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 0084603

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 084603


July 27, 1989

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084603 DFC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6307.90.9030

Ms. Donna L. Allard
Marquel Ltd.
1864 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010

RE: Tariff classification of a fabric covered box

Dear Ms. Allard:

Your letter dated April 28, 1989, addressed to our New York office concerning the tariff classification of a fabric covered box made in Korea, has been referred to this office for a direct reply to you. A sample was submitted for examination.

FACTS:

The sample is a hexagonal shaped paperboard box consisting of a lower section and a separate, removable upper section or lid. Both sections are completely covered and lined with textile fabric. Also, the horizontal surfaces of both sections are padded with polyester fiberfill. The fabric is 100 percent cotton while the lining is 65 percent polyester/35 percent cotton fabric.

ISSUE:

What material imparts the essential character to the trinket box?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

In applying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), the Customs Service must follow the terms of the statute. 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, and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to [the remaining GRI's taken in order]. In other words classification is governed first by the terms of the headings of the tariff and relative section or chapter notes.

GRI 2(b), HTSUSA, provides in part that "[t]he classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of Rule 3."

GRI 3, HTSUSA, reads in pertinent part as follows:

3. When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:

(a) The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods. . . those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.

(b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, . . . , which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.

(c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.

The Explanatory Notes for GRI 3(b) state in pertinent part as follows:

(VIII) The factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods.

It is generally true that the material which represents the structure of a composite good is likely to represent the essential character of the product, while the material which covers the surface of the product will generally be regarded as less significant. However, there are exceptions to this principle. Specifically, there may be instances in which an expensive or fancy surface may represent the most marketable aspect of the composite good. Thus, the surface material may impart the essential character to the article

In this instance what is being marketed seems to involve much more than a cardboard box. There are elements of beauty, plushiness, elegance, texture and good taste that provide much of the product's appeal. It is our observation that although the paperboard provides structural integrity, it may not be superior to the textile with respect to bulk and value. We have not subjected the sample to any physical tests or measuring procedures, but it appears from a casual examination that the combined bulk of the fabric and padding may be about the same as that of the paperboard. As for value, you state that the "fabric charge" is $.38, while the "cardboard charge" is $.50. We do not think this breakdown is reasonable. It is unlikely that the cost of the cardboard would exceed that of the textile and it isn't clear whether the value of the polyester fiberfill padding is included in the "fabric charge." Furthermore, the large ($1.65) "making charge" is unexplained and we are reluctant to assume that it should simply be prorated over the other figures.

In view of the foregoing it is our opinion that the sample box cannot be classified with reference to GRI 3(b).. Consequently, it must be classified following GRI 3(c). under subheading 6307.90.9030, HTSUSA, as other made up articles of textile materials, other.

HOLDING:

The paperboard box is classifiable under subheading 6307.90.9030, HTSUSA, with duty at the rate of 7 percent ad valorem.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling