Tariff classification of silk/cotton belts

HQ 083802 June 5, 1989 CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 083802 SM CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6217.10.0040 Mr. Chuck Gupta India Hand Arts P. O. Box 12271 Philadelphia, PA 19144 RE: Tariff classification of silk/cotton belts Dear Mr. Gupta: Your letter of February 7 requests a tariff classifica- tion ruling for certain woven silk/cotton belts to be imported from India. FACTS: A sample of Style R-5787 was submitted. It is a tie belt approximately five and one half feet in length, tapering from a width of nearly three inches at the center to three fourths of an inch at the ends. Parallel rows of stitching run from end to end. The outside fabric is silk; the facing is cotton. ISSUE: Is the belt classified as silk, as cotton, or as some combination of the two? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that classification is determined first in accordance with the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative section or chapter notes and then, if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, in accordance with the remaining GRI's. No heading provides specifically for belts. Heading 6217, HTSUSA, provides for other made up clothing accessories. The Explanatory Notes (EN), the official interpretation of the HTSUSA at the international level, for this heading indicate specifically that it is intended to cover belts of all kinds. -2- The EN for Chapter 62 state that trimming materials do not affect classification. We understand trimming to include portions of articles such as the cotton facing on the sample belt. The facing is therefore not considered in classifying this merchandise. HOLDING: The belt is classified under heading 6217.10.0040, HTSUSA, a provision for other made up clothing accessories, other, containing 70 percent or more by weight of silk or silk waste. Because of the changeable nature of the statistical annotation, i.e., the ninth and tenth digits of the tariff number, and the textile restraint categories, you should contact your local Customs office before importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of any import restraints or requirements. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division 6cc: Area Director of Customs NY Seaport Area cc: Legal Reference Section cc: CITA cc: NIS Eileen Crowley cc: Phil Robins 083802 SM TO: John Roth FROM: Sheila Murphy As I indicated to you earlier, I do not believe the decision in this file is correct. The belt should be clas- sified according to the textile material of which it is in chief weight, either cotton or silk, following Section XI, Subheading Note 2, HTSUSA. The General Explanatory Note to Chapter 62 does not say, as stated on page 2 of the ruling, pursuant to instructions I have been given, that trimming materials do not affect the classification of garments/accessories. What it says is that trimming in the form of materials not classifiable in that chapter, e.g., "knitted or crocheted fabrics, furskin, feather, leather, plastics or metal", does not affect the classification of articles in that chapter. In other words, articles of not-knitted-or-crocheted textile materials can still be classified in Chapter 62, even if they have trimming of materials not classifiable in Chapter 62. I believe it is no coincidence that all the named materials are not classifi- able in Chapter 62; and that it is incorrect to conclude that this note is meant to cover materials classifiable in Chapter 62, i.e., to conclude that a woven lining in a woven garment is to be ignored for classification. As stated above, there are legal notes to cover the classification of articles consisting of more than one textile material. These legal notes, requiring classification by chief weight, must take precedence over an interpretation of the Explanatory Notes. I also believe it is incorrect to categorize linings, or in this case facings, as "trimming." Linings are essential to lined garments. In clothing catalogs, for example, jackets that are unlined are stated to be so, indicating that some- thing that would normally be expected is missing. It would have been very simple for the drafters to state that linings are to be ignored in the classification of garments. They did not do so, and I do not find any basis for us to force this interpretation on the statute.