CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 956146 BC
District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
101 East Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Further review of protest no. 1401-94-100032; classification
of cotton rugs; bath mats; powerloom; tufted cotton rugs; not
woven rugs
Dear Sir:
This is a decision on an application for further review of
protest no. 1401-94-100032, filed by John A. Bessich, Esq., on
behalf of Hayim & Company of Chesapeake, Virginia. The protest
objects to your classification of cotton bath mats/rugs.
FACTS:
The protest covers three entries made on August 6, 1993, and
liquidated on November 12, 1993. The protest was timely filed on
February 10, 1994.
The merchandise at issue are 100% cotton bath mats/rugs.
They were invoiced as "100% cotton powerloom bath mats (made
ups)." They were classified in subheading 5702.49.1080,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
(HTSUSA), which provides for carpets and other textile floor
coverings, woven, not tufted or flocked, whether or not made up .
. . : other, of pile construction, made up: of other textile
materials: of cotton . . . other. It is contended in this
protest that the rugs should be classified in subheading
5703.90.0000, HTSUSA, which provides for carpets and other
textile floor coverings, tufted, whether or not made up: of other
textile materials. The dispute centers around whether the rugs
are of woven or tufted construction.
ISSUE:
Whether the cotton bath mats/rugs at issue are classifiable
as woven cotton rugs in heading 5702, HTSUSA, or as tufted cotton
rugs in heading 5703, HTSUSA?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
This office contacted the National Import Specialist with
expertise in the classification of carpets and textile floor
coverings. He stated that the invoice descriptions for the
entries in question supported the classification of the rugs at
issue as woven, not tufted, rugs in heading 5702, HTSUSA.
However, he indicated that the term "powerloom," which suggests
woven construction, could apply to the base of the rugs. If it
is the base of the rugs that is woven, and the pile is of tufted
construction, the rugs should be classified in heading 5703,
HTSUSA, as tufted rugs.
By letter of September 13, 1994, to PROTESTANT's counsel, we
requested additional information to support PROTESTANT's claim.
By letter of November 2, 1994, counsel submitted a statement from
the manufacturer of the rugs at issue, Paliwal Overseas Ltd.,
dated November 1, 1994. The statement describes the rugs at
issue, identified by the manufacturer as the Revival, Kimberly,
Jubilee, and Somerset, as cotton rugs of tufted construction.
The statement asserts that the reference to "powerloom" in the
invoices is to the woven cotton canvas base of the rugs. The
rugs covered by this protest are described in the Customs Protest
and Summons Information Report (CF 6445) as the Revival,
Kimberly, Jubilee, and Somerset.
Given the foregoing information, we find that the rugs at
issue are tufted cotton rugs. They are similar to the rug
classified in New York Ruling Letter 873035, issued to the
PROTESTANT on April 16, 1992. The rug classified in that ruling
in subheading 5703.90.0000, HTSUSA, is described therein as a
"woven, tufted, 100 percent cotton rug." The ruling states that
the "rug's pile surface is formed by the insertion of tufts into
a pre-existing base." This is the same production process
applicable to the rugs at issue, as provided in the above
statement by the manufacturer.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the rugs at issue
are classifiable as claimed by PROTESTANT in subheading
5703.90.0000, HTSUSA.
HOLDING:
This protest should be allowed, in accordance with section
174.27 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 174.27). The tufted
cotton bath mats/rugs at issue, constructed with woven cotton
canvas bases, are classifiable in subheading 5703.90.0000,
HTSUSA. The applicable duty rate is 7.6% ad valorem.
In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office to the
PROTESTANT no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.
Any reliquidation of the entries in accordance with the decision
must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty
days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to Customs
personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public
via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information
Act, and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division