HQ 952483: Request for Guidance in the Classification of BuoyancyArticles

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 952483

                          May 27, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T  952483 HP

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:   6307.20.0000

Ms. Jean F. Maguire
Area Director
U.S. Customs Service
New York Seaport Area
6 World Trade Center
New York, N.Y. 10048-0945

RE:  Request for Guidance in the Classification of Buoyancy
Articles

Dear Ms. Maguire:

     This is in reply to your memorandum of August 18, 1992. 
That memo concerned the tariff classification, under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
(HTSUSA), of buoyancy devices.  Please reference your file CLA-
2-63:S:N:N3H:345 - 708.

FACTS:

     The merchandise at issue consists of personal buoyancy
devices, in the form of vests, swim aids for children, etc. 
These devices generally are constructed of an outer layer of
textile surrounding inner layers of bladders, foam panels, or
other flotation materials.

ISSUE:

     When are these articles classified as garments or other made
up articles under the HTSUSA?  If classified as other made up
articles, are they classified in the eo nomine provision for
lifejackets and lifebelts?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Garment v. Other Made Up Article

     In HRL 952204 of April 12, 1993, we examined the issue of
whether a flotation device is classifiable as a garment.  The
merchandise at issue in that ruling was: an inflatable swimming aid [(a swim
          sweater)], ... which is specially designed
          for use by children ages 2-6.  The article is
          composed of a rubber inner tube, the
          flotation chamber, encased in a stretch nylon
          case which is firmly attached to a short
          nylon sweater.  * * * It permits the child to
          float upright or to try swimming, providing
          the appropriate buoyancy under the body to
          keep her head out of the water. * * * [T]he
          article is not designed to perform a
          lifesaving function and is not sold for that
          purpose....

In HRL 087946 of December 24, 1991, we initially classified this
merchandise under heading 6114, HTSUSA, as a sweater.  In
determining that this decision was incorrect we stated:

               We do not dispute that the imported
          articles are designed to be worn and,
          therefore, fall generally within the class or
          kind of articles considered to be wearing
          apparel.  See Arnold v. United States, 147
          U.S. 494, 496 (1892).  Nor do we argue that
          the term "wearing apparel" does not cover
          articles worn essentially for protective
          purposes.  Admiral Craft Equip. Corp. v.
          United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 162, C.D. 4796
          (1979) (plastic lobster bibs are wearing
          apparel).  However, all things worn by humans
          are not necessarily wearing apparel.  See
          Dynamics Classics, Ltd. v. United States,
          Slip. Op. 86-105, 10 C.I.T. 666 (Oct. 17,
          1986) (plastic suits used for weight
          reduction inappropriate for wear during
          exercise or work not wearing apparel);
          Antonio Pompeo v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct.
          362, C.D. 2006 (1958) (crash helmets not
          wearing apparel); Best v. United States, 1
          Ct. Cust. Appls. 49, T.D. 31009 (1910) (ear
          caps for prevention of abnormal ear growth
          not wearing apparel).

               Admiral Craft Equipment, supra,
          developed the standard that items are not
          considered wearing apparel when the use of
          those items goes "far beyond that of general
          wearing apparel."  Daw Industries, Inc. v.
          United States, 714 F.2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
          (sheaths and socks used exclusively with
          protheses do not provide "significantly more,
          or essentially different," protection than
          analogous articles of clothing, but merely
          "differ incrementally").  The Daw reasoning
          is applicable to this matter.  While the swim
          sweater may provide some protection from the
          elements, and may even be said to adorn the
          body (see Antonio Pompeo, supra (the term
          wearing apparel includes articles worn for
          decency, comfort or adornment)), it is
          exclusively used in very specific situations. 
          The increment in the difference in use and
          effect between this article and a
          conventional sweater is so large that we must
          conclude that the swim sweater is no longer
          wearing apparel.

     In HRL 950562 of January 9, 1992, we classified a Stratus
snorkeling vest, designed to provide surface flotation as well as
warmth, as a garment.  The accompanying literature described the
merchandise as follows: Being able to see clearly, breathe
          comfortably, and move efficiently are
          certainly important factors governing the
          enjoyment of snorkeling.  But if any one
          comfort element of snorkeling could be
          isolated as most important, it would be
          buoyancy control.  While this feature is
          certainly of vital importance, the Snorkeling
          Vest actually provides a multitude of other
          advantages that add to the overall comfort
          and enjoyment....

                              * * *

          In addition to supplying comfortable surface
          flotation, the Stratus keeps you warm as
          well.  These two features, never combined
          before, are accomplished by bonding a high
          visibility flotation pocket to a ~" neoprene
          vest.

     It is clear that the neoprene vest imported without a bonded
flotation pocket would be classified as a garment.  See the
Explanatory Note to Heading 6113, HTS (heading includes oilskins
& divers' suits).  Following Daw Industries, supra, we must now
determine whether the additional protection and other advantages
afforded by the flotation pocket are "significantly more, or
essentially different," than the neoprene vest alone.

     The instruction sheet for the Stratus Snorkeling Vest states
that "[i]t is designed to provide warmth and a small amount of
flotation."  Emphasis added.  It "incorporates a neoprene vest
for warmth, with a built-in buoyancy enhancement of surface
flotation.  The progressive design is stylish for both men and
women snorkel divers."  Emphasis added.  Based upon this, it is
our opinion that the use and effect of the Stratus Snorkeling
Vest does not differ significantly from a neoprene vest alone. 
HRL 950562 was decided correctly, and is affirmed.

Other Made Up Article (Lifejackets) v. Other Made Up Article
(Other)

     In HRL 950496 of March 5, 1992, we classified a windsurfer's
buoyancy vest within subheading 6307.20, HTSUSA, as a
lifejackets, even though it did not meet the U.S. Coast Guard
specifications for life preservers.  This policy was affirmed in
HRL 952930 of February 25, 1993.  In HRL 952204, supra, we
classified the swim sweater under subheading 6307.90, HTSUSA, as
an other article of textiles.  Accordingly, you have requested
guidance as to what factors are to be considered in classifying
personal buoyancy devices within subheading 6307.20, HTSUSA.

     Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (1988)
defines a life preserver as a "buoyant device for saving a person
from drowning by keeping the body afloat, as a ring or sleeveless
jacket of canvas-covered cork or kapok."  Buoyancy is defined as
"the ability or tendency to float or rise in liquid or air."  A
life belt is defined as "a life preserver in the form of a belt,"
and a life jacket (or vest) as "a life preserver in the form of a
sleeveless jacket or vest."  A life belt is a chiefly British
term used to describe a flotation article with a textile exterior
which fits around a child's waist.  This article, as well as the
traditional life jacket, has been classified by the United
Kingdom Customs Administration based upon the construction of the
article; warning labels that the article is "NOT A LIFE
PRESERVER" are not dispositive.

     To be classified under subheading 6307.20, HTS, an article
must be considered "of textiles."  See the discussion in HRL
952204, supra, with respect to deciding between Chapter 40 and
Chapter 63.  The article must also not be more specifically
classifiable as a garment of Chapters 61 or 62.  See the
discussion above.  Finally, if the article meets the commonly
accepted definitions (above) of a lifejacket or a lifebelt, it is
within the scope of the subheading at the international (six
digit) level.  This is true irrespective of the fact that the
buoyancy device fails to meet U.S. Coast Guard specifications. 
Classification of a particular life saving device by various
Customs administrations according to their national regulations
would most likely result in a lack of uniformity in the treatment
of the merchandise under the Harmonized System.  Should the
flotation device not conform to the commonly accepted
definitions, e.g., the swim sweater, it is classified under
subheading 6307.90, HTS, as an other made up article of textiles.

HOLDING:

     As a result of the foregoing, personal flotation devices
meeting the commonly accepted definition of lifejackets are
classified under subheading 6307.20.0000, HTSUSA, as other made
up articles, lifejackets and lifebelts.  Should you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Chief,
Textile Classification Branch, at (202) 482-7050.


                           Sincerely,



                      John Durant, Director
                   Commercial Rulings Division