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 > 1997 HQ Rulings > HQ 959150 - HQ 959319 > HQ 959262

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 959262

May 6, 1997

CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 959262 GGD


TARIFF NO.: 9403.90.6000

Mr. Jeffrey A. Renaut
A & A Customs Brokers, Ltd.
425 Medford Street
Charlestown Marine Industrial Park
Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129

RE: "Cozy Crib Tent;" Parts of Furniture; Not Tent; Not Other Furnishing Article; HQ 088553; HQ 087844; Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 554, Slip Op. 95-206 (1995 Ct. Intl. Trade), aff'd, Slip Op. 96-1275, Slip Op. 96-1276, Decided April 2, 1997

Dear Mr. Renaut:

This letter is in response to your request of May 3, 1996, on behalf of your client, Tots in Mind, Inc., concerning the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) of a crib tent manufactured in Taiwan. A sample was submitted with your request.


The sample, identified as a "Cozy Crib Tent," style number 1000, is designed for attachment to and over a crib to prevent injuries that might otherwise occur when a child attempts to climb out of a crib. The item's upper portion is composed of knit mesh net material and the sides are composed of woven nylon material. The crib tent is attached to a crib by means of polyester cord ties and straps with hook and loop type fabric fasteners. The article is given shape with the support of -2-
fiberglass rods, which connect in pairs and slide through sleeves. There are sleeves that cross diagonally over the center of the material, and two sleeves located at the bottoms of the two longest sides. When the sleeved rods are inserted into rod pockets at the item's corners, the center of the material becomes the top of a domed enclosure. There also is a long zipper closure, the pull tab of which may be placed in a pocket that is inaccessible to the child.


Whether the merchandise is classified in heading 6304, HTSUS, as other furnishing articles; or in heading 9403, HTSUS, as parts of furniture, of textile material.


Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. The Explanatory Notes (EN) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level, facilitate classification under the HTSUS by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRI.

Customs has previously classified similar goods as other furnishing articles. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 087844, issued November 30, 1990, this office held that a crib safety tent substantially similar to the instant merchandise was classified in subheading 6304.91.0040, HTSUSA, textile category 666, the provision for "Other furnishing articles, excluding those of heading 9404: Other: Knitted or crocheted, Of man-made fibers." It was found that, since the article had not been designed to provide shelter, classification of the item as a tent in heading 6306, HTSUS, would be inappropriate.

In HQ 088553, issued November 6, 1991, we reconsidered HQ 087844, with respect to whether the crib safety tent would be more properly classified in heading 6307, as an other made up textile article, than in heading 6304, HTSUS. HQ 087844 was affirmed, however, and the crib safety tent remained classified within heading 6304, HTSUS. -3-

The classification of similarly designed merchandise - cloth canopies intended for use with infant car seats - was examined by the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States (hereinafter Bauerhin), 914 F. Supp. 554, Slip Op. 95-206 (1995 Ct. Intl. Trade), aff'd, Slip Op. 96-1275 and Slip Op. 96-1276, decided April 2, 1997. At issue was whether the canopies should be classified as other made up textile articles under heading 6307, or as parts of the car seats for which they were designed under heading 9401, HTSUS. The CIT found that, although the canopies were not necessary to the operation of the baby seats to which they would attach, they satisfied a specific and integral need associated with the use of the seats. Because the canopies had no use other than as a seat attachments, the Court found them to be parts of automobile seats. Bauerhin, 914 F. Supp. at 563. The CIT reversed Customs classification of the canopies under subheading 6307.90.94, and ordered that the entry be reliquidated under subheading 9401.90.10, HTSUSA. The Government appealed.

In affirming the holding of the CIT, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) noted that the Government had based its contention that the canopies were not properly considered "parts," on the rule established in United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Willoughby), 21 C.C.P.A. 322 (1933), in which the Court had stated that a part "is an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article." Id. at 324. The CAFC disagreed with the Government's assertion that, because the canopies were not directly related to the restraint function of the infant car seats, they could not be parts of the car seats. The Court pointed out that Willoughby had dealt with an imported tripod that was not solely used with cameras and that had various other purposes. Since the canopies served no function or purpose independent of the child safety seats, and were designed, marketed, and sold to be attached thereto, the CAFC found that the Bauerhin facts bore a closer resemblance to those of United States v. Pompeo (hereinafter Pompeo), 43 C.C.P.A. 9 (1955).

In Pompeo, the issue was whether an imported supercharger was properly considered a part of an automobile. The Government had argued that, because an automobile was able to function with or without it, the supercharger was not a part. The Court disagreed, focusing on the nature of the supercharger, which was -4-

"dedicated irrevocably for use upon automobiles." The Court held that the article was properly classified as a part of an automobile. Id. at 13.

Since the Bauerhin canopies were dedicated solely for use with child safety seats, and were neither designed nor sold to be used independently, the CAFC concluded that the CIT had not erred in determining that the merchandise was properly classified as parts of seats. Following the CIT's and the CAFC's Bauerhin rationale in this case, we find that the "Cozy Crib Tent" serves no function or purpose independent of a crib, for which it is designed, marketed, and sold to be attached. The merchandise is therefore properly classified in heading 9403, HTSUS, as a textile part of furniture.


The article identified as a "Cozy Crib Tent," style no. 1000, is classified in subheading 9403.90.6000, HTSUSA, the provision for "Other furniture and parts thereof: Parts: Other: Of textile material, except cotton." The general column one rate of duty is 2.8 percent ad valorem.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: