HQ 0088158 - Spunbonded olefin disposable barrier coveralls; HRL 086972 amended; NYRL 844609 revoked. - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

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 > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0088144 - HQ 0088232 > HQ 0088158

HQ 088158

November 7, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 088158 CRS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6210.10.4010

Kenneth H. Keefe, Esq.
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg
The Waterford
5200 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, FL 33126-2022

RE: Spunbonded olefin disposable barrier coveralls; HRL 086972 amended; NYRL 844609 revoked.

Dear Mr. Keefe:

This is in reply to your letter dated October 31, 1990, on behalf of your client, Kappler Safety Group, concerning New York Ruling Letter (NYRL) 844609 and Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 086972.

FACTS:

HRL 086972 dated July 12, 1990, concerned the classification of various styles of nonwoven disposable coveralls made in Mexico from a spunbonded olefin of high density polyethylene fibers ("Tyvek"). In HRL 086972 these garments were classified in subheading 6210.10.4010, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). See also, HRL 085419 dated January 26, 1990, and HRL 085360 dated December 13, 1990.

In NYRL 844609, however, similar nonwoven garments were classified in subheading 6210.10.4015, HTSUSA. In your letter dated April 17, 1990, submitted in connection with your ruling request on behalf of Kappler (HRL 086972), you asked that this ruling be revoked. Although the Tyvek garments were held to be classifiable in subheading 6210.10.4010, HTSUSA, rather than in subheading 6210.10.4015, HTSUSA, the New York ruling was not revoked. We now correct this omission and revoke NYRL 844609.

HOLDING:

Pursuant to section 177.9, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9), NYRL 844609 dated September 11, 1989, is revoked. A ruling letter that revokes an earlier ruling letter is generally effective on the date that it is issued. However, the effective date of such a ruling may be delayed for a period of up to ninety days from the date of issuance, on the condition that the party to whom the ruling was issued can demonstrate that they relied on the earlier ruling to their detriment. Should you have relied to your detriment, you may apply to this office in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 177.9.

Sincerely,

Previous Ruling Next Ruling