HQ 0950027 - Modification of HQ 087628; men's knit and leather garments - 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 > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0734443 - HQ 0950036 > HQ 0950027

HQ 950027
December 9, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 950027 JS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

Area Director
U.S. Customs Service
Hemisphere Center
Routes 1 and 9 South
Newark, New Jersey 07114

RE: Modification of HQ 087628; men's knit and leather garments

Dear Sir/Madam:

This is a decision on two requests, dated June 13, 1991 and submitted by Singer and Singh on behalf of their client, Young Woo Corp., for modification of HQ 087628 (issued November 28, 1990) which involved ten requests for further review relating to twelve styles of men's knit and leather tops. These two requests involved protest no. 1001-9-000662, regarding style no. 1865 and protest 1001-9-000660, which involves style no. 1883. Upon further review, we find that an error occurred based on the style number applied to one of the garments in that case. The Headquarters decision on the above referenced protests have not yet been communicated to the importer on Customs Form 19. Accordingly, it is still possible to administratively modify that decision.

FACTS:

The merchandise at issue are two of the twelve styles which were ruled upon in HQ 087628; we note that the holding of that case states that no sample was provided for protest no. 1001-9- 000662, which, based on the facts (we assume here that your client's assertions are correct, and that the top labeled style no. 1883 was actually style no. 1865, and the top designated style no. 1865 actually described style no. 1883) indicates that the missing garment was in fact style no. 1883.

A sample of style no. 1865, as well as sketches of both styles 1883 and 1865, were provided with this request. Importer asks that HQ 087628 be revised to properly reflect the classification of style no. 1865; the additional letter requests that the same principals used to classify other style numbers as in chief value of leather be applied to the classification of style no. 1883, for which we have a description and a sketch.

2

Correspondence attached to both protests indicates that the descriptions of styles 1865 and 1883 were inadvertently transposed in the original protest submissions. Corrected descriptions were subsequently submitted to Customs but the mistake nonetheless resulted in the mislabeling of one sample. Copies of Form 19, CF 7501, the commercial invoice, and sketches of the relevant garments correctly identified, are provided as supporting documents.

Specifically, these documents indicate that style 1865 was described in the corrected submission as "a man's knit pullover sweater of acrylic with a back yoke of leather and a deep leather front yokes on each shoulder. The yokes are sewn into the seams at the shoulder arm holes. Inch-wide leather strips run from the shoulder seam to the knit waistband, covering the raw edges of the front yokes and the raw seam that joins two types of knit fabric on the front of the pullover."

Style 1883 was described as "a man's knit pullover sweater of acrylic with leather patch pockets, an oval leather yoke on each shoulder covering the seam and extending about four inches down the sleeve, and an inch-wide straight strip of leather from each shoulder yoke to the knitted waistband, covering the raw front edge of the pocket."

ISSUE:

1) Whether the merchandise labeled style no. 1883 is actually the mislabeled garment style no. 1865, and if so, what is the correct classification of style no. 1865.

2) What is the appropriate classification of style no. 1883.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The submitted sample, which was originally identified on the neck label as style no. 1883, differs from the description of style no. 1883 provided above. In particular, it does not have a leather yoke or pockets. Moreover, an examination of the sketches of both styles with a comparison of the submitted sample indicates that style 1865 was indeed mislabeled. Consequently, the determination made by Customs for style no. 1883, which concluded that the garment was in chief value of leather, should apply to style no. 1865.

3

However, we cannot make a determination as to the appropriate classification of style no. 1883, as identified in the facts above, since a sample of the garment was not provided for the original protest or the present request.

HOLDING:

Protest no. 1001-9-000662 should be granted in full. Protest no. 1001-9-000660 should be denied in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided to the importer, along with a copy of 087628, as part of the notice of action on the protest.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling