s an allowance in duty under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for sweaters and baby garments made from domestic cotton.

I DEP~RTu's'MwAsH,NGToCuENSTOT OFMSTHN,SEED.c.RviCETREAS~Ur" 10 JUL 1992 HQ 556562 CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 556562 RA CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 9802.00.50 Ms. Francisca Vizurraga Little Hearts 1001 Heatherwood Ct. Norcross, Georgia 30093 Partial exemption from duty for textile garments made from cotton of United State~ origin. Dear Ms. Vizurraga: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1992, concerning whether or not there is an allowance in duty under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for sweaters and baby garments made from domestic cotton. '~ ACTS: garmentsY(u instateperuthatandY(uimportmanufacturethem intoc(tt(nthe UnitedsweatersStatesand.babYCotton ~ ityouYarniscan(fmanufacturedpayU'S'duty(riginonlyintoreadYonfinishedthet( c(stbe knittedclothingof theisforeign® exP(rtedYou wishlabort(touponPeruknowwhereif ~ importationISSUE: of the finished clothing. ~ Whether or not the imported clothing qualifies for a partial ~ duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS? hAW AND AMA~~SZS: Subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, provides for assessment of duty only on the cost or value of "alterations" or "repairs" made on articles returned to the U.S. after having been exported for that purpose. However, the application of this tariff provision is precluded where the operations performed abroad result in articles with new and different uses or where the processing constitutes a part of the manufacturing process begun in the U.S. Dolliff & Company v. United States, 66 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 1225 (1979). -2- In Dollif, the court concluded that the chemical treatment and dyeing of fabric exceeded an alteration as the processing made the product ready to use. Alterations can be made only to completed articles and the term does not include intermediate operations performed in the manufacture of finished articles. Congress did not intend to permit uncompleted articles to be exported abroad and there made into finished products and when returned to be subject to duties only on the cost of the so-called alterations. United States v. J.D. Richardson Co., 36 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 390 (1948). The manufacture of clothing from domestic yarn clearly exceeds an alteration so a partial exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, is precluded. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the knitting of the clothing abroad from yarn of U.S. origin exceeds an alteration which precludes a partial exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Therefore, as no other exemption is applicable, duty will be assessed on the total appraised value of the imported products. HOLD IN~: The knitting of clothing from yarn of U.S. origin exceeds an alteration. Thus, the imported clothing will not ~alify for any duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.