HQ 083177: Camcorder container/carrying case

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 083177

                         January 3, 1990


CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  083177  JMH

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  706.62


Madeline B. Kuflik, Esq.
Matsushita Electric Corporation
     of America
Office of the General Counsel
One Panasonic Way
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

RE:  Camcorder container/carrying case


Dear Ms. Kuflik:

     This is in response to your request of October 28, 1988, for
a reconsideration of New York Region Ruling 829337 (NY 829337) as
it classified merchandise under the Tariff Schedules of the
United States (TSUS).

FACTS:

     The merchandise in question is the container/carrying case
(model PV-846M) for Panasonic Company's model PV-460 camcorder.
The case acts as a container for the camcorder and its
accessories during shipment and as a carrying case for the
camcorder after sale.  This carrying case is sold only with the
PV-460 camcorder.  NY 829337 classified the carrying case within
Item 706.62, TSUS, as "Luggage and handbags...Other..."  This
results in the carrying case being dutiable at a higher rate than
the camcorder.

     You contend that the carrying case should be dutiable at the
same rate as its contents, the camcorder, according to General
Headnote 6(b)(i), TSUS.  This headnote states:

     (b) Not Imported Empty:  Containers or holders if imported
containing or holding articles are subject to tariff treatment as
follows:
          (i)...containers of usual types ordinarily sold at
     retail with its contents, are not subject to treatment
                               -2-



     as imported articles.  Their cost, however, is under
     section 402 of the tariff act, a part of the value of
     their contents and if their contents are subject to an
     ad valorem rate of duty such containers or holders are,
     in effect, dutiable at the same rate as their
     contents...

ISSUE:

     Whether the PV-846M container/carrying case is subject to
the same tariff treatment as the PV-460 camcorder or at a higher
rate.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The classification of merchandise under the TSUS is
governed by the General Headnotes.  General Headnote 6 directs
the classification of "Containers or Holders for Imported
Merchandise".  As quoted above, General Headnote 6(b)(i) applies
to cases not imported empty, such as the case in question.  This
headnote provides for "containers of usual types ordinarily sold
at retail with their contents..."

     It is the opinion of this office that the subject container
is not "ordinarily sold at retail with their contents".
Camcorders are not ordinarily sold with a carrying case.  The
fact that the PV-460 camcorder incorporates new technology and is
sold with a case does not remove it from camcorders, as a class
of merchandise, which are ordinarily sold at retail without
cases.  Therefore, the PV-846M containers for the PV-460 are not
"containers of usual types ordinarily sold..."

     You argue that Headquarters Ruling Letter 081779 (HQ
081779), dated April 5, 1988, is controlling in this situation.
However, that ruling dealt with  containers for a model of
portable computers, a different type of merchandise.  We do not
find  HQ 081779 applicable.

     The PV-846M container/carrying case is not a container of
"usual types ordinarily sold at retail with their contents..."
It is to be classified separately from the camcorder.  The proper
classification for the PV-846M is within Item 706.62, TSUS.

HOLDING:

     The PV-846M container/carrying case is not a container of
"usual types ordinarily sold at retail with their contents..."



                               -3-



It is to be classified separately from the camcorder.  The
proper classification for the PV-846M is within Item 706.62,
TSUS, as "Luggage and handbags...Other..."

                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division