CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 953467 CMR
TARIFF NO: 6202.13.4005
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
1000 2nd Avenue
Suite 2200
Seattle, Washington 98104-1049
RE: Application for Further Review Protest 3001-92-100653 of
August 4, 1992; overcoats, carcoats, etc. and similar coats
vs. anoraks, windbreakers and similar articles; 6202.13.4005,
HTSUSA v. 6202.93.4500, HTSUSA
Dear Mr. Holland:
This is in response to Protest 3001-92-100653 against your
decision to classify certain garments entered as subheading
6202.93.4500, HTSUSA, garments (water resistant anoraks,
windbreakers or similar articles, of man-made fibers) in subheading
6202.13.4005, HTSUSA, as raincoats.
FACTS:
Two garments are at issue--style 7024 and style 7022. Style
7024 is made of 100 percent woven nylon fabric. The garment
extends to the lower-thigh area and features long sleeves with
elasticized cuffs, an attached hood that rolls up to form a collar,
a partially elasticized bottom, a full front opening with button
closure, slash pockets on each side, three buttons on each side
which close vents that reach from the bottom of the garment to
about the waist, shoulder pads and a full nylon lining.
Style 7022 is made of 65 percent polyester/35 percent cotton
woven fabric. The garment extends to the mid-thigh area and
features a full front opening with button closure, a collar, long
sleeves with buttoned straps at the cuffs, a drawstring at the
bottom, large shoulder pads, on each front panel an extra large
patch pocket with a three-button closure and on the patch pocket
a smaller patch pocket with a flap cover.
-2-
Both garments are claimed to be water resistant and that claim
is not at issue herein.
ISSUE:
Are styles 7024 and 7022 classifiable as similar to anoraks
or windbreakers (water resistant) in subheading 6202.93.4500,
HTSUSA, dutiable at 7.6 percent ad valorem or as raincoats in
subheading 6202.13.4005, HTSUSA, dutiable at 29.5 percent ad
valorem?
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]."
Raincoat is defined in Mary Brooks Picken's The Fashion
Dictionary (1973) at page 295, as "[l]ightweight coat of water-
proof fabric;" and at page 73, as "[w]aterproof coat worn over
other garments as protection against the weather." However, anorak
is defined in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary
(1984) at 111, as:
1. A heavy, hooded jacket: PARKA. 2. A light, waterproof,
hooded jacket.
The same source defines raincoat as: "A waterproof or water-
resistant coat."
The protestant has tried to differentiate the garments at
issue from raincoats by drawing a distinction between water
resistant and water repellant. If Customs were to follow precisely
the above cited definitions, the garments at issue would not be
classifiable as either raincoats or similar to anoraks. We
believe, however, that it is generally recognized that many
garments commonly viewed as rainwear are water resistant garments
and the same is true of garments recognized as anoraks or similar
to anoraks. We find little basis to reject classification as
raincoats based on a distinction between water resistant versus
water repellant.
The distinction upon which this classification issue truly
turns is that between jackets versus coats. In a letter from the
company that designed and merchandised the garments at issue, an
effort is made to distinguish coats from jackets based upon -3-
function versus fashion. We find such a distinction to be a
fallacy. In apparel, fashion and function are generally equally
important to all concerned, i.e., manufacturer, retailer and
consumer.
Customs has issued rulings dealing with the classification of
garments as jackets versus coats. The classifications, however,
appear to have been based on the overall appearance and impression
of the garments concerned. In HRL 085294 of October 25, 1989,
quoting from HRL 083536 of October 23, 1989, Customs distinguished
parka-type garments and anoraks from coats by stating:
Like anoraks, parkas are worn by those engaging in outdoor
winter sports, or by those who prefer casual styled outerwear.
This distinguishes parkas and anoraks from overcoats,
carcoats, storm coats, etc., which are normally cut long and
full to fit over a sports jacket, suit, dress, etc.
The goods at issue were classified by the port as coats based on
their length and generous cut so as to permit wear over other outer
garments.
Customs views the length of a garment to be sometimes an
influential factor in determining what a garment is. For instance,
if these garments reached below the knee, their classification
would not likely be an issue; most likely, all concerned would
consider the garments to be coats. However, the garments extend
to mid-thigh and lower-thigh lengths. This makes their
classification more difficult because coats and jackets are both
normally available in these lengths.
As to the fullness of their cut, coats and jackets alike must
be cut to allow wear over other outer garments. Therefore, this
characteristic is not particularly helpful.
The Court of International Trade in Pollak Import Export Corp.
v. United States, Slip-Op 92.12 (Decided February 14, 1992), held
that "the common meaning of a 'coat' is a garment chiefly worn
outdoors, over other clothing, to provide protection from the
elements." Unfortunately, this definition is not helpful in
distinguishing coats from anoraks or windbreaker jackets.
In the instant case, both garments are treated so as to be
water resistant and thus give the wearer some protection against
inclement weather. Both garments are designed to be worn over
other outer garments. The garments' lightweight fabric is often
seen in anorak and windbreaker type garments, but the button
closures and the type of pockets, in the case of style 7022, and -4-
length in the case of style 7024, are generally associated with
coats. These garments have features which may be used to argue
for classification as either coats or jackets.
As the port and the National Import Specialist for this
merchandise, both believe these garments to be properly classified
as coats, and the protestant has failed to present this office with
presuasive evidence on which to rule otherwise, we concur with the
decision of the port.
HOLDING:
As the garments at issue meet the common definition of
raincoat cited above, i.e., a water resistant coat, the
classification decision of the port was correct and this protest
should be denied in full.
A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19
which is forwarded to the protestant.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director