HQ 953565: Classification of women's upper body garment; cardigan;jacket; sweater; Heading 6110; Heading 6102; Statistical Note 3,Chapter 61, Section XI; Country of origin determination; 19 CFR12.130, Customs Regulations

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 953565

                          April 26, 1993

CLA-2   CO:R:C:T 953565 CAB

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6110.30.3055

Ms. Andrea Bushee
Vital International Freight
  Services
625 First Ave., #5
Seattle, WA 98104

RE:  Classification of women's upper body garment; cardigan;
jacket; sweater; Heading 6110; Heading 6102; Statistical Note 3,
Chapter 61, Section XI; Country of origin determination; 19 CFR
12.130, Customs Regulations

Dear Ms. Bushee:

     This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 28,
1993, requesting a country of origin determination and a tariff
classification for a woman's upper body garment under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
(HTSUSA).  You are acting on behalf of the A.J. Brandon Company. 
Both a completed sample garment and seven fabric pieces that will
form the body and sleeves of the subject garment were submitted
for examination.

FACTS:

     The garment in question, Style 1325, is an upper body
garment which contains a V-shaped neckline, a full frontal
opening with four button closures, four embroidered appliques
sewn on the right front side, a ribbed waistband, and long
sleeves with ribbed knit cuffs.  The garment is designed to
extend below the waist of the wearer.  The sample garment is
labeled 65 percent polyester and 35 percent cotton.  The cardigan
style garment is also finely knit and has more than nine stitches
per two centimeters measured in the horizontal direction.

     In your submission you state that the fabric is knitted,
dyed, and cut in Korea.  The garment pieces along with various
other accessories (including labels, sewing thread, hang tags,
buttons, bags) are then exported to China for sewing and assembly
into the finished product.  The costs incurred in Korea for the
processing and materials amount to 88.82 percent of the total
expenses while the cost of processing in China amounts to 11.18
percent of the total cost of producing the finished product.  

ISSUES:
     
I.   What is the proper tariff classification for the garment in
question?

II.  What is the country of origin for the garment in question?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

TARIFF CLASSIFICATION

     Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's).  GRI 1 provides that
classification shall be determined according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes.  Merchandise
that cannot be classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be
classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's, taken in order.

     The garment in question is potentially classifiable in two
distinct headings.  One possible heading is Heading 6102, HTSUSA,
which provides for women's or girls' overcoats, carcoats, capes,
anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar
articles, knitted or crocheted.  The Explanatory Notes to the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (EN), although
not legally binding, are the official interpretation of the
tariff at the international level.  The EN to Heading 6102,
HTSUSA, state that garments classified in that heading are
generally worn over other clothing for protection against the
weather.  However, the merchandise at issue is not necessarily
classifiable under Heading 6102, HTSUSA, simply because it is
worn over outer clothing.  

     Although the instant item appears to be constructed for wear
over other clothing, it is not one of, or similar to, any of the
named articles of Heading 6102, HTSUSA.  Also, the garment in
question is not constructed of a material that would protect the
wearer against the elements.  Consequently, the subject garment
is not classifiable under Heading 6102, HTSUSA.

     The alternative heading is Heading 6110, HTSUSA, which
provides for sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests)
and similar articles, knitted or crocheted.  The submitted
article resembles a sweater both in use and appearance.
  
     Sweaters are only provided for under Heading 6110, HTSUSA,
at the statistical level.  In this regard, Statistical Note 3,
Chapter 61, Section XI, HTSUSA, which provides the criteria for
the classification of sweaters, states the following:

          For the purposes of this chapter, statistical
     provisions for sweaters include garments, whether or not
     known as pullovers, vests or cardigans, which are
     constructed essentially with 9 or fewer stitches per 2
     centimeters measured in the horizontal direction.  

     In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 084972, dated October
12, 1989, a cardigan garment similar to the instant article was
at issue.  Customs stated that a cardigan may be a sweater, or
may be a jacket.  Cardigan refers to the styling of the garment;
it is not dispositive as to its classification.   

     After examining the general appearance of the garment at
issue, it appears that it contains the characteristics of a
sweater.  The fabric forming the sample garment provides for
warmth and not protection against inclement weather.  The subject
garment qualifies in all respects, except the stitch count, for
classification as a sweater.  Consequently, the garment at issue
is classifiable in Heading 6110, HTSUSA.  This conclusion
conforms with prior Customs rulings which dealt with the
classification of upper body cardigan garments.  (See e.g., HRL
082061, dated December 28, 1989 and HRL 088482, dated May 13,
1991.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
     
     Country of origin determinations for textile products are
subject to Section 12.130, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130). 
Section 12.130 provides that a textile product that is processed
in more than one country or territory shall be a product of that
country or territory where it last underwent a substantial
transformation.  A textile product will be considered to have
undergone a substantial transformation if it has been transformed
by means of substantial manufacturing or processing operations
into a new and different article of commerce.

     Section 12.130(d), Customs Regulations, sets forth criteria
for determining whether a substantial transformation of a textile
product has taken place.  This regulation states these criteria
are not exhaustive; one or any combination of criteria may be
determinative, and additional factors may be considered.

     Section 12.130(d)(1), Customs Regulations, states that a new
and different article of commerce will usually result from a
manufacturing or processing operation if there is a change in:

     (i)  Commercial designation or identity, (ii)  Fundamental
character or (iii)  Commercial use.

     Section 12.130(d)(2), Customs Regulations, states that for
determining whether merchandise has been subjected to substantial
manufacturing or processing operations, the following will be
considered.

     (i)     The physical change in the material or article

     (ii)    The time involved in the manufacturing or processing

     (iii)   The complexity of the manufacturing or processing

     (iv)    The level or degree of skill

     (v)     The value added to the article or material  

     According to T.D. 85-38, the final document rule
establishing 19 CFR 12.130:

     The assembly of all the cut pieces of a garment usually is a
     substantial manufacturing process that results in an article
     with a different name, character, or use than the cut
     pieces.  It should be noted that not all assembly operations
     of cut garment pieces will amount to a substantial
     transformation  of those pieces.  Where either less than a
     complete assembly of all the cut pieces of a garment is
     performed in one country, or the assembly is a relatively
     simple one, then Customs will rule on the particular factual
     situation as they arise, utilizing the criteria in Section
     12.130(d).

     Customs has consistently ruled that the mere assembly of
goods, entailing simple combining operations, trimming or joining
together by sewing is not enough to substantially transform the
components of an article into a new and different article of
commerce.  See HRL 951424, dated April 24, 1992, and HRL 082787,
dated March 9, 1989.

     The issue in this instance is similar to the question
Customs confronted in HRL 951524.  In HRL 951524 Customs
determined the country of origin of men's shirts that had been
processed in more than one country.  The shirts were marked and
cut in Singapore, and then sent to Malaysia for simple assembly. 
Customs decided that the final substantial transformation
occurred in Singapore because the cutting process materially
altered the fabric into designated parts.  In this case, the
material used for the garment at issue is knitted, dyed, and cut
in Korea.  The material is then sent to China for sewing and
assembly into the final product.  The manufacturing operation in
China entails minor processing and finishing.  The processing in
China does not materially alter the garment at issue.  However,
the cutting and sewing operation performed in Korea substantially
transforms the fabric into designated garment pieces.  Also, the
costs incurred for the manufacturing operation in Korea amount to
88.82 percent of the total cost of producing the finished
product, while the costs incurred for the processing operation in
China amount to only 11.18 percent of the total manufacturing
cost.  Thus, the value attributable to the finished product in
Korea is significant.  Consequently, the garment in question
underwent its last substantial transformation in Korea.

HOLDING:

     Style 1325 is classifiable in subheading 6110.30.3055,
HTSUSA, which provides for sweaters, pullovers, sweatshirts,
waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted, 
The applicable duty rate is 34.2 percent ad valorem and the
textile restraint category is 639.

     The country of origin for Style 1325 is Korea.

     The textile and apparel category may be subdivided into
parts.  If so, visa and quota requirements applicable to the
subject merchandise may be affected.  Since part categories are
the result of international bilateral agreements which are
subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the
most current information available, we suggest that you check,
close to the time of shipment, the Status Report on Current
Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an internal issuance of the
U.S. Customs Service, which is updated weekly and is available at
your local Customs office.

     Due to the changeable nature of the statistical annotation
(the ninth and tenth digits of the classification), and the
restraint (quota/visa) categories, you should contact your local
Customs office prior to importing the merchandise to determine
the current applicability of any import restraint requirements.

     The holding set forth above applies only to the specific
factual situation and merchandise identified in the ruling
request.  This position is clearly set forth in section
177.9(b)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(b)(1)).  This
section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption
that all of the information furnished in connection, with the
ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either
directly, by reference, or by implication is accurate and
complete in every material respect.  Should it subsequently be
determined that the information furnished is not complete and
does not comply with 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1), the ruling will be 







subject to modification or revocation.  In the event there is a
change in the facts previously furnished, this may affect the
determination of country of origin.  Accordingly, it is
recommended that a new ruling request be submitted in accordance
with section 177.2, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.2).

                                   Sincerely,



                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division