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 > 1997 HQ Rulings > HQ 959946 - HQ 960089 > HQ 960059

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 960059

---

February 24, 1997

CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 960059 CAB

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

Arthur W. Bodek, Esq.
Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C.
One Astor Plaza
1515 Broadway
43rd Floor
New York, NY 10036-8901

RE: Country of origin of a polo shirt; Section 102.21(c)(4), Custom Regulations

Dear Mr. Bodek:

This is in response to your inquiry of December 12, 1996, requesting a country of origin determination for a polo shirt pursuant to Section 102.21, Customs Regulations, 19 CFR ?102.21, on behalf of your client, Miss Erika, Inc. A sample was submitted for examination and will be returned to you under separate cover.

FACTS:

The merchandise at issue is a 100 percent cotton knit polo-style shirt. The garment contains a partial front placketed opening with a button means of closure, short sleeves with applied ribbed knit cuffs, and a flat knit collar. The following manufacturing operations are to be performed in China: cutting the fabric into garment components, attaching the placket and collar, joining the shoulder seams, and sewing cuffs to the sleeve ends. The unfinished garment is then transported to Cambodia for further manufacturing which includes: finishing the armholes by attaching each of the left and right sleeves to the body of the garment, sewing and finishing the right and left side seams, hemming the bottom, attaching the labels, forming the buttonholes on the placket, sewing the buttons to the placket, cutting all loose threads, inspecting, ironing, packing, and shipping to the United States.

ISSUE:

What is the country of origin of the subject merchandise?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (codified at 19 USC Section 3592), new rules of origin were effective for textile products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 1996.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 to determine country of origin. Thus, the country of origin of a textile product is 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 was wholly obtained or produced. As the subject garment has not been wholly obtained or produced in a single country, this section is inapplicable. 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, in pertinent part:

Where 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(e) provides, in pertinent part:

Specific rules by tariff classification. The following rules shall apply for purposes of determining the country of origin of a textile or apparel product under paragraph (c)(2) of this section:

6101-6117 (1) If the good is not knit to shape and consists of two or more component parts, a change to heading 6101 through 6117 from unassembled components, provided that the change is the result of the good being wholly assembled in a single country, territory, or insular possession.

The subject shirt is classifiable under Heading 6105, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).

Section 102.21(c)(2) is not applicable to the subject shirt as it is not wholly assembled in a single country.

Section 102.21(c)(3) provides for goods that have been wholly assembled (with certain enumerated exceptions) in a single country, insular possession, or territory or which are knit to shape. Section 102.21(c)(3) is therefore inapplicable to the subject merchandise as it has not been wholly assembled in a single country, insular possession, or territory, nor is it a knit to shape good.

Section 102.21(c)(4) provides the first multi-country rule. Section 102.21(c)(4), states the following:

Where 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.

In this instance, the most important assembly operation occurs in China, as it is in this country where the placket and collar are sewn and attached, the shoulder seams are joined, and the cuffs are attached to the sleeve ends. Thus, in accordance with Section 102.21(c)(4), the country of origin of the subject polo shirt is China.

You contend that the country of origin of the subject shirt is Cambodia. You state that the joining of the front and back components along the side seams, attaching the sleeves, and performing all the finishing operations in Cambodia constitute the most important assembly or manufacturing process. You further state that "19 CFR ? 102.21(b)(6) specifically characterizes collars, cuffs and plackets as mere minor subassemblies' which will not affect the status of a good as wholly assembled in a single country, thus indicating that the operations associated with such subassemblies are to be accorded little importance' from a country of origin standpoint." You therefore conclude that "the operations performed in China which include sewing the placket and collar and attaching the cuffs to the sleeves are to be accorded little importance' in determining the country of origin of the polo shirt."

Customs agrees with your characterization and reference to Section 102.21(b)(6) which determines that the collars, cuffs and plackets are mere "minor subassemblies" which will not affect the status of a good as wholly assembled in a single country. However, this statement directly relates back to whether a good is to be considered "wholly assembled" in spite of the construction of minor subassemblies which includes the manufacturing of collars, cuffs and plackets. The attachment or sewing of these minor subassemblies to other garment components, on the other hand, is not considered minor when making a country of origin determination.

You cite two Headquarter Ruling Letters (HQs) 958655 of May 24, 1996, and 958640 of June 14, 1996, in support of your position that the country of origin of the instant merchandise is Cambodia. You state the following:

[I]n Ruling No. HQ 958655 of May 24, 1996, Customs addressed the country of origin of a turtleneck (referred to as Turtleneck Product Plan I) undergoing virtually the same processing as described herein. Specifically, the fabric components were cut, the shoulder seams was sewn and the collar was sewn and attached in Country "A"; the sleeves were attached and the side seams were sewn in Country "B". In concluding that Country "B" was the country of origin, Customs observed that the aforementioned operations contributed to the most important assembly being performed in such country. Ruling HQ 958655 also addressed the country of origin of a t-shirt (referred to as T-Shirt Product Plan I) also involving the cutting of components, sewing of the shoulder seams and attaching the collar in Country "A" and the attaching of the sleeves and the sewing of the side seams in Country "B". In again concluding that Country "B" was the country of origin, Customs observed that such country was "the last country in which an important assembly occurred (i.e., where the side seams are sewn and the sleeves are attached)" (emphasis added). Similarly in Ruling no. HQ 958640 of June 14, 1996, Customs addressed the country of origin of a shirt referred to as a "basic polo shirt". As with the submitted polo shirt, the components of the "basic polo shirt" were cut in Country "A"; the shoulder seams, placket and collar were also sewn in such country. In Country "B", the sleeves were attached, the side seams were sewn and the finishing operations were performed. Once again, Customs concluded that Country "B" was the country of origin.

Customs is of the opinion that the instant manufacturing operations are distinguishable from the manufacturing operations noted in the cited HQ rulings. For example, in HQ 958655, the manufacturing of the turtleneck of Production Plan I involved joining shoulder seams and the attachment of a collar in Country A, while the sleeves were attached, the side seams joined, and the attachment of the rib band cuffs to the sleeves were completed in Country B. Whereas in this instance, the subject shirt involves the sewing and attachment of a placket, the sewing and attachment of the collar, the joining of the shoulder seams, and the attachment of the cuffs to the sleeve ends in China as compared to the attachment of the sleeves, the sewing of the side seams, and the completion of other minor finishing and assembly operations in Cambodia. Therefore, the manufacturing operations occurring in China are considerably more important than those occurring in Cambodia. Moreover, the manufacturing operations occurring in China in this instance are also considerably more important than the manufacturing operations taking place in Country B in the cited ruling.

You also address the country of origin of T-Shirt Production Plan I at issue in HQ 958655. It is important to note in that particular instance Customs could not determine which operations were most important and concluded in accordance with Section 102.21(c)(5) that the last country , Country B, in which an important assembly occurred was the country of origin. Country B happened to be the country where the side seams were sewn and the sleeves where attached. Consequently, Customs did not deem the sewing of the side seams and the sleeves the most important assembly or manufacturing process.

Similarly, you refer to HQ 958640 in support of your position that the country of origin of the subject shirt is Cambodia. The manufacturing operations therein are as follows, in Country A, the collar was attached to the front and back panels, the placket was attached to the front panel and the assembly operations in Country B included attaching the sleeves to the panels, sewing the side seams, and attaching the sleeve bands. Your reference to HQ 958640 implies that Customs conclusion was based on the fact that the operations performed in Country B which are similar to, but not identical, to the operations performed in Cambodia, were the most important. However, Customs determined in HQ 958640 that the assembly operations completed in both Countries A and B were of equal importance and pursuant to Section 102.21(c)(5), Country B was the country of origin since it was the last country where an important assembly operation occurred.

Finally, in HQ 958930, dated May 28, 1996, Customs determined the country of origin of a polo-style shirt very similar in construction to the subject polo shirt. In Scenario 2 of that ruling, in Country A, fabric was cut, shoulder seams were joined, cuffs were attached to sleeves, and the collar was attached. In Country B, the sleeves were attached and the side seams were sewn. Customs determined that the country of origin of the polo shirt pursuant to Section 102.21(c)(4) was Country A. This manufacturing scenario is similar to the instant manufacturing scenario with the exception of the creation of the buttonholes and the attachment of the buttons in Cambodia. Consequently, this ruling supports Customs conclusion that the country of origin of the instant polo shirt is China.

HOLDING:

The country of origin of the polo shirt in accordance with Section 102.21(c)(4) is China.

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 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
Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling