HQ 085642: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3001-9-001001

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 085642

                                   October 17, 1989

            CLA-2  CO:R:C:G  085642 DFC

            CATEGORY: Classification

            TARIFF NO.: 6216.00.4400

            District Director of Customs
            909 First Ave, Rm 2039
            Seattle Wa. 98174

            RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No.
            3001-9-001001

            Dear Sir:

                 This protest was filed against your Notice of Redelivery
            dated August 3, 1989, against entry No. F73-03354699 dated July
            27, 1989, covering a shipment of certain gloves produced in Sri
            Lanka.

            FACTS:

                 The gloves involved designated as style Nos. 86202C and
            86039L were entered under subheading 6216.00.1000, Harmonized
            Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), as
            gloves, mittens and mitts, impregnated, coated or covered with
            plastics or rubber, ski or snowmobile gloves, mittens or mitts.

                 Upon examination of samples obtained from the shipment
            your office determined that the gloves were not ski gloves
            within the criteria set forth in the case of Stonewall Trading
            Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct, 482, CD 4023 (1970).  As
            a result you issued CF 4647 on August 3, 1989, stating that the
            gloves were not admissible in the absence of a quota textile
            visa in Category 631 and were classifiable under subheading
            6216.00.4845, HTSUSA, as gloves, mittens and mitts, other, of
            man-made fibers, other.

            ISSUE:

                 Do the gloves meet the criteria for classification as ski
            gloves as set out in the Stonewall case, supra?


















                                          -2-


            LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                 The gloves before the court in the Stonewall case were
            found to possess the following features which were
            characteristic of ski gloves, rendering them specially designed
            for use in the sport of skiing:

                      (1) a hook and clasp that hold the gloves together;

                      (2) an extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb
                          portion to meet the stress caused by the flexing
                          of the knuckles when the skier grips the ski
                          pole;

                      (3) an extra piece of vinyl with padding
                          reinforcement and inside stitching, which is
                          securely stitched across the middle of the glove
                          where the knuckles bend and cause stress; and

                      (4) cuffs with an elastic gauntlet to hold the glove
                          firmly around the wrist, so as to be waterproof,
                          and to keep it securely on the hand.

                 An examination of the sample gloves persuades us that
            they are clearly designed for use in the sport of skiing and
            substantially meet the criteria set forth above for being
            considered ski gloves for tariff purposes.

                 Noting that the gloves are not impregnated, coated or
            covered with plastic as claimed by the protestant, it is our
            position that they are properly classifiable under subheading
            6216.00.4400, HTSUSA, as gloves, mittens and mitts, other, of
            man-made fibers, ski or snowmobile gloves, mittens and mitts,
            and entitled to duty free treatment under the Generalized
            System of Preferences, if otherwise qualified.

            HOLDING:

                 Since reclassification of the merchandise as indicated
            above will result in the same rate of duty as claimed, you are
            instructed to allow the protest in full.  A copy of this
            decision should be attached to your Form 19 Notice of Action to
            be sent to the protestant.

                                        Sincerely,




                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division











            6cc AD NY Seaport
            2cc Chief C.I.E.
            1cc Y Tomenga NY Seaport
            1cc Legal Reference
            1cc Regulatory Trade programs Division
            1cc Regional Comm. PAC Region
            D. Cahill library/peh
            085642DFC