Revocation of NY I89237; Hoof Pick

HQ 966659 December 15, 2003 CLA-2 RR:CR:GC 966659 KBR CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NOS.: 8205.59.55 Ms. Lisa Holland Hellman Worldwide Logistics 7280 Alum Creek Drive Suites A-D Columbus, OH 43217 RE: Revocation of NY I89237; Hoof Pick Dear Ms. Holland: This is in reference to New York Ruling Letter (NY) I89237, dated December 13, 2002, issued to you by the Customs National Commodity Specialist Division, regarding the classification, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), of a hoof pick. We have reconsidered NY I89237 and determined that the classification of the hoof pick is not correct. This ruling sets forth the correct classification. Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)(1)), 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), a notice was published on October 16, 2003, Vol. 37, No. 42 of the Customs Bulletin, proposing to revoke NY I89237. No comments were received in response to this notice. FACTS: The product involved is a hoof pick which is used to remove debris from horse hooves. It measures 6.65 inches long and 1.5 inches in width. It has a plastic handle which is 63% of the article’s weight and a stainless steel hook extending out of one end which is 37% of the article’s weight. In NY I89237, Customs found that the hoof pick was classified in subheading 8205.59.80, HTSUS, as other handtools, other, other, other, other. Customs has reviewed the matter and believes that the correct classification of the hoof pick is in subheading 8205.59.55, HTSUS, as other handtools, other, other, other, of iron or steel, other. ISSUE: Whether the hoof pick is a handtool of iron or steel? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). The systematic detail of the HTSUS is such that most goods are classified by application of GRI 1, that is, 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 GRIs may then be applied. Inspection of the hoof pick reveals that it is a composite good made up of a plastic handle with a stainless steel hook. Each of the components is described by different subheadings within heading 8205, HTSUS. The HTSUS subheadings under consideration are as follows: Other articles of iron or steel: Other Other Other 7326.90.85 Other 8205 Handtools (including glass cutters) not elsewhere specified or included; blow torches and similar self-contained torches; vises, clamps and the like, other than accessories for and parts of machine tools; anvils; portable forges; hand- or pedal-operated grinding wheels with frameworks; base metal parts thereof: Other handtools (including glass cutters) and parts thereof: 8502.59 Other: Other: Other: Of iron or steel: 8205.59.55 Other 8205.59.80 Other Because the item is a composite good, we turn to GRI 3(b) (applied at the subheading level by GRI 6), which states that when goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more (sub)headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) [by reference to the heading which provides the most specific description], shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. Under EN (VII) for Rule 3(b), goods are to be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. Under EN (VIII) for Rule 3(b), the factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods. Recent court decisions on the essential character for GRI 3(b) purposes have looked primarily to the role of the constituent material in relation to the use of the goods. See, e.g., Better Home Plastics Corp. v. U.S., 916 F. Supp. 1265 (CIT 1996), aff’d 119 F.3d 969 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding the utilitarian role of a shower liner is more important than decorative value of the curtain sold with it); Mita Copystar America, Inc. v. U.S., 966 F. Supp. 1245 (CIT 1997), reh’g denied, 994 F. Supp. 393 (1998).  You stated that you believed the hoof pick should be classified in subheading 7326.90.85, HTSUS. However, that subheading is a so called “basket provision” for classification of articles of iron or steel which are not classifiable elsewhere. Classification of the hoof pick in this subheading is precluded by operation of GRI 1 if the hoof pick can be more specifically classified elsewhere in the HTSUS. See Apex Universal, Inc. v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 98-69 (May 21, 1998))(“Classification of imported merchandise in a basket provision is appropriate only when there is no tariff category that covers the merchandise more specifically [citations omitted]”). In comparison, heading 8205, HTSUS, is a specific provision for hand tools. EN 82.05(E)(7), specifically lists “hoof pickers” as a type of tool to be classified in this heading. Therefore, classification in heading 8205, HTSUS, is appropriate. Customs has previously determined that the essential character of other articles involving a plastic body with a metal working part was determined by the metal working part. HQ 950609 (January 7, 1992) involved a bottle opener with a plastic handle and a metal ring. Although the bottle opener had a plastic handle, it was described as having a metal working edge and, therefore, was classified as of iron or steel in subheading 8205.51.30, HTSUS. See also NY A89210 (November 8, 1996), HQ 951605 (June 1, 1992), and HQ 951881 (June 26, 1992) (all involving a wheeled pizza cutter made with both metal and plastic components being classified in subheading 8205.51.30, HTSUS). We believe that the essential character of the hoof pick is imparted by the stainless steel hook. Without the stainless steel hook, the article would not be able to accomplish its primary role or function as a device to remove debris from a horse’s hoof. It is the stainless steel hook that actually performs the removal operation. Therefore, since the essential character of the hoof pick is determined by the stainless steel component, the classification of the article is in subheading 8205.59.55, HTSUS, as other handtools, other, other, other, of iron or steel, other. HOLDING: The hoof pick is classified in subheading 8205.59.55, HTSUS, as other handtools, other, other, other, of iron or steel, other. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: NY I89237 dated December 13, 2002, is REVOKED. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. §1625(c), this ruling will become effective sixty (60) days after publication in the Customs Bulletin. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial Rulings Division