[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31181-31182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14385]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
Tariff Classification of Water Resistant Garments With Non-Water
Resistant Hoods
AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed change of practice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Customs Regulations, on December 5, 1994,
Customs published notice in the Federal Register advising the public
that Customs proposed a change of practice in regard to the
classification of certain imported merchandise consisting of water
resistant jackets with non-water resistant hoods, under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In response to that
notice Customs received comments which were unanimous in opposition to
the proposed change in practice. This document advises the public that
Customs, after analyzing those comments, has decided not to change the
practice in regard to these garments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Withdrawal effective June 13, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL: Josephine Baiamonte, Commercial Rulings
Division, U.S. Customs Service, (202) 482-7050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States is in accordance with the General Rules of
Interpretation (GRI 1). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be
determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative
section or chapter notes.
Heading 6201, HTSUS, provides for, among other things, men's or
boys' anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar
articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets). In Additional U.S.
Note 2 to chapter 62, HTSUS, wherein the term ``water resistant'' is
defined, it states that the ``water resistant'' requirement refers to
the garment. Based on a review of that U.S. Note, Customs was of the
opinion that Additional U.S. Note 2 had not been applied to its proper
effect. Customs believed that the language of that Note did not suggest
that only a portion of a garment be made water resistant in order for
the entire garment to be classifiable as water resistant. Thus, the
test as written, was interpreted to apply to the complete garment.
Accordingly, on December 5, 1994, Customs published a document in
the Federal Register (59 FR 62452) proposing a change of practice
pursuant to Sec. 177.10(c)(1) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
177.10(c)(1)). Customs proposed that if the permanently attached hood
of a water resistant garment is not similarly coated, the garment is
precluded from classification as a water resistant garment.
Discussion of Comments
All of the comments received were in opposition to the change of
practice. Consistently, the argument was made that the essential
function of the water resistant garment is to provide protection from
inclement weather, regardless of the presence of a hood. Furthermore,
it was stated that Additional U.S. Note 2 is silent as to the
``coverage issue'', i.e., the portion of the garment which must be
coated to render it properly classified as a water resistant garment,
and that any restriction in that language was based solely on Customs
interpretation.
Conclusion
Water resistant garments are specifically provided for in Chapter
62, HTSUS. Customs has consistently held that when the outer shell of a
garment is coated, this has been sufficient to impart to the garment,
per se, a water resistant classification. In addition to water
resistance, many garments have characteristic features which
distinguish them from other water resistant garments. For example, some
may have rib knit cuffs and collars, and other decorative trim which
are not water resistant. In other cases, as is the case with the
garments at issue here, the garments feature hoods which may or may not
be permanently attached to the garment, or may be ``tuck away'' hoods
which fold into the collar. In most cases these hoods are not coated.
Regardless of these additional features, the garment itself remains
water resistant. Thus, a water resistant garment with no hood is no
less water resistant than a garment with a hood, particularly when one
considers that [[Page 31182]] even on a garment with a permanently
attached hood or ``tuck away'' hood, the wearer may decide not to
exercise the hood option.
After a careful review of all the comments, it is our decision that
the current practice in regard to these water resistant garments is
correct. That is to say, water resistant garments with non-water
resistant hoods (whether or not attached, or tuck-away) are properly
classifiable within the appropriate provisions of Chapter 62, HTSUS,
for water resistant garments.
Samuel H. Banks,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: May 19, 1995.
Timothy G. Skud,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-14385 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
