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 > 2001 HQ Rulings > HQ 962742 - HQ 963219 > HQ 962871

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 962871




April 18, 2001

CLA2 RR:CR:TE 962871 SG

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO: 6203.42.4015; 6203.42.4050

Mr. Kevin Maher
C-Air Customhouse Brokers
International Freight Forwarders
153-66 Rockaway Boulevard
Jamaica, New York 11434

RE: Classification of men’s shorts, and pants; sleepwear vs. loungewear

Dear Mr. Maher:

This is in response to your letter of March 18, 1999, on behalf of your client, RCJM Apparel/South Street Ind., requesting a binding classification ruling on two men’s garments manufactured in India, pursuant to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Two samples were submitted, a pair of shorts and a pair of pants.

FACTS:

The sample identified as style 6b946 is a pair of men’s woven cotton pants. It has an elasticized waist with a functional drawstring, a fly with a substantial one- button closure, side seam pockets, rear patch pocket with one-button closure, and hemmed leg bottoms. It is described as a “dorm pant.”

The sample identified as style 7b946 is a pair of men’s woven cotton shorts. It has an enclosed waistband, a fly with a substantial one-button closure, hemmed bottoms and no pockets. It is described as a “dorm pant.”

ISSUE:

Whether the subject merchandise is properly classifiable as sleepwear under heading 6207, HTSUS, or as outerwear garments under heading 6203, HTSUS?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's taken in order.

Heading 6207, HTSUS, provides for, inter alia, men’s nightshirts, pajamas and similar articles. Customs has consistently ruled that pajamas are generally twopiece garments worn for sleeping. Onepiece garments such as sleep shorts and sleep pants used for sleeping are not classifiable as pajamas, instead they fall into a residual provision within heading 6207, HTSUS, for similar articles.

If it is determined that the subject bottoms are classifiable as outerwear or loungewear, the applicable heading for the bottoms is heading 6203, HTSUS, which provides for, inter alia, men’s trousers and shorts.

In determining the classification of garments submitted to be sleepwear, Customs usually considers the factors discussed in two court cases that addressed sleepwear. In Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 549, 552 (1985), aff’d 786 F.2d 144 (CAFC, 1986), the Court of International Trade considered the classification of a garment claimed to be sleepwear. The court cited several lexicographic sources, among them Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which defined “nightclothes” as “garments to be worn to bed.” In Mast, the court determined that the garment at issue therein was designed, manufactured, and used as nightwear and therefore was classifiable as nightwear. Similarly, in St. Eve International, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 224 (1987), the court ruled the garments at issue therein were manufactured, marketed and advertised as nightwear and were chiefly used as nightwear. Finally, in Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 248 (1995), the court was faced with the issue of whether women’s boxerstyle shorts were classifiable as “outerwear” under heading 6204, HTSUS, or as “underwear” under heading 6208, HTSUS. The court stated the following, in pertinent part:

[P]laintiff’s preferred classification is supported by evidence that the boxers in issue were designed to be worn as underwear and that such use is practical. In addition, plaintiff showed that the intimate apparel industry perceives and merchandises the boxers as underwear. While not dispositive, the manner in which plaintiff’s garments are merchandised sheds light on what the industry perceives the merchandise to be.*** Further evidence was provided that plaintiff’s merchandise is marketed as underwear. While advertisements also are not dispositive as to correct classification under the HTSUS, they are probative of the way that the importer viewed the merchandise and of the market the importer was trying to reach.

Additionally, as this office has noted in prior rulings, “the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use.” See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 957809, dated June 21, 1995, citing Mast Industries at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co., 50 CCPA 43, 46. C.A.D. 817 (1963).

Furthermore, we bring your attention to International Home Textile, Inc., Slip Op. 97-31, March 18, 1997, which classified garments similar to those at issue here as loungewear in heading 6103, HTSUS. The court therein stated:

Based upon a careful examination of the loungewear as well as the testimony of the various witnesses, the court finds that the loungewear items at issue do not share that essential character of privateness or private activity. As the parties have already stipulated, the loungewear is used primarily for lounging and not for sleeping. The court finds no basis in the exhibits, the witness testimony, or the loungewear’s construction and design to find that it is inappropriate, at a minimum, for the loungewear to be worn at informal social occasions in and around the home, and for other individual, nonprivate activities in and around the house, e.g., watching movies at home with guests, barbequing at a backyard gathering, doing outside home and yard maintenance work, washing the car, walking the dog, and the like....

In the instant case, a physical examination of the garments at issue reveals several features which make them suitable for modesty purposes. The pants have side seam pockets as well as a rear patch pocket with one-button closure; both the shorts and pants have fly openings with substantial one-button closures and hidden plackets, and hemmed leg bottoms. A substantial one button fly closure is not a useful feature on sleepwear, but on loungewear or a multipurpose garment it serves to ensure modesty. In addition, we note that the rear pocket on the pants is large enough to contain a wallet, even when it is buttoned. A buttoned rear pocket is not a feature that is needed on a sleep garment. This, as well as the other features listed above, are not indicative of sleepwear, but of multipurpose garments that may (and probably will) be principally worn for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textiles, Inc. Finally, although the bottoms may be worn to bed for sleeping, it is our opinion that their principal use is for “home comfort” and lounging. In addition, these bottoms can easily make the transition from inside the home (in a private setting) to outside the home (and a more social environment). See for example HQ 958594 dated January 26, 1996, in which we held that a placketed fly opening with a substantial one button closure on similar bottoms was indicative of multi-purpose garments which will be worn for purposes other than sleeping. In addition, all the samples submitted are made of fabric heavy enough for outdoor use even in cool weather.

In past rulings, Customs has stated that the crucial factor in the classification of a garment is the garment itself. As the court pointed out in Mast, "the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use." Mast at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co., 50 CCPA 43, 46, C.A.D. 817 (1963). However, when presented with a garment which is somewhat ambiguous and not clearly recognizable as sleepwear or underwear or outerwear, Customs will consider other factors such as environment of sale, advertising and marketing, recognition in the trade of virtually identical merchandise, and documentation incidental to the purchase and sale of the merchandise, such as purchase orders, invoices, and other internal documentation. It should be noted that Customs considers these factors in totality and no single factor is determinative of classification as each of these factors viewed alone may be flawed. For instance, Customs recognizes that internal documentation and descriptions on invoices may be selfserving as was noted by the court in Regaliti, Inc. v. United States, SlipOp. 9280 (May 21, 1992).

In your ruling request you advise that the garments will be sold in Aeropostale stores as sleepwear next to the boxer shorts display. In addition, you submitted a letter from the Accessories Assistant Merchandiser of Aeropostale indicating that the two orders they placed for the subject merchandise falls under their sleepwear classification. We note that the Director, National Import Commodity Specialist, in New York, requested additional documentation (such as supply brochures, catalogues, advertising materials) showing how the merchandise was bought and sold, and information (such as the principal use of the submitted samples in the United States). Neither the documentation nor the information were ever provided. In Mast, 9 CIT 549, at 551, the court pointed out that the expert witnesses in that case agreed "that most consumers purchase and use a garment in the manner in which it is marketed." The information you provided with your request for a ruling submitted is a factor to be considered in determining how this garment is marketed and likely to be used by purchasers, though it is not determinative in and of itself.

However, based on our examination of the garments supplied, we find that they are loungewear, i.e., loose, casual clothes that are worn in the home for comfort. Their fabric, construction and design are suitable for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textile, Inc. In addition, the limited information you submitted regarding marketing and sales is, in our opinion, ambiguous as to exactly how it will be marketed. Finally, although the garments may be worn to bed for sleeping, in our opinion their principal use is for lounging.

HOLDING:

The bottoms with a fly opening with a one button closure, side seam pockets, rear patch pocket with one-button closure, and hemmed leg bottoms are classified in subheading 6203.42.4015, HTSUSA, which provides for “Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Trousers and breeches: Men’s: Other.” The applicable general column one rate of duty is 16.9 percent ad valorem and the textile quota category is 347.

The submitted men's shorts with a fly opening with a one button closure and hemmed leg bottoms are classified as men’s woven cotton shorts in subheading 6203.42.4050, HTSUSA, which provides for “Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Shorts: Men’s.” The applicable general column one rate of duty is 16.9 percent ad valorem and the textile quota category is 347.

The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, the visa and quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since part categories are the result of international bilateral agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the most current information available, we suggest you check, close to the time of shipment, the Status Report On Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service which is updated weekly and is available for inspection at your local Customs office.

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
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: