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 > 2005 HQ Rulings > HQ 967415 - HQ 967545 > HQ 967466

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 967466

June 21, 2005

CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 967466 TMF


TARIFF NO.: 6212.20.0010, 6212.30.0010, 6212.90.0010, 4015.90

Port Director
Customs and Border Protection
610 S. Canal Street
Room 306
Chicago, IL 60607

RE: Eligibility of various body supporting garments; Protest and Application for Further Review (AFR) 1801-04-100039

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is in reply to your correspondence forwarding Application for Further Review of Protest (AFR) 1801-04-100039, which was filed by the law firm of Peter Herrick, P.A., on behalf of their client, Squeem Corporation.

This correspondence, along with five samples was sent to this office for our reply.


The protest and request for Application for Further Review (hereinafter “AFR”), which was timely filed on October 12, 2004 is against Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) classification and liquidation of certain girdles, corsets and other similar articles. The merchandise was liquidated on July 16, 2004 and classified in subheadings 6212.20.0010, 6212.30.0010, 6212.90.0010 and 4015.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provide, respectively, for body supporting garments and other rubber apparel.

The garments that are the subject of this protest and AFR are as follows:
four styles of girdles (identified as style numbers 26B, 26JB, 26BN and 26P); four styles of corsets, described as waist cinchers (which are identified as style numbers 26C, 26CM, 26CN, 56902D and 26S); vests for men, short vests for men and short lift systems; other corsets, girdles and similar articles that are made entirely of rubber.

In the request for Application for Further Review, the protestant indicated the basis for AFR is to “ascertain whether the subject merchandise are orthopedic appliances.”


Whether the Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1801-04-100039 meets the requirements for review by Headquarters pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24.


The criteria required for the granting of a request for further review are set forth in 19 C.F.R. §174.24 of the Customs Regulations. This section states, in pertinent part, that further review of a protest which otherwise would be denied by the Port Director will be accorded to a party filing an application for further review which meets the requirements of §174.25 when the decision against which the protest was filed:

(a) Is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made at any port with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise;

(b) Is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts;

(c) Involves matters previously ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the Customs courts but facts are alleged or legal arguments presented which were not considered at the time of the original ruling; or

(d) Is alleged to involve questions which the Headquarters Office, United States Customs Service, refused to consider in the form of a request for internal advice pursuant to § 177.11(b)(5) of this chapter.

Even before we can consider whether the subject merchandise qualifies as orthopedic appliances within heading 9021, HTSUSA, the protestant must sufficiently establish a basis for AFR. However, upon reviewing this protest to determine whether AFR is warranted, we find that the instant protest does not contain any relevant statements or evidence that substantiate that AFR is warranted in this case. Counsel for the protestant has not provided any basis for AFR by establishing that the instant protest contains any distinguishable facts or legal arguments from any prior decisions issued by CBP. In addition, the protestant has not established that the Port’s denial action is inconsistent with any prior Customs rulings, that the protest involves any questions of law or fact that have not been ruled upon by CBP, nor that the protest involves any questions which the Headquarters Office has refused to consider in the form of a request or internal advice.

Moreover, we have reviewed the file and note that the protestant has received prior rulings that classified substantially similar body supporting garments and rubber apparel. See New York Ruling Letters (NY) F83425, dated March 29, 2000, which classified ladies’ corsets in subheading 6212.30.0010, HTSUSA and subheading 4015.90.0050, HTSUSA; and NY J83829, dated May 23, 2003, which classified a rubber ladies’ high waist girdle in subheading 6212.20.0010, HTSUSA. Furthermore, CBP has issued rulings that classify body supporting garments and rubber apparel articles that are similar to the instant merchandise in subheadings 6212 and 4015. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 964402, dated May 24, 2002.

In sum, as counsel for the protestant has not established AFR in this case and as CBP has issued prior rulings to the protestant on substantially similar merchandise, we find that AFR is not warranted in this case.


We find that the Protestant fails to meet the criteria of 19 C.F.R. 174.24. Therefore, the Protestant’s request for further review should not have been granted. The protest file is being returned for appropriate action by your office.


Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: