the sleeve, and an inch-wide straight strip of leather from
each shoulder yoke to the knitted waistband, covering the raw
front edge of the pocket."
ISSUE:
1) Whether the merchandise labeled style no. 1883 is
actually the mislabeled garment style no. 1865, and if
so, what is the correct classification of style no.
1865.
2) What is the appropriate classification of style no.
1883.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The submitted sample, which was originally identified on the
neck label as style no. 1883, differs from the description of
style no. 1883 provided above. In particular, it does not have a
leather yoke or pockets. Moreover, an examination of the
sketches of both styles with a comparison of the submitted sample
indicates that style 1865 was indeed mislabeled. Consequently,
the determination made by Customs for style no. 1883, which
concluded that the garment was in chief value of leather, should
apply to style no. 1865.
3
However, we cannot make a determination as to the
appropriate classification of style no. 1883, as identified in
the facts above, since a sample of the garment was not provided
for the original protest or the present request.
HOLDING:
Protest no. 1001-9-000662 should be granted in full.
Protest no. 1001-9-000660 should be denied in full. A copy of
this decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and
provided to the importer, along with a copy of 087628, as part of
the notice of action on the protest.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Operations Division