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 > 1992 NY Rulings > NY 0871750 - NY 0871905 > NY 0871824

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

NY 871824

March 5, 1992

CLA-2-58:S:N:N3H:351 871824


TARIFF NO.: 5810.92.0080; 5810.92.0040; 3926.90.3500

Ms. Rochelle Prashker
M & J Trimming Co., Inc,
1008 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

RE: The tariff classification of beaded embroidered fabrics and fringes from Hong Kong.

Dear Ms. Prashker:

In your letter dated February 24, 1992, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

You have submitted five samples of beaded fringes, article nos. F083 and F069, and beaded embroidered fabrics, article nos. BT180, SVB640 and SV1CT. The continuous decorative fringe items, article nos. F083 and F069, have rows of dangling plastic beads, 1 - 2 1/2 inches in length, sewn on to narrow woven cotton fabrics, 3/8 - 1/2 inch wide. The narrow woven fabric portions of the beaded fringes are used for the convenience of transportation and to facilitate the attachment of the items when sewn onto ladies' wearing apparel. The narrow ground fabric will not be visible after the trimming is sewn onto the garment. Article no. BT180 consists of a continuous length of 3 rows of black plastic bugle beads. It measures approximately 1/4 inch in width. The bugle beads almost completely obscure the woven rayon ground fabric to which they are sewn. The last two items, article nos. SVB640 and SV1CT, are made with round or teardrop- shaped plastic beads and plastic sequins sewn on to woven rayon fabrics. The beads on these two self-contained motifs almost completely obscure the ground fabrics. The article no. SVB640 motif also contains 5 rows of dangling beads. We assume that all of the merchandise which is stated to be shipped from Hong Kong is also made in that country.

The applicable subheading for the beaded fabric in continuous lengths, article no. BT180, will be 5810.92.0080, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, other embroidery, of man-made fibers, other, other. The rate of duty will be 17 percent ad valorem.

The two beaded motifs, article nos. SVB640 and SC1CT, will be classifiable under the provision for embroidery, in the piece, in strips or in motifs, other embroidery of man-made fibers; badges, emblems and motifs, in subheading 5810.92.0040, HTS. The rate of duty will be 8.4 percent ad valorem.

The two beaded fringes, article nos. FO83 and F069, will be classifiable under the provision for other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914, other; articles thereof, not elsewhere specified or included, other, in subheading 3926.90.3500, HTS. The rate of duty will be 6.6 percent ad valorem.

Article no. BT 180 falls within textile category designation 229. Based upon international textile trade agreements, products of Hong Kong are subject to the requirement of an export license.

The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, visa and quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since part categories are the result of international bilateral agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the most current information available, we suggest that you check, close to the time of shipment, the Status Report On Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service, which is available for inspection at your local Customs office.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.


Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: