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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0955614 - HQ 0955729 > HQ 0955640

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

---

HQ 955640

March 22, 1994
CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 955640 CMR

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO: 6211.39.0010

Mr. Paul Meyer
Nik and Associates
P.O. Box 90279
Los Angeles, Cal. 90009-0279

RE: Classification of a men's woven vest; 6211, HTSUSA; marking and labeling requirements

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This ruling is in response to your request of November 29, 1993, on behalf of your client, Montage International Importing, for a classification determination on a men's woven vest. You have also requested information regarding marking and labeling requirements. A sample was received with your request and will be returned under separate cover.

FACTS:

The submitted sample is a men's woven vest with a full front opening secured by five buttons, a V-neck, two strips of fabric sewn to the front panels at the waist to simulate slant pockets, and a self-fabric belt on the back that is adjusted by two metal rings. The front panels are made of 100 percent silk woven fabric. The back panel is made of 100 percent nylon woven fabric and the lining fabric is also 100 percent woven nylon. The garment will be imported from China.

ISSUE:

What is the classification of the subject garment?

What are the marking and labeling requirements for the subject garment?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided -2-
such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to [the remaining GRIs taken in order]."

The vest at issue is classifiable under heading 6211, HTSUSA, which provides for, inter alia, other garments. The vest has a silk front and nylon back. Because the garment is made of more than one textile material, we must determine by which material is should be classified, i.e., silk or nylon. Subheading note 2(A) to Section XI states:

Products of chapters 56 to 63 containing two or more textile materials are to be regarded as consisting wholly of that textile material which would be selected under note 2 to this section for the classification of a product of chapters 50 to 55 consisting of the same textile materials.

Subheading note 2(B) states, in relevant part:

For application of this rule:

(a) Where appropriate, only the part which determines the classification under general interpretative rule 3 shall be taken into account;

General interpretative rule 3 (GRI 3) provides, in pertinent part, that classification of goods which are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, each referring to part only of the materials or components of the good, each heading is equally applicable and classification should then be based upon that material or component from which the good derives its essential character.

Customs issued Memorandum 084118 on April 13, 1989, delineating guidelines for determining the essential character of garments made up of different fabrics. For upper body garments, such as the vest at issue, the guidelines are as follows:

For upper or lower body garments, if one component exceeds 60 percent of the visible surface area, that component will determine the classification of the garment unless the other component:

(1) forms the entire front of the garment; or (2) provides a visual and significant decorative effect (e.g. a substantial amount of lace); or
(3) is over 50 percent by weight of the garment; or (4) is valued at more than 10 times the primary component.

If no component comprises 60 percent of the visible surface area, or if any of the above four listed conditions are -3-
present, classification will be according to GRI 3(b) or 3(c), as appropriate.

In this case, neither the silk or nylon fabric comprises 60 percent or more of the visible surface area and the silk fabric makes up the entire front of the garment. As the front of the garment, in our opinion, has the greatest visual impact and is the primary motivation for the purchasing of this particular garment by a consumer, we believe the silk front imparts the garment's essential character. Thus, the garment is classifiable as of silk.

In regard to your inquiry regarding marking and labeling requirements, the marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.

It should be noted that textile fiber products imported into the U.S. must be labeled in accordance with the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70 through 70K) and the rules promulgated thereunder by the Federal Trade Commission. Questions concerning fiber content labelling requirements are covered under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Therefore, we suggest that you contact the Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508, regarding their labelling requirements.

HOLDING:

The submitted men's vest is classifiable in subheading 6211.39.0010, HTSUSA, which provides for men's other garments containing 70 percent or more by weight of silk or silk waste. The garment is dutiable at 3 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

Previous Ruling Next Ruling