Embroidery of wearing apparel; 19 U.S.C. 1313(a); 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1)

HQ 224461 June 1, 1993 DRA-4-CO:R:C:E 224461 DHS CATEGORY: Drawback Josephine M. Bifano Import Coordinator The Camelot Company 9865 West Leland Avenue Schiller Park, IL 60176 RE: Embroidery of wearing apparel; 19 U.S.C. 1313(a); 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1) Dear Ms. Bifano: This is in response to your request for a ruling dated January 29, 1993, regarding the application of same condition drawback to knit golf shirts. FACTS: Knit shirts will be imported into the United States from Korea. Upon importation, the shirts will be embroidered with a 'Jack Nicklaus' insignia. Then, exported to various countries. ISSUE: Whether imported knit shirts, on which insignias are embroidered in the United States, qualify for direct identification same condition drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1)? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 1313(j)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1)), provides for the allowance of drawback upon exportation or destruction of duty-paid imported merchandise which (1) is, before the close of the three year period beginning on the date of importation, exported in the same condition as imported, and (2) has not been used in the United States before such exportation or destruction. Incidental operations, such as testing, cleaning, and repacking, performed on the merchandise, not amounting to manufacture or production for drawback purposes, are not treated as a use of that merchandise in the United States. In HRL 222951, dated August 12, 1991, we addressed this identical situation, and concluded that "The act of embroidery is, ..., more than an incidental operation in this case because it changes the condition of the imported article from being a plain shirt to one having a logo and, as such, renders it ineligible for same condition drawback." HRL 222951, also, concluded that the process of embroidering the shirts did not comply with the manufacturing drawback provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) since the shirt was not transformed into a new article, nor had a new and different article emerged with a distinctive name, character or use. The shirts were still shirts. See Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1907) and Rolland Freres, Inc. v. United States, T.D. 47763 (CCPA 1935). HOLDING: Imported shirts, on which insignias are embroidered in the United States, do not qualify for direct identification same condition drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j). Sincerely, John A. Durant, Director