us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-081272•HQ 081272: Tariff classification of certain women's shirts and pants
HQ 081272: Tariff classification of certain women's shirts and pants
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-081272HQ 081272: Tariff classification of certain women's shirts and pantsGuidance
Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.
HQ 081272
August 16, 1988
CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 081272 SM
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6206.30.3010; 6204.62.4055; 6204.62.4020
Donna L. Shira, Esq.
Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C.
80 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
RE: Tariff classification of certain women's shirts and pants
Dear Ms. Shira:
Your letter of October 28, 1987, on behalf of Carter
Hawley Hale Stores, requests a tariff classification ruling
for three styles of women's garments to be imported from
India.
FACTS:
Samples of all three styles were submitted. All are of
a 100 percent cotton woven fabric. Style C-1061 consists of
two pieces. The top is a collarless shirt with a full-front
six-button opening, short sleeves, a single patch pocket on
the left side, a back yoke, and a slightly rounded shirttail.
The trousers have an elasticized waist with a functional
drawstring, a pocket in each side seam, and no closure. A
band of fabric that matches the shirt is stitched around the
lower edge of each leg. Style C-1060 is virtually identical
except that it has a second pocket inside the patch pocket of
the shirt, and shorts instead of trousers with no contrasting
fabric at the lower edge. Style C-1062 is a shirt like that
of Style C-1060 but longer, with a back length of approxi-
mately 36 inches.
Your position is that all three styles should be classi-
fied as pajamas and other nightwear. You state that the fol-
lowing facts compel this classification: the garments are of
100 percent cotton; they have flat buttons; the elasticized
waists of the pants have drawstrings that allow adjustment for
a loose fit for sleeping and a snugger fit for lounging; the
oversized fit makes the garments suitable for sleeping and
lounging but inappropriate for outdoor wear; the garments were
ordered by sleepwear/intimate apparel departments to be mar-
keted as sleepwear, as evidenced by the proposed catalog in-
serts.
-2-
ISSUE:
Whether the garments are classifiable as pajamas and
other nightwear, and if not, how they are classified.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The Revised Textile Category Guidelines, C.I.E. 6/87,
reflect the many past Customs Service decisions to classify as
pajamas and other nightwear those garments worn to bed for
sleeping. T.D. 87-118 reiterated the Service's position that
nightwear is sleepwear and that garments advertised and sold
as dresses, shirts, beach cover-ups, or other nonsleep arti-
cles are not classifiable as nightwear. This position is con-
sistent with the judgment in Mast Industries v. United States,
9 CIT 549 (1985), aff'd, 786 F. 2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1986), that
nightclothes are garments to be worn to bed, and that the gar-
ment in question, found to be designed, manufactured, market-
ed, and used as nightwear, was so classifiable. It parallels
the decision in Children's Hose, Inc. v. United States, 55
Cust. Ct. 6 (1965), in which the court held that underwear is
garments of an intimate nature, not seen, not for public expo-
sure, and that a garment partially visible when worn could not
be classified as underwear. Neither sleepwear nor underwear
is to be worn in public.
Many garments are clearly and undisputably nightwear;
they generally do not come before Customs for rulings because
there is no doubt as to their tariff classification. Diffi-
culties arise when garments claimed to be nightwear resemble
dresses, shirts, pants, or other garments intended to be worn
not in the privacy of the bedroom but for public view. The
more closely an importer's merchandise resembles these outer-
wear garments in color, style, and fabric, the more difficulty
he will have, obviously, in establishing for Customs officials
that that merchandise is sleepwear.
The difficulty, moreover, is not merely that the styles
themselves are ambiguous; the environment of sale is equally
so. Examination of the trade press indicates that sleepwear/
intimate apparel departments of stores have sought to boost
their sales by offering a variety of comfortable clothes,
sometimes called "leisure wear," in addition to sleepwear and
underwear. Visits to the stores themselves reveal that this
is indeed the case. The Customs Service has even received
letters from importers asking that their merchandise be clas-
sified as "leisure wear," although the Tariff Schedules of the
-3-
United States contain no such provision. Thus, an importer's
claim that his merchandise is sold in a sleepwear department
cannot be conclusive of its classification. In many cases,
garments sold in these departments are indistinguishable from
those sold elsewhere.
In determining whether a particular garment is to be
worn to bed for sleeping, Customs will consider the sample
itself and whatever information the importer can supply about
how the garment is to be marketed. We must also consider how
the same or virtually the same article is advertised and sold
by others.
With regard to the submitted samples, neither the gar-
ments themselves nor the supporting materials persuade us that
classification as pajamas and other nightwear is correct. The
samples have the appearance of ordinary shirts, trousers, and
shorts. The welt pockets in the side seams of the trousers
and shorts have the finished look of outerwear garments. The
fact that the garments are of cotton and have flat buttons in
no way compels their classification as nightwear. Neither
does the fact that they are somewhat oversized; this look is
currently popular in a variety of garments. Many trousers and
shorts have the elasticized drawstring waist feature and con-
trasting fabric strips on the cuff area. The proposed catalog
inserts purporting to show that the merchandise will be sold
as sleepwear do not in fact show the styles in question.
HOLDING:
Style C-1062 and the tops of Styles C-1060 and C-1061
are classified under item 384.4608, TSUSA, textile category
341, as women's cotton blouses, not ornamented, not knit. The
bottoms of Style C-1060 are classified under item 384.4724,
TSUSA, textile category 348, as women's cotton shorts, not
ornamented, not knit. The bottoms of Style C-1061 are classi-
fied under item 384.4765, TSUSA, textile category 348, as
women's cotton trousers, not ornamented, not knit.
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUSA) is scheduled to replace the TSUSA. The HTSUSA pro-
visions applicable to the above-described merchandise are the
following. Style C-1062 and the tops of styles C-1060 and C-
1061 are classified under subheading 6206.30.3010, HTSUSA,
textile category 341, a provision for women's cotton blouses,
not knitted or crocheted. The bottoms of Style C-1060 are
classified under subheading 6204.62.4055, HTSUSA, textile
category 348, a provision for women's cotton shorts, not
-4-
knitted or crocheted. The bottoms of Style C-1061 are
classified under subheading 6204.62.4020, HTSUSA, textile
category 348, a provision for women's cotton trousers, not
knitted or crocheted.
This classification represents the present position of
the Customs Service under the proposed HTSUSA. If there are
changes before enactment, this advice may not continue to be
applicable.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
cc: CITA
cc: NIS Eileen Crowley
SMurphy:jaj:7/20/88
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.