CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 952823 CMR
TARIFF NO: 6202.93.4500, 6202.93.5020
Scott Cohn, Esq.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman
12 East 49th Street
New York, New York 10017
RE: Revocation of HRL 084077 of July 7, 1989; Classification of a
reversible jacket; 6113, HTSUSA, v. 6202, HTSUSA
Dear Mr. Cohn:
The Customs Service has had cause to review the decision
rendered in HRL 084077 and the reasoning set forth in that ruling
and we have found it to be in error. As your firm requested the
ruling on behalf of Bradley Imports, Inc., we are issuing the
revocation notice to you and request you notify your client.
FACTS:
On July 7, 1989, HRL 084077 was issued. That ruling dealt
with a girls' reversible jacket consisting of one outer shell of
knit tricot fabric coated with a non-transparent polyurethane
substance that completely obscures the underlying fabric and a
second outer shell made up of 65 percent polyester and 35 percent
cotton woven fabric. The garment was classified according to the
coated outer shell in heading 6113, HTSUSA. The rationale of the
decision never discussed the woven outer shell.
ISSUE:
Was the garment at issue in HRL 084077 properly classified
in heading 6113, HTSUSA?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The rationale in HRL 084077 hinges on the language of
subheading 6113.00.00, HTSUSA, i.e.:
Having an outer surface impregnated, coated, covered, or
laminated with rubber or plastics material which completely
obscures the underlying fabric. (bolding added).
The ruling focuses on the phrase "an outer surface" and
classifies the garment in subheading 6113, HTSUSA, because it has
"an outer surface" covered with plastics material which
completely obscures the underlying fabric.
The competing provision, 6202, HTSUSA, was never discussed.
This was an error. There is no doubt that the garment at issue
therein could be classifiable in heading 6113, HTSUSA, but it
could also have been classified in heading 6202, HTSUSA. HRL
084077 lacked any discussion of the legal notes of Chapters 61
and 62 and their application or non-application in regard to the
garments at issue therein. The ruling lacked any discussion of
the General Rules of Interpretation. Customs believes this is
remedied by the discussion set out in HRL 951081 which is being
issued to you on behalf of another client. We will not repeat
the full discussion herein.
Following the General Rules of Interpretation, specifically
GRI 3, since each heading, 6113 and 6202, refers to part only of
the garments at issue in HRL 084077, each heading is equally
applicable. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply GRI 3(b),
i.e., classify the good according to that component which imparts
the essential character.
Customs does not have the sample garments which were the
subject of HRL 084077; nor, did we have them at the time the
ruling was issued. However, in your recent submissions in regard
to HRL 951081, it has been argued that the sample at issue in the
more recent case is essentially identical to those in HRL 084077.
That being the case, we believe that the classification decision
set forth in HRL 951081 is equally applicable to HRL 084077. In
HRL 951081, Customs determined that neither outer shell imparts
the essential character. Since the classification could not be
determined by resort to GRI 3(b), GRI 3(c) was utilized and the
heading which appeared last in the tariff determined the
classification.
Having reviewed the reasoning and conclusion in HRL 084077
and finding it in error, HRL 084077 of July 7, 1989, is hereby
revoked pursuant to 19 CFR 177.9(d).
-3-
HOLDING:
The jackets at issue in HRL 084077, styles 100 and 200, are
properly classified as girls' jackets similar to anoraks and
windbreakers in subheading 6202.93.4500, HTSUSA, if water
resistant, and subheading 6202.93.5020, HTSUSA, if not water
resistant. The jackets fall within textile category 635 and are
dutiable at 7.6 percent ad valorem, if water resistant, or 29.5
percent ad valorem, if not water resistant.
In order to insure uniformity in Customs classification of
this merchandise and eliminate uncertainty, we are revoking HRL
084077, effective with the date of this letter. If after your
review of this ruling letter, you disagree with the legal basis
for our decision, we invite you to submit any arguments you might
have with respect to this matter for our review. Any submission
you wish to make should be received within 30 days of the date of
this letter.
This notice to you should be considered a revocation of HRL
084077 under 19 CFR 177.9(d)(1). It is not to be applied
retroactively to HRL 084077 (19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)) and will not,
therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of your
merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of
future transactions in merchandise of this type, this revocation
of HRL 084077 will be in effect. We recognize that pending
transactions may be adversely affected by this modification in
that current contracts for importation arriving at a port
subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it.
If such a situation arises, you may, at your discretion, notify
this office and may apply for relief from the binding effects of
this decision as may be warranted by the circumstances. However,
please be advised that in some instances involving import
restraints, such relief may require separate approvals from other
government agencies.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division