HQ 953704: Request for Internal Advice No. 2/93; ladies' knit glove; partially covered or coated fabrics which bear designs precluded from classification as coated fabrics; subheading 6116.93.8800, HTSUSA

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 953704

                          July 14, 1993

CLA-2  CO:R:C:T  953704  jb

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6116.93.8800

Area Director
J.F.K. Airport
Building 178
New York, NY 11430

RE:  Request for Internal Advice No. 2/93; ladies' knit glove;   
     partially covered or coated fabrics which bear designs
     precluded from classification as coated fabrics; subheading
     6116.93.8800, HTSUSA

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to memorandum CLA-2-K:C:B KG, requesting
Internal Advice regarding the classification under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), of a
ladies knit glove. A sample was submitted to this office for
examination.

FACTS:

     The submitted sample consists of a ladies' knit glove, stock
number 2099, with a seamless knit (string) construction and
composed of 90 percent acrylic and 10 percent spandex.  The glove
is a one size stretch knit, featuring a rib-knit elasticized
cuff.  The glove can be used in an ambidextrous manner (as the
thumb portion is not attached in an inset way), and features 100
percent rubber pads in the form of snowflakes partially covering
one side of the glove.  It is stated that the rubber snowflakes
enhance the grip and life of the glove.  The importer, Berkshire
Fashions, Inc., argues that the rubber miniature snowflakes
covering the palm and palm-side of the fingers are sufficient to
consider the glove "coated" for classification purposes.  You
disagree, stating that the glove should not be classified as
"coated".

ISSUE:

     Whether the partial coating, that is the rubber snowflakes,
imparts the essential character to the glove?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is in
accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), taken
in order.  GRI 1 requires that classification be determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative section
or chapter notes, taken in order.  In the event that the goods
cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, the remaining
GRI will be applied, in the order of their appearance.

     Chapter Note 2(a) to chapter 59, HTSUSA, states:

     Heading No. 59.03 applies to:

          Textile Fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or
          laminated with plastics, whatever the weight per square
          metre and whatever the nature of the plastic material
          (compact or cellular), other than:

          (1) Fabrics in which the impregnation, coating or      
              covering cannot be seen with the naked eye (usually 
              Chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60); for the purpose of   
              this provision, no account should be taken of any  
              resulting change of colour;

                              *   *   *

          (4) Fabrics partially coated or partially covered with
              plastics and bearing designs resulting from these  
              treatments (usually Chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60);

     The importer states that the essential character of the
glove is imparted by the coated portion, i.e. the rubber
snowflakes, on one side of the glove.  In support of this,
reference is made to Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 084283,
dated August 8, 1989, and New York Ruling Letter (NY) 851788,
dated May 18, 1990, both addressing the essential character of
knit gloves featuring some form of plastic coating.  
     
     Though the essential character of the gloves in both these
rulings was determined to be imparted by the plastic coating, the
determination was based on the fact that in the former, the
plastic coating completely covered the surface area of the palm,
including additional plastic strips across the back of the hand,
and in the latter, the plastic coating covered most of both the
palm and back of the palm.  Thus, the rubber portion of both
gloves outweighed the importance of the knit.  





     The rubber snowflakes featured on the submitted glove do not
totally obscure the knit fabric, in addition, as the thumb
portion is not attached in an inset way, the glove can be used in
an ambidextrous manner.  This being the case, that is, that the 
rubber snowflakes can actually be worn so that they cover the 
back of the hand, and not the palm, this has no effect on the
"grip" of the glove.  The snowflakes are mostly decorative in
nature and do not outweigh the importance or utility of the knit.

     Reliance on Headquarters Ruling (HQ) 085102, dated September
25, 1989, is similarly misplaced.  That ruling addressed the
essential character of a textile-topped and textile lined plywood
box.  In that case it was found that the added value, aesthetic
appeal and marketability attributed to the decorative textile
fabric completely surpassed that imparted by the wood.  It thus
followed that the essential character of the article was imparted
by the textile fabric and not the wood.  As discussed above, in
the case of the subject merchandise, the rubber snowflakes do not
change the essential character of the knit glove to a coated knit
glove.

     We direct your attention to NY 861687, dated 
April 18, 1991. That ruling determined that the rectangular strip
of rubber applied to the palm side of each finger and the back of
the hand over the insert thumb, and the rubber applied to the
palm of the glove in a small chevron design, did not impart the
essential character to the glove.  Similarly, the subject glove
featuring rubber snowflakes cannot be regarded a "coated glove".

     As is stated in Chapter Note 2(a)(4) to chapter 59, HTSUSA,
partially covered or coated fabrics which bear designs resulting
from those treatments are precluded from being classified as
coated fabrics.  The application of this note to the subject
glove reveals that we have a partially covered palm with a
snowflake design, which is not considered coated.  It follows
that the glove was correctly classified in subheading
6116.93.8800, HTSUSA.

HOLDING:

     The knit glove, stock number 2099, is classifiable under
subheading 6116.93.8800, HTSUSA, which provides for gloves,
mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers,
without fourchettes, other.  The applicable rate of duty is 19.8
percent ad valorem and the textile category is 631.







     A copy of this decision should be furnished to the initiator
of the Internal Advice Request.

                           Sincerely,



                           John Durant, Director