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 NY Rulings > NY 0872658 - NY 0872920 > NY 0872919

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


NY 872919


April 21, 1992

CLA-2-95:S:N:N3D:225 872919

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 9505.90.6000

Ms. Teresa Segadelli
August Moon Co.
2320 Wisconsin Avenue NW #311
Washington, D.C. 20007

RE: The tariff classification of a hand painted egg shell from Indonesia

Dear Ms. Segadelli:

In your letter dated March 26, 1992, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The sample submitted with your inquiry is a hand painted egg shell. The eggs are hand blown and painted in Indonesia. Each egg shell will be painted with water colors and will be signed by the artist. They will be imported individually packaged in a box made of vegetable fibers. Your sample is being returned as requested.

Customs has taken the position that decorated eggs are principally used during Easter and as such are correctly classified as festive articles in chapter 95.

The applicable subheading for the hand painted egg shells will be 9505.90.6000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for festive, carnival or other entertainment articles: other: other. The duty rate will be 3.1 percent ad valorem.

Articles classifiable under subheading 9505.90.6000, HTS, which are products of Indonesia are entitled to duty free treat- ment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) upon compliance with all applicable regulations.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: