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 NY Rulings > NY 883552 - NY 883685 > NY 883552

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 883552

March 12, 1993

CLA-2-73:S:N:N3:113 883552


TARIFF NO.: 7323.94.0020

Ms. Jacqueline A. Bonace
Blair Corporation
220 Hickory Street
Warren, PA 16366-0001

RE: The tariff classification of cookware sets from Taiwan

Dear Ms. Bonace:

In your letter dated March 1, 1993, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The merchandise is a 7 piece cookware set, product no. 1001. The cookware is constructed of heavy gauge enamel on steel with xylan non-stick interior coating, black phenolic handles and knobs, and stainless steel rims. The set includes a 9 1/2 inch frying pan, a 4 1/2 quart covered dutch oven, a 2 quart covered sauce pan, and a 1 1/2 quart covered sauce pan.

The applicable subheading for the cookware set will be 7323.94.0020, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for table, kitchen or other household articles, of iron or steel, enameled, cooking ware. The rate of duty will be 2.7 percent ad valorem.

Articles classifiable under heading 7323.94.0020, HTS, which are the products of Taiwan may be subject to anti-dumping duties. We recommend that you address any questions as to the scope of the anti-dumping order to:

Office of Antidumping Investigations
Import Administration
International Trade Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230

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: