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 > 1995 NY Rulings > NY 804597 - NY 804746 > NY 804677

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 804677

December 2, 1994

CLA-2-*:S:N:N6:341- 804677


TARIFF NO.: 4202.92.3030

Mr. John Backman
The Pet Post Inc.
1647 33rd Avenue
San Francisco, Ca. 94122

RE: The tariff classification of a pet carrier from Hong Kong or Taiwan

Dear Mr. Backman:

This classification decision under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) is being issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). Your sample is being returned as requested.

DATE OF INQUIRY : November 23, 1994

ON BEHALF OF : The Pet Post Inc.

MERCHANDISE : A double handle tote designed to contain a pet. The outer surface is made of 100 % nylon.

HTS PROVISION : Travel, sport and similar bags, with outer surface of textile materials, other.

HTS SUBHEADING : 4202.92.3030

RATE OF DUTY : 20 percent ad valorem


REQUIREMENTS : Subject to quota and visa requirements based upon international textile trade agreements. 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, 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.

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: