United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1990 HQ Rulings > HQ 0084423 - HQ 0084615 > HQ 0084424

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 084424


August 16, 1989

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084424 CMR 839778

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6204.44.4010

Ms. Hillary Hardy
Playknits, Inc.
240 West 40th Street
New York, New York 10018

RE: Classification of a women's cotton/rayon dress

Dear Ms. Hardy:

This ruling is in response to your letter of April 17, 1989, requesting the classification of a women's cotton/rayon dress.

FACTS:

The dress at issue, style #5570, is one-piece and has a 100 percent cotton woven velveteen bodice with 100 percent rayon printed challis long sleeves and a 100 percent rayon printed challis skirt. Overall, the rayon is 60 percent by weight, the cotton 40 percent. The dress features a dropped waist, round neckline without collar, and a zipper closure in the back.

The dress will be imported from the Philippines.

ISSUE:

Is the dress classifiable as "of cotton" or as "of synthetic fibers"?

Is the classification determination based on which fiber predominates by weight or according to which fabric imparts the essential character, insofar as that is determinable?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

HRL 083925 of June 9, 1989, stated that "where separate fabrics are combined to form a textile garment or article, GRI 3 is utilized first to select which fabric will determine [the] classification."

Therefore, since the dress at issue is made of two different fabrics, it is necessary to apply GRI 3(b) to select the fabric by which it should be classified.

Determination of essential character is understandably diffi- cult. In an effort to ease that difficulty and inject objectivity and uniformity into the determination, Customs has issued a Memorandum to the Area Director, New York Seaport, File #084118 of April 13, 1989 (copy attached), establishing criteria to be applied in the classification of garments consisting of different fabrics or of textile and nontextile components.

In the case of full body garments, the memorandum states:
that component which comprises the visible upper portion will determine the classification; however, classification will be according to GRI 3(b) or 3(c), as appropriate, if the other component:

(1) provides a significant visual effect (e.g. a substantial amount of lace); or
(2) is over 60 percent by weight of the garment; or (3) is valued at more than 2 times the primary component.

In the instant case, the upper portion of the garment is comprised of both fabrics. The velveteen bodice is the major portion, however the challis print long sleeves cannot be ignored. Additionally, the challis print skirt portion of the dress does provide a significant visual effect and, while it is not over 60 percent by weight of the garment, it is 60 percent by weight of the garment. Taking these factors into consideration, we believe we must decide whether it is possible to determine which fabric imparts the essential character of the dress.

Considering the styling of the dress and the visual impact of both fabrics, we cannot maintain that either one imparts the essential character of the garment; they both do. Since we cannot claim one fabric gives the garment its essential character, we must resort to GRI 3(c).

Under GRI 3(c), we classify the garment according to that heading which occurs last in the HTSUSA from among those under consideration.

HOLDING:

The dress at issue is classified under the provision for women's dresses of artificial fibers, subheading 6204.44.4010, HTSUSA, textile category 636, dutiable at 17 percent ad valorem.

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

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: