HQ 083802: Tariff classification of silk/cotton belts

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 083802

                                      June 5, 1989

             CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  083802  SM

             CATEGORY:  Classification

             TARIFF NO.:  6217.10.0040

             Mr. Chuck Gupta
             India Hand Arts
             P. O. Box 12271
             Philadelphia, PA  19144

             RE:  Tariff classification of silk/cotton belts

             Dear Mr. Gupta:

                   Your letter of February 7 requests a tariff classifica-
             tion ruling for certain woven silk/cotton belts to be imported
             from India.

             FACTS:

                   A sample of Style R-5787 was submitted.  It is a tie
             belt approximately five and one half feet in length, tapering
             from a width of nearly three inches at the center to three
             fourths of an inch at the ends.  Parallel rows of stitching
             run from end to end.  The outside fabric is silk; the facing
             is cotton.

             ISSUE:

                   Is the belt classified as silk, as cotton, or as some
             combination of the two?

             LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                   Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
             the United States is in accordance with the General Rules of
             Interpretation (GRI's).  GRI 1 provides that classification is
             determined first in accordance with the terms of the headings
             of the tariff and any relative section or chapter notes and
             then, if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise
             require, in accordance with the remaining GRI's.  No heading
             provides specifically for belts.  Heading 6217, HTSUSA,
             provides for other made up clothing accessories.  The
             Explanatory Notes (EN), the official interpretation of the
             HTSUSA at the international level, for this heading indicate
             specifically that it is intended to cover belts of all kinds.













                                           -2-


               The EN for Chapter 62 state that trimming materials do not
             affect classification.  We understand trimming to include
             portions of articles such as the cotton facing on the sample
             belt.  The facing is therefore not considered in classifying
             this merchandise.

             HOLDING:

                   The belt is classified under heading 6217.10.0040,
             HTSUSA, a provision for other made up clothing accessories,
             other, containing 70 percent or more by weight of silk or silk
             waste.

                   Because of the changeable nature of the statistical
             annotation, i.e., the ninth and tenth digits of the tariff
             number, and the textile restraint categories, you should
             contact your local Customs office before importation of this
             merchandise to determine the current status of any import
             restraints or requirements.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division



































             6cc:  Area Director of Customs
                   NY Seaport Area
             cc:   Legal Reference Section
             cc:   CITA
             cc:   NIS Eileen Crowley
             cc:   Phil Robins






























































                                                        083802  SM


             TO:    John Roth

             FROM:  Sheila Murphy

                   As I indicated to you earlier, I do not believe the
             decision in this file is correct.  The belt should be clas-
             sified according to the textile material of which it is in
             chief weight, either cotton or silk, following Section XI,
             Subheading Note 2, HTSUSA.

                   The General Explanatory Note to Chapter 62 does not say,
             as stated on page 2 of the ruling, pursuant to instructions I
             have been given, that trimming materials do not affect the
             classification of garments/accessories.  What it says is that
             trimming in the form of materials not classifiable in that
             chapter, e.g., "knitted or crocheted fabrics, furskin,
             feather, leather, plastics or metal", does not affect the
             classification of articles in that chapter.  In other words,
             articles of not-knitted-or-crocheted textile materials can
             still be classified in Chapter 62, even if they have trimming
             of materials not classifiable in Chapter 62.  I believe it is
             no coincidence that all the named materials are not classifi-
             able in Chapter 62; and that it is incorrect to conclude that
             this note is meant to cover materials classifiable in Chapter
             62, i.e., to conclude that a woven lining in a woven garment
             is to be ignored for classification.  As stated above, there
             are legal notes to cover the classification of articles
             consisting of more than one textile material.  These legal
             notes, requiring classification by chief weight, must take
             precedence over an interpretation of the Explanatory Notes.

                   I also believe it is incorrect to categorize linings, or
             in this case facings, as "trimming."  Linings are essential to
             lined garments.  In clothing catalogs, for example, jackets
             that are unlined are stated to be so, indicating that some-
             thing that would normally be expected is missing.

                   It would have been very simple for the drafters to state
             that linings are to be ignored in the classification of
             garments.  They did not do so, and I do not find any basis for
             us to force this interpretation on the statute.