Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1101-92-100478; knit hats

HQ 952956 February 23, 1993 CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 952956 CC CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6505.90.6090 District Director of Customs 2nd & Chestnut Streets Room 102 Philadelphia, PA 19106 RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1101-92-100478; knit hats Dear Sir: This protest was filed against your decision in the liquidation of an entry involving the importation of knit hats produced in Taiwan. FACTS: The merchandise at issue is 100 percent acrylic knit hats, identified as style numbers 423, 424, 425, and 426. This merchandise is a hood-type hat with a portion that covers the face, leaving a hole for the facial features. It is reversible and is brown, beige, green and black on one side, and bright orange on the other. The entry covering the hats was liquidated under subheading 6505.90.6090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provides for hats and other headgear, of man-made fibers, knitted or crocheted or made up from knitted or crocheted fabric, not in part of braid, other, other, other. The protestant claims that the hat is manufactured with an elastic braid intertwined within it, making the hats classifiable under subheading 6505.90.5090, HTSUSA, which provides for hats and other headgear, of man-made fibers, knitted or crocheted or made up from knitted or crocheted fabric, wholly or in part of braid, other, other. ISSUE: Whether the hats at issue are classifiable as "wholly or in part of braid" in Heading 6505, HTSUSA? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's), taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. General Note 7, HTSUSA, provides in pertinent part the following concerning the term "in part of": Definitions. For the purposes of the tariff schedule, unless the context otherwise requires-- ... (e) The terms "wholly of", "in part of", and "containing", when used between the description of an article and a material (e.g., "woven fabrics, wholly of cotton"), have the following meanings: ... (ii) "in part of" or "containing" mean that the goods contain a significant quantity of the named material. With regard to the application of the quantitative concepts specified above, it is intended that the de minimis rule apply. The de minimis rule states that an ingredient or component of an article may be ignored for classification purposes depending upon "whether or not the amount used has really changed or affected the nature of the article and, of course, its salability." Varsity Watch Company v. United States, 34 CCPA 155, C.A.D. 359 (1947). The Customs Service has determined in application of the de minimis rule to "in part of braid" that if the quantity of braid in the sample submitted served a useful purpose or affected the nature of the article or increased the salability of the article, it would be considered in part of braid. The elastic braid inserted into the hat does not impart any additional elasticity; the elasticity of the knitted hat is imparted by the acrylic knitted material. The elastic braid does not affect the nature of the hat or increase its salability. Therefore, the merchandise at issue is not considered wholly or in part of braid for tariff classification purposes. HOLDING: The merchandise at issue is classified under subheading 6505.90.6090, HTSUSA, which provides for hats and other headgear, knitted or crocheted, or made up from lace, felt or other textile fabric, in the piece (but not in strips), whether or not lined or trimmed, other, of man-made fibers, knitted or crocheted or made up from knitted or crocheted fabric, not in part of braid, other, other, other. The rate of duty is 39.7 cents per kilogram plus 14.1 percent ad valorem. The protest should be denied. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division