CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951821 CMR
TARIFF NO: 6104.31.0000
Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C.
One Astor Plaza
1515 Broadway
43rd Floor
New York, New York 10036
RE: Reconsideration of NYRL 872924 of April 30, 1992; suit-type
jacket (6104, HTSUSA) v. similar to a sweater (6110, HTSUSA)
Dear Sir:
This ruling is in response to your submission of May 11,
1992, on behalf of Hook Sportswear, requesting reconsideration of
NYRL 872924. In that ruling, Customs classified a women's upper
body garment, style 3E66639/FA701, as a suit-type jacket of
heading 6104, HTSUSA. A sample garment was received with your
submission.
FACTS:
The submitted sample, style 3E66639/FA701, is a 100 percent
wool knit garment designed to cover the upper body. The wool
knit fabric from which the garment is made measures more than
nine stitches per two centimeters in the horizontal direction.
During the manufacturing process, the wool fabric is washed
giving the finished garment a "washed" or "shrunk" appearance.
The garment has a three panel construction--two in the
front, one in the back, sewn together lengthwise. It extends
from the neck and shoulders to slightly below the waist and has a
short, boxy look reminiscent of a Chanel-type jacket. The
garment features a full-front opening secured by four metal
buttons, two patch pockets on the chest area (each secured by one
metal button), a collarless round neckline, stitched in shoulder
pads, long sleeves, and knit capping around the neckline, along
the placket and along the bottom of the garment as well as over
each pocket and at the sleeve cuffs.
-2-
The garment will be imported from Hong Kong either through
the New York Seaport or JFK International Airport.
ISSUE:
Was the subject garment, style 3E66639/FA701, properly
classified in NYRL 872924 as a suit-type jacket of heading 6104,
HTSUSA, or should it be classified as claimed as a garment
similar to a sweater in heading 6110, HTSUSA?
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 and, provided
such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to
[the remaining GRIs taken in order]."
The Explanatory Notes for the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System, the official interpretation of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule at the international level, do not
offer much assistance in classifying the garment at issue. The
Explanatory Notes for headings 6104, HTSUSA, and 6110, HTSUSA,
are rather general and, it could be argued that the garment at
issue fits within the descriptions provided for both headings.
Heading 6104, HTSUSA, provides for, among other things,
women's knitted or crocheted suits, suit-type jackets, and
blazers. The Explanatory Notes for heading 6104, HTSUSA, which
incorporate the Explanatory Notes for heading 6103, basically
provide that jackets and blazers may be constructed of three or
more panels (of which two are at the front), sewn together
lengthwise. With the exception of allowing jackets and blazers
to be constructed of three panels, the garments have the same
characteristics of suit jackets, i.e., they are designed to cover
the upper body, have a full front opening with or without a
closure (other than a zipper), do not extend beyond the mid-
thigh area and are not for wear other another coat, jacket or
blazer.
Heading 6110, HTSUSA, provides for knitted or crocheted
sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar
articles. The Explanatory Notes for heading 6110, HTSUSA,
provide that the heading covers knitted or crocheted articles,
for men and women, which are designed to cover the upper parts of
the body (jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, waistcoats and similar
articles.
-3-
Since the explanatory notes for the headings at issue fail
to clarify the proper classification of the submitted garment,
consideration of the guidance provided in the Textile Category
Guidelines, CIE 13/88, is appropriate. However, as with the
explanatory notes, we find little assistance in the Guidelines.
In the discussion of garments which fall within the category
designation for women's and girls' other coats, it is indicated
that "tailored" cardigans fall within this category designation.
"Tailored" is defined in the forward to the Guidelines as
"shaping of a fabric into a garment so as to neatly fit the
contours of the body by means of cutting, seaming and finishing."
In your submission, you have referred to this definition of
tailoring and argued the submitted garment fails to fall within
this definition as it has some elasticity, like a sweater, and
lacks such features as darts. We submit this is but one
definition of tailoring and to limit consideration of "tailored"
garments to garments which fit the contours of the body would
eliminate many garments which are highly tailored, but for
reasons of fashion, may not be close-fitting.
The garment at issue is described in the "FACT" portion of
this ruling as a Chanel-type jacket. In Mary Brooks Picken's The
Fashion Dictionary, at 204, "Chanel jacket" is defined as "a box
style jacket with long sleeves, no collar and front opening.
Usually wool with braided trim on edges and cuffs." The garment
at issue appears to fall within this description. While it does
not have a braided trim, the knit capping trim gives a similar
effect.
The National Import Specialist for this merchandise in his
report to this office cited a discussion in George E. Linton's
The Modern Textile and Apparel Dictionary, (4th revised ed.), at
567, regarding the concept of a tailored garment. Tailoring can
be viewed in two ways--tailored styling and tailored workmanship.
It is the view of the National Import Specialist, and this office
concurs, that the garment at issue possesses both styling and
workmanship, "in that it is professionally sewn and finished, and
. . . has the basic fashion lines of a woman's box-type jacket
(Chanel styling)."
You have argued that the garment at issue is "virtually
indistinguishable" from a garment which was the subject of Pollak
Import Export Corp., v. United States, 16 CIT , Slip Op. 92-
12 (February 14, 1992). The garment in that case was described
by the court as a waist-length women's jacket, commonly known as
a boiled wool jacket. Customs believes the garment at issue is
-4-
similar to that ruled upon by the court on Pollak, but we
disagree that it is virtually indistinguishable. The submitted
garment is waist-length and, although not made of boiled wool
fabric, is constructed of washed or shrunk wool which is somewhat
similar to boiled wool.
The issue in Pollak was different in terms of the competing
tariff provisions, i.e., the classification dispute involved the
previous tariff, the Tariff Schedules of the United States, and
the competing provisions were, in simple terms, coats versus
other. The court determined that the garment at issue therein
was not a coat, however, throughout the court's opinion, it
referred to the disputed garment as a jacket. In relevant part,
the court stated:
From the general physical characteristics of the
jacket, the expectation of the ultimate purchasers, the
channels of trade in which the jacket moves, the manner in
which the jacket is displayed, and the use of the jacket,
the court finds that the imported jacket is chiefly used as
a (sic) indoor coordinate jacket, the ipso facto, is not a
coat.
Hence, your argument that the garment at issue is virtually
indistinguishable from the garment in Pollak works to support the
classification decision in NYRL 872924 of April 30, 1992, that
the garment is a suit-type jacket.
Based upon the styling of the garment, the fabric from which
it is made and its similarity to the garment at issue in the
Pollak case, the decision in NYRL 872924 is viewed as correct.
HOLDING:
NYRL 872924 of April 30, 1992, properly classified style
3E66639/FA701 as a wool suit-type jacket in subheading
6104.31.0000, HTSUSA, textile category 435, dutiable at 68.3
cents/kg plus 20 percent ad valorem.
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
-5-
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.
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,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division