HQ 085193: Nested Boxes

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 085193

                        November 16, 1989


CLA-2  CO:R:C:G  085193  JBW

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6307.90.9050

Mr. William C. Cain
Cain Customs Brokers, Inc.
Progreso Int'l Bridge
P.O. Box 10
Progreso, TX 78579

RE:  Nested Boxes

Dear Mr. Cain:

          Your letter of July 17, 1989, on behalf of M & G Box
Corporation, addressed to our New York office, has been referred
to this office for reply concerning the classification of three
nested boxes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA).

FACTS:

          The sample submitted is a set of three nested boxes.
The boxes are constructed of paperboard, which comprises 81.4
percent of the total weight and 19 percent of the total value.
The paperboard boxes are completely covered, lined, and decorated
with textile materials, which comprise 18.4 percent of the total
weight and 65 percent of the value.  The textile material is
composed of 70 percent polyester and 30 percent cotton.

ISSUE:

          What is the classification of a textile covered box
under the HTSUSA?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

          The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) set forth
the legal framework in which merchandise is to be classified
under the HTSUSA.  GRI 1 requires that classification be
determined first according to the terms of the headings of the
tariff and any relative section or chapter notes and, unless
otherwise required, according to the remaining GRI's.

          As you noted in your letter, the items under
consideration play a number of functional roles, each role
imparted by a different component of the box.  The formed
paperboard boxes may be used for different purposes, including
storage of a variety of items or as gift boxes.  Without the
textile covering, such boxes are classifiable under Chapter 48 as
an article of paperboard.  Additionally, the items serve a
decorative or ornamental function.  The textile covering imparts
the decorative function of this item and, consequently, is
classifiable under Section XI as a textile article.

          The two components of the item, the paperboard and the
textile, form an inseparable whole, and the item is therefore a
composite good.  GRI 3 governs classification.  Two or more
different headings refer to part only of the components of the
good, and therefore, the rule of relative specificity of GRI 3(a)
is inapplicable.  According to GRI 3(b), a composite good is
classified as if it consists of the component that imparts the
essential character to the good.  GRI 3(c) states that if an item
cannot be classified according to essential character, then it is
classified under the heading that occurs last in numerical order
among the headings that merit equal consideration.

          No single component imparts the essential character to
the textile covered boxes.  The role of the textile as decoration
is equal to the role of the paperboard box as a storage item.
Resort to objective factors such as value or weight of the
components is likewise inconclusive.  The value of the textile
exceeds the value of the paperboard, but the weight of the
paperboard exceeds that of the textile.  Classification of the
item, according to GRI 3(c), must be made by the heading that
occurs last in numerical order.

          The textile provisions of Section XI occur later in the
HTSUSA than the paperboard provisions.  The textile covered boxes
are consequently classified as textile articles.  Pursuant to
note 7(e) of Section XI, the boxes are "made up," for they are
assembled by gluing.  Therefore, the items are classified under
subheading 6307.90.9050, HTSUSA, as other made up articles of
textile.

HOLDING:

          The nested boxes are classified under subheading
6307.90.9050, HTSUSA, as other made up articles of textile and
are subject to a duty of 7 percent ad valorem.


                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division