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 > 2004 HQ Rulings > HQ 966772 - HQ 966839 > HQ 966830

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 966830

April 26, 2004

CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 966830 RH


TARIFF NO.: 4202.92.9026

Mr. Michael Gunter
UPS Supply Chain Solutions
1600 Genessee, Suite 450
Kansas City, MO 64102

RE: Revocation of NY J80360; Tool Bucket Organizer; Heading 4202; Rooster Products, Inc. v. United States, decided June 1, 2000, Slip. Op. 2000-60 (Ct. Int’l Trade)

Dear Mr. Gunter:

This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 2003, on behalf of Midwest Quality Glove, Inc., requesting reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) J89587, dated October 17, 2003.

In NY J89587, Customs (now Customs and Border Protection (CBP)) classified a tool bucket organizer under subheading 4202.92.9026 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Several months later, in NY J80360, dated February 5, 2003, CBP issued another ruling to your client that classified a similar tool bucket organizer under subheading 6307.90.9889, HTSUS.

For the reasons set forth below, tool holders are classifiable under heading 4202, HTSUS. Accordingly, NY J80360 is the incorrect ruling.

Pursuant to section 625(c), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2186 1993), notice of the proposed revocation of NY J80360 was published on March 10, 2004, in Vol. 38, No. 11 of the customs bulletin. CBP received no comments.


A description of the tool bucket organizer in NY J80360 reads as follows:

The sample submitted is a “Bucket Organizer,” style number 56. It is made of 100 percent polyester woven textile fabric that has been visibly coated on one side [the inner surface] with polyvinyl plastic. It is designed to fit inside and around the outside of a 5-gallon bucket. It features 10 outside pockets, [and] 4 inside pockets. It has corner textile straps with a metal snap fastener to secure it to the bucket.


Is the tool bucket organizer classified in heading heading 4202, HTSUS, as a “tool bag” or “similar container”, or in heading 6307 HTSUS, as an “other made up article”?


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.

Heading 4202, HTSUS, reads in its entirety:

Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar containers; traveling bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of plastic sheeting, or textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such materials or with paper. (Emphasis added).

Ruling on Cross Motions for Summary Judgement, the court in Rooster Products, Inc. v. United States, decided June 1, 2000, Slip. Op. 2000-60 (Ct. Int’l Trade), held that CBP properly classified a tool holder under heading 4202, as a form of a tool bag, or alternatively, as a similar container, and provided clear guidance for interpreting the term “tool bag” in heading 4202.

The tool holder in the Rooster Products case had two large flared pockets, a couple of smaller pockets, and two loops. The pockets were designed to hold smaller tools as well as nails, bolts, and similar small items. The loops were designed for larger tools to hang from, such as a hammer or a pair of pliers. When the tool holder was used in its intended manner it was worn like an apron around the individual’s waist conforming to the contours of the individual’s body.

The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that since the tool holder was not specifically named in the heading, it was not classifiable under heading 4202, HTSUS, and pointed out that an eo nomine provision without terms of limitation includes all forms of the article in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The court further found that the Plaintiff did not overcome the presumption that both the common and commercial meaning of a tariff term are the same. Thus, using various lexicographic sources, the court determined that the defining characteristics of a “bag” are that it must be a container of flexible material with an opening at the top, and that it does not have to close or be capable of closing.

After examining the tool holder, the court concluded that it possessed all the characteristics of a tool bag and that it was, therefore, classifiable eo nomine as a form of tool bag under heading 4202, HTSUS. Additionally, the court found that the tool holder possessed the essential characteristics or purposes uniting the listed exemplars and did not have a more specific primary purpose that was inconsistent with the listed exemplars, i.e., storage, protection, organization and carriage. The court determined that the tool holder protects and stores items while it is in use by “preventing its contents from falling to the ground” and by “holding its contents while work is performed.” Thus, the court said that even if the tool holder were not classifiable eo nomine as a form of tool bag, it was still correctly classified through the application of ejusdem generis as a similar container.

In light of the court’s rationale in Rooster Products, it is clear that the scope of heading 4202 is broad enough to encompass all forms of tool bags, including the tool bucket organizer at issue. The tool organizer’s function is to store and protect items while in use, preventing its contents from falling to the ground, and holding its contents while work is performed. Accordingly, the tool bucket organizer is correctly classified under heading 4202, HTSUS.


NY J80360 is REVOKED. The tool bucket organizer is correctly classified under subheading 4202.92.9026, HTSUS, which provides for “Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attaches cases briefcases. . .holsters and similar containers; traveling bags. . . tool bags. . .and similar containers. . . :Other: With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials: Other: Other: With outer surface of textile materials: Other: Of man-made fibers.” It is dutiable at the general column one rate at 17.6 percent ad valorem, and the textile category is 670.

There are no applicable quota/visa requirements for members of World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries. The textile category number above applies to merchandise produced in non-WTO member-countries.

The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, the visa and quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since part categories are the result of international bi-lateral agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the most current information available we suggest your client check, close to the time of shipment, the Textile Status Report for Absolute Quotas, available on the CBP website at www. cbp.gov.

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

In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the customs bulletin.


Myles B. Harmon
Director, Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: