Classification of women's hooded pullover; jacket v. shirt; proper classification, shirt, subheading 6211.42.0050, HTSUSA

HQ 953010 December 18, 1992 CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 953010 jb CATEGORY: Classification Diane L. Weinberg, Esq. Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. 505 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-1106 RE: Classification of women's hooded pullover; jacket v. shirt; proper classification, shirt, subheading 6211.42.0050, HTSUSA Dear Ms. Weinberg: This is in response to your letter, dated November 27, 1992, on behalf of your client, Angelique Imports Inc., regarding the classification of a women's hooded pullover from India. On September 25, 1992, the Area Director, JFK Airport, issued ruling DD 877853 in response to a ruling request from Angelique Imports. That ruling classified a garment, Style 60752 as a cotton jacket in subheading 6202.92.2060, HTSUSA, with a 335 quota category. Subsequently, Angelique Imports asked the National Import Specialist, New York Seaport, that the finding in that ruling be extended to other garments in its product line. That request was denied. Subsequent garments, were given a blouse classification in subheading 6211.42.0050, HTSUSA, with a 341 quota category. You ask that we confirm the application of DD 877853 to all of the series 36 and 60 garments regardless of pattern or weight. At our request, a report on the subject was prepared by the National Import Specialist and submitted to this office. Our findings are as follows: 1. The Pre-entry Classification portion of the Pre- Importation Review Program is geared to accommodate ranges of merchandise; a ruling on one style does not suffice. To do otherwise results in a manipulation of the ruling process, by allowing an importer to submit a single style at a time until a favorable ruling is obtained. If Angelique Imports had intended to have its entire line governed by one ruling, it should have applied for a Pre-Classification ruling for the line in its entirety- and not just one particular style number. 2. Previous to receiving DD 877853, Angelique Imports already had a shipment detained at JFK for a 341 category visa. Without alluding to that information, it went ahead and requested a ruling on Style 60752 despite that detained shipment. Thus, only after obtaining a favorable ruling, did it request that the finding in DD 877853 be extended to its entire line. 3. Style 60752 was classified solely on the basis of its physical features, i.e., without the benefit of an examination of the product line in its entirety. 4. Though the classification of garments is aided by the use of the quota category guidelines (CIE 13/88), they are only to be regarded as one of the many classification tools. The CIE are used principally to ensure uniformity of classification but do not constitute rigid rules of classification. 5. In this case, Style 60752 is distinguishable from other articles in the series. The presence of these distinguishing features are determinative of the articles' classification. These distinguishing features can be identified as follows: a. though the other styles are made from fabric weight heavier than Style 60752, it is still considered a shirting fabric and its weight, relative to Style 60752, and not determinative of its classification. b. the fit, cut and sizing of the garment do not indicate use as a jacket, i.e., designed to be worn over other outer garments. Based on the foregoing, it is our belief that as the garments at issue will not be worn over other outer garments, but will be worn as a shirt, the garments should be so classified. Accordingly, we find that the classification determination issued in DD 877853 does not have application to any other style garments in the 36 and 60 series. Proper classification of the subject garments is in subheading 6211.42.0050, HTSUSA, which provides for blouses, shirts, and shirt-blouses, sleeveless tank styles and similar upper body garments, excluded from heading 6206. The applicable rate of duty is 8.6 percent ad valorem and the textile category is 341. As a result of the foregoing, DD 877853 is currently under review. As such, you will be afforded the opportunity to submit further arguments in regard to that issue. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division