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 > 2003 HQ Rulings > HQ 115170 - HQ 116013 > HQ 116013

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 116013




October 27, 2003

ENT-1-07:RR:IT:EC 116013 TLS

CATEGORY: ENTRY

Area Director
JFK International Airport Area c/o Chief, Liquidation and Protest Branch Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
JFK International Airport, Building 77
Jamaica, New York 11430

RE: Protest No. 4701-03-100482; 19 CFR 141.113(b); 19 CFR 113.62; 19 CFR 102.21(c)

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum of June 20, 2003, forwarding an application for further review, filed by Mulitex USA, Inc. (“Mulitex”), of a decision of your office to demand the redelivery of merchandise pursuant to 19 CFR 141.113.(b). The protest concerns a demand for redelivery of textile articles issued because the importer allegedly did not accurately represent the country of origin of the imported merchandise to Customs.

FACTS:

The record indicates that 1,150 dozen men’s cotton trousers were entered on July 30, 2002 at the JFK Airport Customs Port. The merchandise was released that same day. The country of origin is indicated as Saudi Arabia on the entry documents. The invoices submitted for the fabric trims used to manufacture the trousers indicate that the country of origin of the fabric is United Arab Emirates. However, the “Multiple Country Declaration” document prepared by the manager of the Manahi Garment Factory, the facility in Saudi Arabia where the trousers were manufactured, indicates that the country of origin for the materials used (i.e., “100% cotton mens [sic] woven jeans fabric trims”) is China. On January 21, 2003, your office issued a Notice to Redeliver to Mulitex for “failure to establish proper country of origin.” On April 14, 2003, Mulitex filed the subject protest, stating that the demand for redelivery “was improperly issued.”

ISSUE:

Whether the Notice to Redeliver, issued pursuant to 19 CFR 141.113(b), is proper in light of submitted information regarding the country of origin of the fabric used to manufacture the merchandise at issue.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially, we note that the subject protect was timely filed under the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions for protests. See 19 U.S.C. §1514 and 19 CFR 174. The date of decision (i.e., Notice to Redeliver) as to which this protest is made is January 21, 2003, and the date of this protest is April 14, 2003. We also note that a demand for redelivery is protestable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1514(a)(4).

Under 19 CFR 141.113(b), for purposes of determining whether the country of origin of textiles and textile products subject to the provisions of 19 CFR 12.130 has been accurately represented to Customs, the release from Customs custody of any such textile or textile product shall be deemed conditional during the 180-day period following the date of release. If the Port Director finds during the conditional release period that a textile or textile product is not entitled to admission into the commerce of the United States because the country of origin of the textile or textile product was not accurately represented to Customs, he shall promptly demand its return to Customs custody. Under 19 CFR 113.62(d), any demand for redelivery will be made no later than 30 days after the date that the merchandise was released or 30 days after the end of the conditional release period (whichever is later).

The protestant contends that 19 CFR 102.21(c)(3)(ii) and 19 CFR 102.21(e) provide that the country where the fabric was assembled into a whole product is the country of origin of the entire textile product. The protestant also cites to 19 CFR 12.130(e)(iv) to support this contention. The protestant further claims that it cannot provide proof of purchase of the fabric from China for business confidentiality reasons.

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 imported in 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. Part 134 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. §1304.

Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, codified at 19 U.S.C. §3592, provides rules of origin "for purposes of the customs laws and the administration of quantitative restrictions" for textiles and apparel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on and after July 1, 1996. Section 102.21 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 102.21), implements section 334. The country of origin of a textile or apparel product is determined by hierarchical application of the general rules set forth in 19 CFR 102.21(c)(1) through (c)(5). A "textile or apparel product" for purposes of these rules of origin is defined in 19 CFR 102.21(b)(5), in part, as any good classifiable in Chapters 50 through 63 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Therefore, the 19 CFR 102.21 rules of origin are applicable to the imported pants at issue here. See Customs ruling HQ 561263 (January 29, 1999).

Under 19 CFR 102.21(c)(1), it is stated that "The country of origin of a textile or apparel product is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which the good was wholly obtained or produced." As the subject goods are not wholly obtained or produced in a single country, territory, or insular possession, 19 CFR 102.21(c)(1) is not applicable in this case.

Under 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2), it is stated that "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."

According to the Entry Summary (Customs Form 7501) the trousers were entered under HTSUSA subheading 6203.42.4010. The applicable rule in 19 CFR 102.21(e) is as follows: “6201-6208 ... (1) If the good consists of two or more component parts, a change to an assembled good of heading 6201 through 6208 from unassembled components, provided that the change is the result of the good being wholly assembled in a single country, territory, or insular possession.”

As noted above, the fabric trim panels were obtained in China and assembled into men’s cotton trousers in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, since the fabric trim panels were wholly assembled in Saudi Arabia, the country of origin of the pants is Saudi Arabia for the purposes of determining whether the country of origin of the men’s cotton trousers has been accurately represented to Customs pursuant to 19 CFR 141.113(b). In this case, Mulitex accurately represented Saudi Arabia as the country of origin of the men’s cotton trousers on entry documents, specifically the Entry Summary (Customs Form 7501), the Certificate of Origin, and the “Multiple Country Declaration” submitted by the manager of the garment factory in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we find that the Notice to Redeliver in this case was improperly issued.

HOLDING:

Following a thorough analysis of the facts as well as of the law and applicable precedents, we have determined that the protest for relief should be granted as specified in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling.

Sincerely,

Glen E. Vereb
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: