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 959575 - HQ 959703 > HQ 959703

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 959703

March 31, 1997

CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 959703 RH


TARIFF NO.: 4202.92.3030

Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
610 South Canal Street
Chicago, Ill 60607

RE: Request for Internal Advice (IA) 57/95; heading 4202; heading 6307; 19 CFR Part 177; ruling request; reliance on ruling; binding ruling; same transaction; identical merchandise

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to a Request for Internal Advice dated October 20, 1995, filed by the law firm of Sullivan & Lynch, P.C., on behalf of their client, Cyrk, Inc. The request is made pursuant to 19 CFR 177.11, seeking the proper application of District Decision (DD) 804093, dated December 8, 1994.

The entry has not been liquidated.


In DD 804093, Customs classified a Marlboro hammock, pillow, pocket caddy and storage bag as a set under subheading 5609.00.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Customs further stated:

Although classified as a set, the individual components are subject to textile category numbers as if they were classified separately. Accordingly, the caddy is subject to visa requirements and quota restraints under textile quota category 666.

After the issuance of the ruling letter, Cyrk, Inc. imported storage bags without the other articles in the set. Upon advice of counsel, Cyrk, Inc. classified the bags under subheading 6307.90.99, HTSUSA. A textile visa is not required for merchandise entered under that tariff number. - 2 -

Customs issued a Notice to Redeliver on October 17, 1995, advising Cyrk, Inc. that the storage bags would be liquidated under subheading 4202.92.3030, HTSUSA, and that a textile visa would be required for the merchandise.


What is the proper application of NY 804093 to the transaction in question and to prior and prospective transactions?


Counsel argues that their client reasonably assumed that the storage bags were classifiable under subheading 6307.90.00, a provision which is not subject to quota/visa, because NY 804093 stated that only the caddy was subject to visa requirements and quota restraints. He further contends that Customs is bound by the decision in NY 804093 until it is modified or revoked.

Regulations governing the issuance of ruling letters are set forth in Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). A request for a ruling letter must contain a full and complete description of the article. 19 CFR 177.2(b)(2)(ii). Furthermore, Customs ruling letters are issued based on the information set forth in the ruling request and on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request is accurate and complete in every material respect. If the transaction described in the ruling letter and the actual transaction are the same, the ruling will be applied to the transaction. 19 CFR 177.9(b).

Moreover, ruling letters will be applied only with respect to transactions involving articles identical to the article whose description is set forth in the ruling letter. 19 CFR 177.9(b)(2). (Emphasis not in regulation). Finally, no one should rely on the ruling letter or assume the principles of that ruling will be applied in connection with any transaction other than the one described in the letter. 19 CFR 177.9(c).

The ruling request regarding DD 804093 listed four items, a hammock, pillow, pocket caddy, and storage bag. Cyrk, Inc. supplied information that the storage bag was made of acrylic materials. On the other hand, the storage bags which are the subject of the Notice to Redeliver are not imported as part of a set and are constructed of different materials. Accordingly, Cyrk, Inc. could not assume that the principles set out in DD 804093 would be applied to the transaction which is the subject of the Notice to Redeliver. As mandated in the regulations, the only instance in which an importer may rely on the classification of an article in a particular transaction is if he has received a binding ruling that provides the tariff classification of an article relating to that transaction.

Finally, you should be aware that we are in the process of reviewing DD 804093 to determine if it should be revoked or modified. Until that occurs, DD 804093 will be binding on the transaction described in that ruling, provided the merchandise is identical. - 3 -


Ruling letter DD 804093 is not binding on the transaction which is the subject of the Notice to Redeliver because it does not involve the same transaction and identical merchandise.

Therefore, the storage bags should be liquidated under subheading 4202.92.3030, HTSUSA (travel and similar bags with other surface of manmade textile materials), as stated in the Notice to Redeliver. They are dutiable at the general column rate of duty at 19.8 percent ad valorem and the textile category is 670.


John Durant, Director
Tariff Classification Appeals

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: