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 > 2002 HQ Rulings > HQ 965704 - HQ 965773 > HQ 965712

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 965712

---

August 28, 2002

CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 965712 ttd

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO: 6216.00.5820

Marty Langtry
TowerGroup International
1114 Tower Lane
Bensenville, IL 60106

RE: Classification of Gloves

Dear Ms. Langtry:

This is in response to your letter, dated April 16, 2002, on behalf of your client, Ironclad Performance Wear Corp., regarding the classification of six styles of gloves under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Your letter, which was originally submitted to the Customs National Commodity Specialist Division in New York, was referred to this office for reply. Samples were submitted for review.

FACTS:

The articles under consideration are six pairs of gloves, identified as styles GUG, GUO, CCG, WWX, WFG and WUB. Each style is a full-fingered glove with a synthetic leather palmside. Various configurations of irregular shaped padded overlays and underlays and fingertip patches are present on all six styles of gloves. Each style also has fourchettes and knitted spandex back with Ironclad logos. Styles GUG, GUO and WWX have hook and loop fabric wrist closures. Five of the six styles, with the exception of style WFG, are affixed to a 9-inch long by 4-inch wide cardboard promotional card that is to be hung for retail display. On both sides at the top of the cardboard hang tag, the name and purpose of the style is printed in bold white letters on a black background.

The cardboard display hanger for style GUG describes the gloves as “General Utility.” On one side below the words “General Utility” in smaller yellow lettering is the wording “Professional Uses” after which are listed “Landscaping, Equipment Operation, Tool Use.” On the reverse side in considerably smaller yellow lettering are written the words “Specifically designed for use in the sport of Competitive Lumberjacking.”

Style GUO is physically identical to style GUG, except for its orange color on the back of the hand. The display card for style GUO describes the gloves as “General Utility Safety Orange.” The “Professional Uses” listed are “Flagmen, Highways and Airports, Rigging.” On the reverse side in considerably smaller yellow lettering are written the words “Specifically designed for use in the sport of Competitive Lumberjacking.”

For style CCG, the cardboard display hanger describes the style name and purpose as “Cold Condition.” On one side below the words “Cold Condition” in smaller yellow lettering is the wording “Professional Uses” after which are listed “Equipment Operation, Tool Use, Cold Storage.” On the reverse side in considerably smaller yellow lettering are written the words “Specifically designed for use in the sport of Competitive Snowmobile Racing.”

For style WWX, the display card describes the name and purpose as “Wrenchworx.” The “Professional Uses” listed are “Mechanics, Machine Operation, Rigging.” On the reverse side in considerably smaller yellow lettering are written the words “Specifically designed for use in the sport of Auto Racing.”

Style WFG is described, as the “Workforce” glove.

For style WUG, the display card describes the name and purpose as “Women’s Utility.” The “Professional Uses” listed are “Landscaping, Equipment Operation, Traffic Control.” On the reverse side in considerably smaller yellow lettering are written the words “Specifically designed for use in the sport of Equestrian.”

ISSUE:

Whether the merchandise is specially designed for use in sports.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides, in part, that classification decisions are to be “determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.” In the event that goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (EN) constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level (for the 4 digit headings and the 6 digit subheadings) and facilitate classification under the HTSUSA by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRI. While neither legally binding nor dispositive of classification issues, the EN provide commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUSA and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the headings. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127-28 (Aug. 23, 1989).

Subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, provides for, in part, gloves, mittens and mitts, specially designed for use in sports. As this is a "use" provision, to determine whether an article is classifiable in subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, requires consideration of whether the article has particular features that adapt it for the stated purpose. In Sport Industries, Inc. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 470, C.D. 4125 (1970), the court, in interpreting the term "designed for use," under the Tariff Schedules of the United States, the predecessor to the HTSUSA, examined not only the features of the articles, but also the materials selected and the marketing, advertising and sale of the article. The case suggests that, to be classifiable in subheading 6216.00.46, the subject gloves must be shown to be, in fact, specially designed for use in a particular sport.

Concerning the proper classification of sports gloves, numerous other court cases have examined the term "specially designed for use in sport." In American Astral Corp. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 563, C.D. 3827 (1969), the court held that certain gloves were properly classified as lawn tennis equipment because the evidence established that the gloves were specially designed for use in the game of tennis. At the time, the Tariff Schedules of the United States included provisions for tennis equipment covering specially designed protective articles, such as gloves. The court noted the glove's distinguishing characteristics, which set it apart from ordinary gloves worn as apparel. Those features included: (a) an absorbent terry cloth back; (b) a partially perforated lambskin palm designed to aid grip, provide protection, and prevent perspiration by allowing air circulation; (c) fourchettes made from stretch material; (d) elasticized wrist for a snug fit and support; and (e) a button positioned to prevent interference to the player. Additionally, the court considered factors such as the nature of the importer's business, how the gloves were advertised in the trade, the types of stores where the gloves were sold, and the fact that the gloves were sold only in single units and not in pairs. The court also noted that, the fact that the gloves had other possible uses did not preclude their classification as sporting equipment. See, U.S. Customs Service, What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Gloves, Mittens & Mitts, Not Knitted or Crocheted Under the HTSUS, 32 Cust. B. & Dec. 51 (Dec 23, 1998).

In Porter v. United States, 409 F. Supp. 757; 76 Cust. Ct. 97, Cust. Dec. 4641 (1976), the court held that certain motorcross gloves, which possessed features specially designed for use in the sport of motorcross, were accordingly, specially designed for use in sports, even though not used exclusively for the sport of motorcross. In Porter, the court based its conclusion on the fact that motorcross gloves featured special characteristics and construction, specially designed for the sport of motorcross. These characteristics included a shortened palm, a reinforced thumb, an elastic band, protective strips or ribbing, and an out-seam construction. These features complimented the particular protective needs of the driver while racing with the specially designed motorcross bike on a dirt track. It was also shown that motorcross racing encompasses internationally accepted rules and that the American Motorcycle Association Motorcross Competition Rule Book specifically requires certain protective clothing and equipment, of which the motorcross gloves at issue were one type that complied with the requirements for the gloves. While the court noted that the gloves were subject to use outside the sport of motorcross, the plaintiff had already demonstrated that the gloves were primarily designed for the sport of motorcross. Moreover, the features, which made the gloves ideal for the sport of motorcross, rendered them useless or cumbersome for other types of motorcycle riding. Thus, the court in Porter found that the merchandise considered was designed to meet the needs of the sport.

Accordingly, a conclusion that a certain glove is "specially designed" for a particular sport, requires more than a mere determination of whether the glove or pair of gloves could possibly be used in a certain sport. In determining whether gloves are specially designed for use in sports, Customs considers the connection the gloves have to an identified sporting activity, the features designed for that sporting activity, and how the gloves are marketed, advertised and sold in relation to the named sport.

While the term "sport" is not defined by the tariff, in HQ 089849, dated August 16, 1991, Customs noted that common dictionaries defined the term "sport" as "an activity requiring more or less vigorous bodily exertion and carried on according to some traditional form or set of rules, whether outdoors, as football, hunting, golf, racing, etc., or indoors, as basketball, bowling, squash, etc." In Newman Importing Company, Inc. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 375, Cust. Ct. 143, Cust. Dec. 4648 (1976), in finding backpacking to be a sport, the court determined that the term "sport" is not solely defined in terms of competitiveness, but also arises from the development and pursuit of a variety of skills. In this respect, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, Customs found hunting, fishing, canoeing, archery and similar outdoor activities to fall within the purview of "sport." The American College Dictionary (1970) defines the term "sport" as "a pastime pursued in the open air or having an athletic character." Likewise, Webster's New Dictionary of the English Language (2001) defines "sport" as: 1: a source of diversion: PASTIME

2: physical activity engaged in for pleasure.

Notably, the term "sport" appears to also encompass activities in which individuals engage professionally (i.e., professional sports).

In your letter, you referenced Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 964901, dated January 31, 2002, wherein Customs defines the term “sport” according to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition (1983) as:
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing hunting, fishing, etc.

2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.

You claim that the six styles of gloves under consideration are “specifically designed for use in sport,” citing lumberjacking, snowmobile racing, automobile racing, and equestrian [sic] as sporting activities for which the styles of gloves are designed. Of the sports for which you contend the gloves are specially designed, we recognize that automobile racing, snowmobile racing and equestrian [sic], are sporting activities for tariff classification purposes. However, while we acknowledge that the term "sport" may encompass a variety of outdoor and indoor activities, which may or may not have competitive aspects, we do not find that the activity of “lumberjacking” falls within the purview of the term "sport." When there is doubt as to whether a certain activity is a sport for tariff classification purposes, Customs balances a range of factors, which include the degree of bodily exertion, the use of traditional rules, the degree of competitiveness, the origin of the activity, and common recognition as a sport.

In HQ 962745, dated October 25, 1999, in determining whether the activity of “dancing” is a sport, we found that while it may entail competition, require athleticism, involve physical and mental exertion, etc., dance is not a sport. Notwithstanding news accounts about the International Olympic Committee (IOC) taking action to grant provisional recognition to certain dancing as “sports” in the Games program, we found that for Customs purposes, dancing is not a sport.

Here, “lumberjacking” like dancing in HQ 962745, is not a sport. As maintained by the United States Axemen’s Association

USAA is an organization with a primary purpose of advancing “Lumberjack sports in the United States.” (USAA), most of the events performed in lumberjack competitions “evolved from the actual tasks required of lumberjacks prior to the appearance of the chain saw.” See Accordingly, “lumberjacking” does not originate from a recreational pastime as activities typically considered as being sports. Rather, “lumberjacking” is most accurately described as an occupation, not a pastime. While “lumberjacking” contests have stemmed from the trade, these events fall short of establishing “lumberjacking” as a sport for tariff classification purposes. Moreover, while some may consider “lumberjacking” to be a "pastime" and a "physical activity engaged in for pleasure," it has neither gained mainstream acceptance as a sport nor is it a sport in the traditional sense of the word. Thus, although the subject gloves may have features useful in the activity of “lumberjacking,” the gloves are not specially designed for use in sports. We do not find any evidence to support the claim that the subject gloves are specially designed for a sporting activity, as “lumberjacking” is not considered a sport for Customs purposes. Accordingly the styles of gloves, identified as GUG, GUO and WFG, are precluded from classification as specially designed for use in sports.

Even if Customs considers “lumberjacking” to be a sport, none of the six samples under consideration are classifiable as gloves specially designed for use in sports. Notwithstanding the claim printed on each retail hang tag, stating “this glove is specifically designed for the sport” of lumberjacking, automobile racing, snowmobile racing or equestrian [sic], examination of each pair of gloves fails to demonstrate how the gloves’ features are specially designed for use in the identified sports. Furthermore, there is insufficient marketing, advertising and sales of the subject merchandise in the channels of the sports named for which the gloves were allegedly designed.

In HQ 965131, dated October 25, 2001, Customs found that gloves designed for use in the sports of hunting or competitive shooting were designed for use in sports. In HQ 965131, marketing materials were submitted, promoting the benefits and design features of the gloves, which made them ideal for the outdoor sportsman. Moreover, the gloves were marketed through, and sold in, outdoor sporting goods stores that catered to hunters and competitive shooters. Likewise, in HQ 958892, dated October 4, 1996, we found that gloves which were close fitting and unlined with palmside polyurethane coated fabric and nylon knit fourchettes were specially designed for equestrian sports. Based on the detailed advertising, the term "All Purpose" was found to refer to the multiple equestrian activities for which the gloves could be used within the sport.

Comparatively, in HQ 954704, dated November 12, 1993, Customs ruled that lined leather gloves were not "specially designed" for use in the sport of snowmobiling. After examining the gloves and accompanying advertisements, we found that the gloves were equally suited for use as either motorcycle or snowmobile gloves. Therefore, the claim that the gloves were "designed, marketed and sold specifically as snowmobile gloves" was unsupported due to ambiguous advertising. Similarly, in HQ 088374, dated June 24, 1991, Customs ruled that the gloves at issue were not ski gloves, because the importer provided no evidence that they were principally used in, or designed for, the sport of skiing. In HQ 088374, there was no evidence of marketing or sale of the gloves as ski gloves, absent a hang tag including the word "ski." Moreover, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, Customs found that the advertisement accompanying the gloves showed the wearer engaged in non-sport activities such as writing, playing a trumpet, looking through a bag and taking pictures. In that ruling, the gloves (half-fingered with synthetic palm patch) were not considered to be designed, marketed and sold specifically for use as sports gloves.

In HQ 083450, dated August 25, 1989, in determining whether gloves were "specially designed for use in sports," Customs found that a glove designed as a multi-sport glove and used in many different sports did not necessarily satisfy the meaning of "designed for use in sports." In that ruling, we interpreted the term "specially designed for sports" to mean that the gloves must have special design features particular to the identified sport. Comfort, breathability and a reinforced thumb were not sufficient to show that special design features pertained specifically to any one of the sports cited (bicycling, cross-country skiing, ATV-motorcycling racing and boating).

Most recently, in HQ 965157, dated May 14, 2002, Customs ruled that five styles of gloves were not properly classified as specially designed for use in sports. In that ruling, the gloves had some features associated with sports gloves, such as hook and loop closure and synthetic materials. Yet, the gloves were not classifiable under subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, since they were not sufficiently marketed, advertised and sold for use in the sports for which they were allegedly designed. Likewise, in HQ 957848, dated August 10, 1995, we declined to classify the gloves considered (half-fingered with synthetic palm patch) to be "specially designed for sport," since they were not designed, marketed and sold specifically for use as sports gloves.

In this case, after reviewing the marketing and advertising materials, we do not find sufficient evidence to support your claim that any of the subject gloves are specially designed for the sports cited. Essentially, there is a lack of credible advertising and marketing materials showing a substantial association between IronClad and the named sports or that the subject gloves are primarily sold to and used by participants of those sports. For instance, the claim printed on each retail hang tag, stating “this glove is specifically designed for the sport” of lumberjacking, snowmobile racing, automobile racing, or equestrian [sic], is contradicted by the “Professional Uses” listed on the opposite side of the tag. The “Professional Uses” include: Landscaping, Equipment Operation, Tool Use, Flagmen, Highways and Airports, Rigging, Equipment Operation, Cold Storage, Mechanics, and Machine Operation. Moreover, according to IronClad's marketing material, the company provides gloves for the workplace, revealing in part:

Ironclad Performance Wear has revolutionized the way the world looks at gloves. Incorporating the precise features and high tech synthetic materials designed for use in sports, we have created gloves that offer increased protection without compromising dexterity. Available in eight task specific models, Ironclad Gloves help you tackle whatever job is at hand.

See Additional marketing information provides:

The most important connection between you and your tools is your hands, that's why we put so much into our gloves. We studied hand bio-mechanics and engineered these gloves to specific movements and tasks you perform each day on the job. We asked the tradesmen just like you what they need from a pair of gloves and researched hundreds of materials to find the most durable and cool, yet supple. When you try on these gloves you will find that they feel unique and let your hand move the way no other glove does.

In response to the demanding needs of the professional, IronClad Performance Wear offers the first and only line of task specific gloves .

See Absent from the company's marketing materials, either in printed form or on its website, are substantial references to the sporting activities of lumberjacking, snowmobile racing, automobile racing, and equestrian. Review of the retailers of IronClad gloves reveals that the gloves are primarily sold at farm supply centers, hardware stores and industrial supply stores that sell products to workers in a variety of trades. Based on IronClad’s marketing, the subject gloves are not advertised as being sold at retailers such as sporting goods stores, where sports gloves are regularly purchased. See

In your letter, you submitted a list of thirty-one businesses where the subject styles of gloves are sold. However, we find that this list of retail stores fails to support your claim that the gloves are specially designed for use in sports. Of the businesses listed, a substantial percentage (around 50 percent) is plainly outside the sporting goods industry. Moreover, the sporting goods stores listed are neither recognized as national sporting goods stores nor even regional for that matter. Simply because the gloves may be sold in a small number of localized sporting goods stores does not establish that they are specially designed for use in sports.

While we acknowledge that sponsorships and endorsements are forms of marketing and advertising, we do not find that sponsorships and endorsements, by themselves, substantiate a claim that gloves are specially designed for use in sports. Here, we do not find that IronClad’s sponsorship of the “National Timberjack Series” and various racing teams sufficiently establishes that the subject gloves are specially designed for use in sports by way of their marketing, advertising and sale. Moreover, in a press release, the “National Timberjack Series” contradicts IronClad’s emphasis that the gloves, in particular those identified as GUG, GUO and WFG, are “specifically designed for the sport of lumberjacking” by proclaiming that IronClad “manufactures & markets work gloves for specific work related tasks.” See In addition, the submitted photographs of IronClad gloves being worn by numerous endorsers who are involved in various sporting activities falls short of establishing that any of the subject gloves are “specially designed for use in sports.”

In your letter, you cite NY A86298, dated August 8, 1996, and NY B85790, dated June 5, 1997, where Customs classified "Mechanix" gloves as being specially designed for use by mechanics in the sport of automobile racing. You contend that the subject gloves should be treated in the same manner as “Mechanix” and similar gloves. While we acknowledge that the subject gloves may have similar features to “Mechanix” gloves, we do not find that they are physically identical or that the subject gloves should be treated as specially designed for use in sports. Beyond any physical differences between the “Mechanix” gloves and the subject gloves, the marketing, advertising and sale of the “Mechanix” gloves more persuasively illustrate that the gloves were specially designed for use in motor sports.

After a review of NY A86298 and NY B85790, we find that the gloves considered in those rulings, unlike the subject gloves, were specially designed for use in sports. In those rulings, the marketing materials convincingly showed that the gloves were specially designed for use in motorsports racing. The advertising and marketing materials for “Mechanix” gloves focus almost completely on motorsports racing and specifically market the gloves to racing enthusiasts. In fact, the great majority of “Mechanix” printed advertisements are placed in magazines and publications devoted to racing and racing enthusiasts. The printed Mechanix Wear advertisements and catalogs are almost entirely comprised of motorsports pictures, illustrating pit crews engaged in NASCAR, drag racing and motorcross. In addition, the company's website is also vastly devoted to the sport of motor racing, providing recent race results and including multiple Internet links to racing team home pages and NASCAR on the World Wide Web.

Among other factors, we considered the company’s advertising claims that the gloves were "designed with direct input from race teams” and that the company provides the right gloves "No matter what form of motorsports." Mechanix Wear advertising provides in part:

Since it inception, Mechanix Wear has been the leading name in motorsports glove technology. After pioneering our Original Glove design for pit crews in NASCAR back in the late 80’s

Moreover, the gloves considered in those rulings were officially licensed by NASCAR and used by multiple NASCAR racing team pit crews.

In this case, the marketing and advertising fail to demonstrate that the subject gloves have features specially designed for the claimed sports. Unlike HQ 965131 (cited above), in which sufficient marketing materials were submitted that promoted the benefits and design features of the gloves which made them ideal for the outdoor sportsman, similar information does not exist here. Rather, like HQ 954704 (cited above), the claim that the subject gloves are specially designed for sport is supported only by unsubstantiated claims which are ambiguous at best. Accordingly, the subject gloves are not properly classified in subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUSA, as gloves specially designed for use in sports.

While the gloves may indeed be used by some for athletic activities, Customs does not find that the subject gloves are specially designed for use in any of the proclaimed sports, or marketed and sold in channels indicating their use in those sports. The gloves at issue will primarily be worn for industrial non-sport related work and any athletic use will be a secondary or fugitive use. The fact that the subject gloves could have a fugitive use does not remove them from classification according to their primary use, in this case - industrial use. The primary design, construction and function of the subject gloves as industrial gloves determines their classification, whether or not there is an incidental or subordinate function in sports.

As the gloves under consideration are not specially designed for use in sports, they would not be properly classified in subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA. The subject gloves are properly classified in subheading 6216.00.5820, HTSUSA, as "Gloves, mittens and mitts: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: With fourchettes, Other."

Additionally, we acknowledge the fact that a glove may be used for purposes other than sporting activities does not necessarily prevent it from being classified as a glove specially designed for use in sports. The test for principal use is not solely dependent on actual use of the specific merchandise at issue but rather the principal use of that "class or kind" of merchandise to which the goods belong. Determining whether goods fall into a particular "class or kind" of merchandise, requires additional consideration of certain commercial factors, as enumerated by the court in United States v. Carborundum Co., 63 C.C.P.A. 98, 102, 536 F.2d 373, 377, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979, 50 L. Ed. 2d 587, 97 S. Ct. 490 (1976). The factors cited are: the expectation of the ultimate purchaser, channels of trade, general physical characteristics, environment of sale, economic practicality of so using the import, and recognition in the trade of this issue.

In HQ 963746, dated May 16, 2001, we applied the Carborundum factors in finding that disposable latex gloves for non-medical (industrial) use and medical use latex gloves were not of the same "class or kind" of merchandise. In that ruling, the gloves for both the industrial use and medical use were made on the same machines and were composed of the same materials. In fact, the only differences between the gloves were the higher leak resistance and degradation qualities of the medical use gloves. Essentially, the quality differences and marketing of the gloves distinguished the medical use gloves from the industrial use gloves.

Customs determined in HQ 963746 that while any particular glove for industrial use is likely to be physically exactly like a medical use glove, a given box of industrial use gloves would likely contain a higher number of defective gloves than a box of the medical use gloves. In this case, the subject gloves resemble gloves designed specially for sports, with features that include synthetic leather material on the palm, coated fabric reinforcements, knitted fabric fourchettes, and an elasticized wristband with a rubberized tab closure secured with hook and loop fasteners. However, it has not been shown how the individual features or accumulation of them contribute to performance in any of the suggested sports.

In HQ 963746, the expectation of the ultimate purchaser of the medical gloves was the assurance of a higher quality product to the lower quality of the industrial use gloves. In this case, the ultimate purchaser expects that the subject gloves will provide necessary protection to the hands of workers in a variety of trades.

Unlike the latex gloves in HQ 963746, where the industrial use gloves were sold through the same retailers as the medical use gloves, the subject gloves are sold through different channels of trade than gloves used for sports. While the subject gloves are sold through retailers in the industrial and safety industries, gloves specially designed for sport are sold through retailers like sporting goods stores and outdoor outfitters. Moreover, as the industrial gloves did not enter the same industries as the medical use gloves in HQ 963746, the subject gloves do not enter the same trades as gloves designed specially for use in sports.

In HQ 963746, we determined that the distinctions were based on real differences in the use of the gloves, whether or not any particular glove from a box labeled "not for medical use" could theoretically form an effective barrier against blood-borne pathogens and other bodily fluids. The same holds true in this case: the subject gloves which have been designed, marketed and sold for industrial uses are distinctly different than those used in sports whether or not they could theoretically be used in the proclaimed sports.

After determining that the products were actually different in HQ 963746, we concluded that they did not belong to the same class or kind of merchandise. Similarly, balancing the Carborundum factors in this case reveals that the subject gloves are not of the same class or kind of merchandise as those specially designed for use in sports.

HOLDING:

Based on the foregoing, each of the six styles of gloves is classified in subheading 6216.00.5820, HTSUSA, which provides for "Gloves, mittens and mitts: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: With fourchettes, Other." The applicable rate of duty is 21 cents per kilogram plus 10.5 percent ad valorem and the textile restraint category is 631.

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. The Status Report on Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels) is also available on the Customs Electronic Bulletin Board (CEBB) which can be found on the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov.

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,

Myles B. Harmon, Acting Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also:

• Tariff No.: 6216.00.46 - Gloves, mittens & mitts, for sports use, incl. ski & snowmobile, of man-made fibers, not impregnated/coated with plastics or rubber
• Tariff No.: 6216.00.58 - Gloves, mittens & mitts (excl. for sports), not impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber, of mmf, with fourchettes