Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for July 14
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 14 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
H305865: Affirmation of NY N305595; The tariff classification of men’s upper body garments
| HTS: 6109.10.00, 16.5%, “T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted: Of cotton.” |
| Issue: Whether the garments are classifiable as sleepwear. The retailer says its design team has made an effort to design the sleep teas with a more generous fit for a comfortable sleepwear design. It also says it will be marketing and advertising the garments at issue as sleepwear separates, both online and in stores. Specifically, these garments will be marketed as sleep tees and pajama tops, which indicates that they are intended to be worn for sleeping. |
| Item: A men’s T-shirt constructed from 60% cotton, 40% polyester, jersey knit fabric that weigh 185 grams per square meter, featuring a rib knit crew neckline, short, hemmed sleeves, a patch pocket on the left chest, and a straight, hemmed bottom; and a men’s upper body garment constructed from 60% cotton, 40% polyester, jersey knit fabric that weigh 185 grams per square meter, featuring a rib knit crew neckline, long, hemmed sleeves, a patch pocket on the left chest, and a straight, hemmed bottom. |
| Reason: The garments are not characterized by a sense of privacy as is typical of sleepwear. They are not ambiguous in design. There is nothing about the styling, fabric, cut, or construction of these garments that would indicate that they were designed primarily for wear to bed. Rather, these garments may easily be worn for “home comfort” and “lounging.” Although the garments at issue may also be worn for sleeping, they are not classified as sleepwear based on this possible additional use. Moreover, consistent with the discussion above, we conclude that because the garments at issue are not ambiguous in design, consideration of extrinsic evidence, such as marketing materials, is not warranted. |
| Ruling Date: July 12, 2021 |
H305310: Request for Reconsideration of NY N305328; Classification of a brow grooming set from China
| HTS: 8203.20.2000, 4%, “Files, rasps, pliers (including cutting pliers), pincers, tweezers, metal cutting shears, pipe cutters, bolt cutters, perforating punches and similar handtools, and base metal parts thereof: Pliers (including cutting pliers), pincers, tweezers and similar tools, and parts thereof: Tweezers.” Secondary classification: 9903.88.03, 25%. |
| Issue: Whether the merchandise is eligible for a temporary reduction in duty under subheading 9902.15.18, which provides for “Tweezers (provided for in subheading 8203.20.20).” This provision, by virtue of legislative action, provided for a temporary reduction in the rate of duty for “tweezers (provided for in subheading 8203.20.20, HTUS)”, to 1.5% ad valorem. |
| Item: A Brow Set consisting of a stainless steel tweezer, a plastic and nylon mascara wand and a polyurethane storage sleeve. It is packaged for retail sale in a plastic pouch with a slide-fastening closure. |
| Reason: The terms of subheading 9902.15.18 only cover tweezers that are provided for in subheading 8203.20.20. Subheading 8203.20.20 does not describe brow sets. Moreover, subheading 9902.15.18 does not include any language regarding tweezers put up in sets. As the language of the chapter 99 temporary duty reduction does not describe the entire brow set, subheading 9902.15.18 is inapplicable to the brow set. |
| Ruling Date: July 9, 2021 |
H311980: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-18-101217; Classification of Women’s Pants
| HTS: 6204.62.8011, 16.6%, "Women’s or girls’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, dresses, skirts, divided skirts, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Women’s trousers and breeches: Blue denim.” |
| Issue: Whether the subject women’s pants are constructed “Of cotton” and classified under subheading 6204.62, or whether they are constructed “Of other textile materials” and classified under subheading 6204.69. The importer argues that the women’s pants are constructed mostly of ramie, and should not be classified as made "of cotton." |
| Item: Several styles of women’s blue denim pants. A CBP laboratory analysis found them composed of 70.2%-77.8% cotton and 22.2%-29.8% polyester/spandex yarns by weight. Subsequent analysis by a private laboratory requested by the importer found them composed of 48.78%-54.15% ramie, 25.9%-29.89% cotton, 19.10%-20.49% polyester, and 0.85%-0.86% spandex. |
| Reason: Where there is a conflict between the results obtained by a Customs laboratory and those obtained by private or independent laboratories, Customs will, in the absence of evidence that the testing procedure or methodology utilized by the Customs laboratory was flawed, accept the Customs laboratory report. The importer has not shown that CBP’s laboratory methods or results were erroneous, and therefore has not rebutted CBP laboratory’s presumption of correctness. |
| Ruling Date: April 30, 2021 |