CLA 2 RR:CR:TE 960848 SG
TARIFF NO: 6203.42.4015; 6203.42.4050
Beth Ring, Esq.
Sandler, Travis & Weinberg, P.A.
505 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
RE: Classification of men’s garments; sleepwear vs. loungewear
Dear Ms. Ring:
We have reconsidered our ruling HQ 089358 dated August 12, 1991, issued in response to your firm’s April 29, 1991, letter on behalf of PGA Apparel Industries, requesting a classification ruling for men’s sleepwear bottoms pursuant to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This letter is to inform you that after reviewing that ruling, it has been determined that the classification of that merchandise in heading 6207 is incorrect. As such, HQ 089358 is revoked pursuant to the analysis which follows below.
Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1939 [19 U.S.C. 1625 (c)(1)] as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub.L. 103-182, 107 Stat.2057), customs is revoking HQ 089358 to reflect proper classification of the subject men’s garments in heading 6203. A notice of proposed revocation of HQ 089358 was published on August 5, 1998, in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN, Vol. 32, No.31. One comment was received in response to the notice.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise consisted of two pairs of men’s sleep bottoms. One with long pant legs, the other a pair of shorts. Both garments were constructed of 100 percent flannel and had neither pockets nor fly.
2
HQ 089358 classified the garments under subheading 6207.91.3010, HTSUS, which provides for men’s or boys’ singlets and other undershirts, underpants, briefs, nightshirts, pajamas, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles: other: of cotton: other: sleepwear.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject merchandise is properly classifiable as sleepwear under Heading 6207, HTSUS, or as outerwear garments under Heading 6203, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the
terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's taken in order.
Heading 6207, HTSUSA, provides for, inter alia, men’s nightshirts, pajamas and similar articles. Customs has consistently ruled that pajamas are generally two piece garments worn for sleeping. One piece garments such as sleep shorts and sleep pants used for sleeping are not classifiable as pajamas, instead they fall into a residual provision within Heading 6207, HTSUSA, for similar articles.
If it is determined that the subject bottoms are classifiable as outerwear or loungewear, the applicable heading is Heading 6203, HTSUSA, which provides for, inter alia, men’s trousers.
In determining the classification of garments submitted to be sleepwear, Customs usually considers the factors discussed in three court cases that addressed sleepwear. In Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 549, 552 (1985), aff’d 786 F.2d 144 (CAFC,1986), the Court of International Trade considered the classification of a garment claimed to be sleepwear. The court cited several lexicographic sources, among them Webster’s Third New International Dictionary which defined “nightclothes” as “garments to be worn to bed.” In Mast, the court determined that the garment at issue therein was designed, manufactured, and used as nightwear and therefore was classifiable as nightwear. Similarly, in St. Eve International, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 224 (1987), the court ruled the garments at issue therein were manufactured, marketed and advertised as nightwear and were chiefly used as nightwear. Finally, in Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 248 (1995), the court was faced with the issue of whether women’s boxer style shorts were classifiable as “outerwear” under Heading 6204, HTSUSA, or as “underwear” under Heading 6208, HTSUSA. The court stated the following, in pertinent part:
[P]laintiff’s preferred classification is supported by evidence that the boxers in issue were designed to be worn as underwear and that such use is practical. In addition, plaintiff
3
showed that the intimate apparel industry perceives and merchandises the boxers as underwear. While not dispositive, the manner in which plaintiff’s garments are merchandised sheds light on what the industry perceives the merchandise to be.
Furthermore, we bring your attention to International Home Textile, Inc., Slip Op. 97-31, March 18, 1997, which classified similar garments without a fly as loungewear in heading 6103, HTSUS. The court therein stated:
Based upon a careful examination of the loungewear as well as the testimony of the various witnesses, the court finds that the loungewear items at issue do not share that essential character of privateness or private activity. As the parties have already stipulated, the loungewear is used primarily for lounging and not for sleeping. The court finds no basis in the exhibits, the witness testimony, or the loungewear’s construction and design to find that it is inappropriate, at a minimum, for the loungewear to be worn at informal social occasions in and around the home, and for other individual, non private activities in and around the house e.g., watching movies at home with guests, barbequing at a backyard gathering, doing outside home and yard maintenance work, washing the car, walking the dog, and the like....
With respect to the bottoms which were the subject of HQ 089358, they feature no fly and no pockets. It is now Customs view that the lack of a fly on mens pants (or bottoms) makes them suitable for modesty purposes. It is not indicative of a sleepwear bottom but a multi purpose garment that may (and probably will) be principally worn for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textiles, Inc. Finally, although the garment may be worn to bed for sleeping, it is our opinion that their principal use is for “home comfort” and lounging. In addition, these bottoms can easily make the transition from inside the home (a private setting) to outside the home (and a more social environment). See for example HQ 960432 dated August 22, 1997, in which we held that the lack of a fly on similar bottoms was indicative of multi-purpose garments which will be worn for purposes other than sleeping. Therefore, following both HQ 960432 and the decision in International Home Textiles, Inc. , the bottoms at issue are properly classified in heading 6203, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
The bottoms without a fly and without pockets are more properly classified as follows: the pants are classified in subheading 6203.42.4015, HTSUS, which provides for Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Trousers and breeches: Men’s: Other. The applicable rate of duty is 17.3 percent ad valorem and the quota category is 347; the shorts are classifiable in subheading 6203.42.4050, HTSUS, which provides for Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace
4
overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Shorts: Mens. The applicable rate of duty is 17.3 percent ad valorem and the quota category is 347.
HQ 089358 is hereby revoked.
In accordance with title 19 U.S.C. 1625(c)(1), this ruling will become effective for articles entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption 60 days after its publication in the customs Bulletin. Publication of rulings or decisions pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1625 (c)(1) does not constitute a change of practice or position in accordance with section 177.10(c)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.10(c)(1)).
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division