dvised on behalf of your client, Tots inMind, Inc., that a crib safety tent was classified in subheading6304.91.0040, HTSUSA, textile category 666, the provision for"Other furnishing articles, excluding those of heading 9404:Other: Knitted or crocheted, Of man-made fibers." In HQ 088553,issued November 6, 1991, that ruling was affirmed.

HQ 960934 September 30, 1997 CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 960934 GGD CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 9403.90.6000 Mr. John F. Cowen Philip T. Cowen Customhouse Brokers 1918 East Elizabeth Brownsville, Texas 78520 Dear Mr. Cowen: In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 087844, issued November 30, 1990, you were advised on behalf of your client, Tots in Mind, Inc., that a crib safety tent was classified in subheading 6304.91.0040, HTSUSA, textile category 666, the provision for "Other furnishing articles, excluding those of heading 9404: Other: Knitted or crocheted, Of man-made fibers." In HQ 088553, issued November 6, 1991, that ruling was affirmed. In Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States (hereinafter Bauerhin), 914 F. Supp. 554, Slip Op. 95-206 (1995 Ct. Intl. Trade), aff'd, Slip Op. 96-1275 and Slip Op. 96-1276, decided April 2, 1997, the Court of International Trade (CIT) held, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed, that textile canopies designed for use with child automobile safety seats were classified as parts of the car seats for which they were designed under heading 9401, HTSUS. This letter is to advise you that, in HQ 959262, issued May 6, 1997, copy attached, this office followed the rationale of the CIT and CAFC in Bauerhin, and classified similar merchandise - a "Cozy Crib Tent" - in subheading 9403.90.6000, HTSUSA, the provision for "Other furniture and parts thereof: Parts: Other: Of textile material, except cotton," with a general column one rate of duty of 2.8 percent ad valorem. We find that the crib -2- safety tent subject to HQ 087844 and HQ 088553, is classified in subheading 9403.90.6000, HTSUSA, and by operation of law, the Bauerhin case revoked the two referenced rulings. Under the Customs Modernization provisions of the NAFTA Implementation Act, it is the responsibility of the importer to classify and appraise merchandise. The U.S. Customs Service, although under no obligation to inform you of the foregoing, is in the spirit of informed compliance notifying you of the consequences of the Bauerhin case. This letter and attachment should be brought to the attention of Customs when entry is made for your merchandise, either by referencing this ruling letter and attachment or by providing a copy. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division Attachment