Tariff Classification of Water Resistant Garments With Non-Water Resistant Hoods

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