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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0951182 - HQ 0951307 > HQ 0951294

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 951294

August 28, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951294 SK


TARIFF NO.: 6216.00.3225

Edward Macejka
Swany USA Corporation
Crossroads Industrial Park
Gloversville, N.Y. 12078

RE: Classification of ladies' gloves; woven nylon; vinyl internal reinforcement; knit fourchettes; Stonewall Trading Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482, C.D. 4023 (1970); heading 6216, HTSUSA; HRL 082336 (11/21/88)

Dear Mr. Macejka:

This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1992, requesting classification of ladies' gloves. Two different styles were sent to this office for examination.


Two styles were submitted for examination: style 2206T5 and 2207T5 (no indication was provided as to which glove was which style). Each style is affixed with a tag which reads "1A" and "2A" and the gloves, where it is necessary to differentiate, shall be referred to by these numbers. Styles 1A and 2A are identical in all respects except that each has a different decorative pattern stitched onto the back of the glove and style 2A has a gathered elastic band surrounding the entire wrist. Style 1A has a gathered elastic band extending only across the bottom of the wrist.

The gloves are constructed from woven nylon fabric with a 2mm layer of foam rubber on the inner surface. The gloves feature acrylic knit fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs. The lining consists of 100% cotton knit with "Thinsulate" and 3mm of foam rubber. The gloves have internal textile-backed vinyl reinforcement and foam padding across the back of the knuckles, elasticized wrists, and a hook and clasp. A 1-1/4 inch wide piece of textile-backed vinyl is sewn internally across the palm and is further reinforced by three double rows of external stitching. A separate vinyl piece is sewn under the palm side of the thumb.


Whether the articles at issue are classifiable as ski gloves?


Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.

The threshold question is whether the submitted gloves have been designed for use in skiing and whether they are properly classifiable as "other gloves ... especially designed for use in sports, including ski[ing]", under heading 6216, HTSUSA. Several characteristics deemed indicative of such design were enumerated in Stonewall Trading Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482, C.D. 4023 (1970). In Stonewall, the Court held that certain vinyl gloves were classifiable as "other ski equipment" in item 734.97, TSUS, (now provided for in various HTS subheadings) because the gloves were deemed to have been especially designed for use as ski gloves by exhibiting the following:

1) A hook and clasp to hold the gloves together;

2) An extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb to meet the stress caused by the flexing of the knuckles when the skier grasps the ski pole;

3) An extra piece of vinyl with padding reinforcement and and inside stitching which is securely stitched across the middle of the glove where the knuckles bend and cause stress;

4) Cuffs with an elastic gauntlet to hold the gloves firm around the wrist so as to be waterproof and to keep it securely on the hand.

It is important to recognize that these criteria are not prerequisites mandated of all ski gloves. Rather, they provide a guideline intended to aid in determining whether certain gloves have been designed for use in skiing. These criteria are neither mandatory, nor all-inclusive, and a case by case analysis will be used by Customs in determining whether a glove's design merits classification as a ski glove under heading 6216, HTSUSA. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 082336, dated November 21, 1988, in which Customs noted, "[t]he fact that the court found
certain gloves to be classifiable as other ski equipment cannot be construed as either a limitation or as a blanket approval for any gloves that possess such [the same] features." We further note that even if a glove were to possess all the features enumerated supra, it would not definitively serve to classify the glove as a ski glove; a glove may possess all these features and still be deemed unacceptable for use as a ski glove.

Upon examination of the submitted samples, it is apparent that at least three of the characteristics set forth in Stonewall have been marginally met: the gloves have a hook and clasp, there is an extra piece of padding reinforcement where the knuckles bend, and both gloves have cuffs with elasticized gauntlets. All these features are rather insubstantial in nature. The hook and clasp is of a light plastic that unhooks easily, the reinforcement sewn to the inside of the glove is internal only and the elasticized cuffs do not provide a waterproof barrier sufficiently tight so as to prevent water, snow and ice from entering the glove when skiing.

The second characteristic in Stonewall, which refers to an extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb to meet the stress caused by the flexing of the knuckles when the skier grasps the ski pole, leaves some question as to precisely where along the thumb the vinyl is supposed to be stitched. An examination of both submitted samples reveals that there is an extra piece of vinyl inserted into the palm-side of the thumb. The vinyl does not extend to the thumb crotch (that area which covers the right angle created by thumb and forefinger) nor along the top of the thumb. The purpose of reinforcement is to ensure that gloves are sufficiently strong and durable so as to withstand the rigors of skiing. When the glove is used to grasp a ski pole, very little, if any, of the thumb crotch comes in contact with the ski pole. Reinforcement of the thumb crotch is therefore not necessary as it is the fingers and the top third of the palm which usually come into contact with a ski pole when a conventional grip is used. Also, the thumb is only slightly bent when gripping a ski pole. As there is little bending of the thumb knuckle, the submitted samples need not possess vinyl reinforcement on the top side of the thumb. Accordingly, the vinyl reinforcement which lines only the palm-side of the thumb is adequate for use in skiing.

Our examination of the subject merchandise indicates that while the gloves may technically meet the guidelines set forth in Stonewall, these gloves are nevertheless ill-suited for use in skiing for several reasons. First, the fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs on these styles are constructed from acrylic knit
fibers to which snow tends to adhere. This fabric easily absorbs water and allows that water to pass to the hands of the wearer. Obviously, this is not an acceptable characteristic for a ski glove. Second, the knit cuffs and elasticized wrists on these gloves are not sufficiently tight to prevent snow and water from entering the gloves. For the aforegoing reasons, it is clear that these gloves are not practical for use in skiing.

The Stonewall Court created a rebuttable presumption that a glove possessing all four of the enumerated characteristics has been designed as a ski glove. Customs may consider other factors which effectively refute this presumption. Such factors may include whether the gloves are functionally practicable for use in skiing, whether the gloves appear suitable for use in skiing, and whether the gloves are marketed as ski gloves. While a glove's appearance, and the manner in which it is marketed, are certainly indicators of classification, it is the glove's suitability for use in skiing that is determinative of whether classification as a ski glove is proper. In other words, even if the Stonewall characteristics have been met, a glove is not classifiable as a ski glove if it is not functionally practicable for use as such.

It is Customs' opinion that neither of the gloves in the instant case are properly classifiable as ski gloves. The gloves are not suitable for use in skiing primarily because they would allow a skier's hands to get wet easily by virtue of knit fourchettes and loose cuffs. Moreover, the gloves are advertised in the Swaney catalog simply as "Ladies' Thinsulate Gloves", and not as ski gloves.


The submitted samples are both classifiable under subheading 6216.00.3225, HTSUSA, which provides for gloves, mittens and mitts: impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber: other: with fourchettes... subject to man-made fiber restraints. The applicable rate of duty is 14% ad valorem and the textile quota category is 631.

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 your client 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 updated weekly and is available at your local Customs office.

Due to the nature of the statistical annotation (the ninth and tenth digits of the classification) and the restraint (quota/visa) categories, you should contact your local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of any import restraints or requirements.


John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling