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 > 1996 HQ Rulings > HQ 958745 - HQ 958886 > HQ 958849

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 958849



June 14, 1996
CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 958849 SK

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

John M. Peterson
Neville, Peterson & Williams
2300 N Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20037

RE: Country of origin determination; duvet covers; Section 102.21(c)(5), Customs Regulations.

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in response to your inquiry of January 20, 1996, on behalf of your client, Pac-Fung Feather Company Ltd. and Natural Feather & Textiles, Inc., requesting a country of origin determination for duvet covers pursuant to Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 USC Section 3592) and implementing Customs Regulations (19 CFR Section 102.21). On April 4, 1996, you met with a representative from this office to further discuss the issues raised in your request. Further to that meeting, also on April 4, 1996, you submitted a second written submission in which you provide this office with specific manufacturing information.

A sample duvet was submitted to this office for examination.

FACTS:

The merchandise at issue consists of 100 percent cotton duvet covers which will be manufactured in Hong Kong using fabric which is woven in the People's Republic of China and in one or more additional countries. You have stated that the second country in which fabric will be formed will either be Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan or another unspecified country. Fabric will be woven and dyed in both China and a second country and imported into Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the fabric will
be cut into six duvet cover panels. Some of the panels will measure approximately 84 inches in length by 17 inches in width. Center panels will have the same length, but will be 34 inches in width. In Hong Kong, two end panels will be sewn longitudinally on either side of a center panel to form the top half of the duvet cover using an overlock stitching machine. This operation will be repeated with two side panels and a center panel to create the bottom half of the duvet cover. The top and bottom panels will each measure approximately 84 inches in length by 68 inches in width. The top and bottom panels will then be sewn together on three sides. The top of the cover will remain open. One side of the top end of the duvet cover will be folded over and hemmed, creating plackets for buttons and buttonholes. Approximately two and one-half inches of fabric will be folded over, then refolded over and stitched to itself once again. This will create a flap measuring approximately one and one-half inches wide which is suitable for the attachment of buttons. On the other side of the top end, fabric will be folded over and sewn to itself, creating a flap approximately one inch wide, suitable for the placement of buttonholes. The side portions of the top end of the duvet cover will be sewn closed. This will leave closed portions measuring approximately fourteen inches on each side of the top end, as well as an opening in the center of the top end measuring approximately 56 inches in diameter. Three buttonholes will then be slit and sewn into one of the flaps at the top of the cover and three buttons attached. The finished duvet is then inspected, folded and packaged for export to the United States.

In your April 4, 1996, submission to this office, you state that your client anticipates that between one and three duvet panels will be made from Taiwanese woven fabric. The remaining panels will be made from fabric woven in the People's Republic of China. You request a country of origin ruling for duvet covers which feature between one and three panels made from Taiwanese fabric, as follows:

No. of Taiwanese Fabric Panels Taiwanese Panels as % of Total Fabric
In Duvet
1 12.5%
1,2 37.5%
1,2,3 50.0%

ISSUE:

What is the country of origin of the subject merchandise under the manufacturing scenarios set forth supra?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to the Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 USC Section 3592) new rules of origin will be effective for textile or apparel products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 1996. These rules were published in the Federal Register, 60 Fed. Reg. 46188 (September 5, 1995). Section 102.21, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Section 102.21), sets forth the general rules which determine country of origin. The country of origin of a textile or apparel product will be determined by a hierarchy of rules set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of Section 102.21.

Section 102.21(c)(1) sets forth the general rule for determining the country of origin of a textile or apparel product in which the good is wholly obtained or produced in a single country, territory, or insular possession.

Section 102.21(c)(2) provides for instances where the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under Section 102.21(c)(1). Section 102.21 (c)(2) provides:

"[W]here the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which each foreign material incorporated in that good underwent an applicable change in tariff classification, and/or met any other requirement, specified for the good in paragraph (e) of this section."

Section 102.21(c)(3) governs instances where country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) and where the subject merchandise consists of either a good that was knit to shape in a single country or, except for goods of certain specifically enumerated headings, if the good was not knit to shape and was wholly assembled in a single country.

Section 102.21(c)(4) provides:

"[W]here the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1), (2) or (3) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which the most important assembly or manufacturing process occurred."

Section 102.21(c)(5) provides:

"[W]here the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1), (2), (3) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the last country, territory, or insular possession in which an important assembly or manufacturing process occurred."

In the manufacturing scenarios set forth above, Section 102.21(c)(1) does not provide the relevant country of origin analysis because the duvets are not wholly obtained or produced in a single country.

The duvet covers are classifiable under subheading 6302.31.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Accordingly, Section 102.21(c)(2) directs us to paragraph (e) of this section which states, in pertinent part, that origin is conferred in the following situations:

6301-6306 "[T]he country of origin of a good classifiable under heading 6301 through 6306 is the country, territory, or insular possession in which the fabric comprising the good was formed by a fabric-making process."

In all three manufacturing scenarios presented supra, the fabric comprising the subject merchandise is formed in more than a single country. Accordingly, Section 102.21(c)(2) is inapplicable and our hierarchical application of Section 102.21(c) continues.

Section 102.21(c)(3) does not provide the relevant country of origin analysis inasmuch as the subject duvets are not knit to shape goods and, as articles classifiable under subheading 6302.31.90, HTSUSA, they are specifically exempted from paragraph (c)(3)(ii)'s application.

Section 102.21(c)(4), which looks to the country, territory, or insular possession in which the most important assembly or manufacturing process occurred as conferring origin, similarly fails to provide the appropriate analysis in this situation. In the first manufacturing scenario, you submit that 12.5 percent of the fabric is formed in Taiwan, with the remaining 87.5 percent formed in China. In the second scenario, you submit that 37.5 percent of the fabric is formed in Taiwan, with the remaining 62.5 percent formed in China. In the third scenario, you submit that

50 percent of the duvet's fabric is manufactured in China and the other 50 percent in Taiwan. In all three scenarios, it is impossible to determine which manufacturing process is the most important inasmuch as the top and bottom fabrics are identical and equally meaningful in terms of their importance to the finished duvet covers. Accordingly, we turn to Section 102.21(c)(5) which requires that in instances where the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1), (2), (3) or (4), origin will be conferred in the country in which an important assembly or manufacturing process last occurred. In the three scenarios presented to this office, the country in which an important assembly process last occurred is Hong Kong.

HOLDING:

In all three manufacturing scenarios, the country of origin for the subject duvet covers is Hong Kong.

The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in section 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect.

Should it be subsequently determined that the information furnished is not complete and does not comply with 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1), the ruling will be subject to modification or revocation. In the event there is a change in the facts previously furnished, this may affect the determination of country of origin. Accordingly, if there is any change in the facts submitted to Customs, it is recommended that a new ruling request be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Tariff Classification Appeals

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: