HQ 083543: Reconsideration of NYRL 832420

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 083543

                         APRIL 27, 1989


CLA-2 CO:R:C:G   083543  PR

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6210

Norman Katz, Esquire
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn
475 Park Avenue South
New York, N.Y. 10016

RE:  Reconsideration of NYRL 832420

Dear Mr. Katz:

     In your letter of December 30, 1988, addressed to the Area
Director, New York Seaport, on behalf of Nelson/Weather-Rite, you
requested reconsideration of NYRL 832420, dated November 1, 1988.
That ruling concerned the classification of seven garments.  You
believe that six of those garments were erroneously classified in
Chapter 62, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Annotated (HTSUSA), as textile garments when they should have
been classified in Chapter 39, HTSUSA, as apparel articles of
plastics.

     We find no justification to change the classifications
determined applicable by the Area Director, New York Seaport.
Contrary to your position, the material from which those six
garments are constructed is classifiable in Subheading 5903,
HTSUSA, when imported as roll goods.  Heading 5903 states:

     Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated
     with plastics . . .  (emphasis added)

        With polyvinyl chloride:
          Of cotton.........................

          Of man-made fibers................
               *    *    *

          Other:




     As we read those provisions, the subheadings are clearly
referring back to the term "Textile fabrics".  Accordingly, the
garments are constructed from fabrics classifiable in Heading
5903, and are expressly provided for in Heading 6210, TSUSA, as
determined by the Area Director.  Therefore, no essential
character determination is necessary.

     The remainder of your submission appears to be predicated on
premise that the plastics covering on the textile fabric is
cellular in nature.  While no sample has been received by this
office, we have been assured by the Chief, National Import
Specialist  Branch 3, New York Seaport, that the plastics
material was not cellular.

     In view of the above, we affirm the classifications
contained in NYRL 832420.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division