United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1990 HQ Rulings > HQ 0083893 - HQ 0083978 > HQ 0083893

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 083893

May 17, 1989

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 083893 CMR


TARIFF NO.: 4203.10.4030

John Hult
350 Fifth Ave.
Suite 3205
New York, New York 10118

RE: Reconsideration of NYRL 834651 of January 20, 1989

Dear Mr. Hult:

This ruling is in response to your letter of February 2, 1989, requesting reconsideration of NYRL 834651 in which a men's leather and knit acrylic jacket was classified as a textile garment subject to quota and visa restraints.


The sample submitted for consideration in NYRL 834651 was a men's jacket, style MMD3, made of knit acrylic fabric and cow split suede. The front of the jacket and a five inch strip across the shoulders were leather. The rest of the back, the sleeves, and most of the collar were of knit textile. It was indicated that the garment was 55 percent leather and 45 percent man-made fibers by weight.

The jacket was classified as a knit jacket in subheading 6101.30.1010, HTSUSA, which provides for men's or boys' overcoats, carcoats, etc., and similar articles, other than those of heading 6103, knit or crocheted, of man-made fibers, containing 25 percent or more by weight of leather.

The decision to classify the jacket as a textile garment was based on a belief that the essential character was undeterminable and therefore, under GRI 3(c), classification would be determined by which of the competing headings occurred last in the schedule.


Was the submitted jacket, style MMD3, properly classified as a textile garment in NYRL 834651?


Determination of essential character is understandably difficult. In an effort to ease that difficulty and inject objectivity and uniformity into the determination, Customs has issued a Memorandum to the Area Director, New York Seaport, File #084118 of April 13, 1989 (copy attached), establishing criteria to be applied in the classification of garments consisting of different fabrics or of textile and nontextile components.

When one component of an upper body garment exceeds 60 percent of the visible surface area of the garment, that component will determine the classification of the garment unless the other component:

(1) forms the entire front of the garment; or (2) provides a visual and significant decorative effect (e.g. a substantial amount of lace); or
(3) is over 50 percent by weight of the garment; or (4) is valued at more than 10 times the primary component.

If no component comprises 60 percent of the visible surface area, or if any of the above four listed conditions are present, classification will be according to GRI 3(b) or 3(c), as appropriate.

Customs believes that the textile portion of style MMD3 exceeds 60 percent of the visible surface area of the garment. Since the leather portion forms the entire front of the garment (exclusive of the rib knit waistband), classification is to be decided by application of GRI 3(b) or 3(c), as appropriate.

New York Customs was unable to decide which component gave style MMD3 its essential character. Therefore, they classified it as a textile garment by applying GRI 3(c) which directs classification according to the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.

Having reviewed the file and in accordance with File #084118, we believe that the essential character is derived from the leather component of the jacket. The leather forms the entire front of the jacket (exclusive of the rib knit waistband). It provides a significant visual effect, and is over 50 percent by weight of the garment. Taking these factors into consideration, we believe they influence the essential character determination in favor of the leather.


The jacket at issue, style MMD3, is classifiable as a leather jacket in subheading 4203.10.4030, HTSUSA, dutiable at 6 percent ad valorem.

NYRL 834651 of January 20, 1989, is hereby revoked in its entirety. This action is taken is accordance with 19 CFR 177.9(d).


John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: