HQ 951973: Revocation of NY 825024; Highway Kit; 8203.20.40; 8206.00.00

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 951973
                          July 1, 1992


CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 951973 DWS

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: Unknown

Mr. John Goodrich
Fingerhut Corporation
4400 Baker Road A-195
Minnetonka, MN 55343

RE: Revocation of NY 825024; Highway Kit; 8203.20.40;
    8206.00.00

Dear Mr. Goodrich:

     In NY 825024, dated March 25, 1988, you were advised that
the subject highway kit would be classifiable as a set under
General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 3(b) of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  You were also
advised that the essential character of the kit was the tool set,
and, therefore, the kit would be classifiable under subheading
8203.20.40, HTSUS, as derived from subheading 8206.00.00, HTSUS.

     This letter is to notify you of a change in the
classification of the subject highway kit as a result of HQ
951943, dated June 26, 1992, a copy of which is enclosed.  The
"Highway Emergency Kit" ruled upon in HQ 951943 is very similar
in composition to the subject highway kit.  Based upon the
reasoning in HQ 951943, the subject merchandise is not
classifiable as a set.  All of the articles contained within the
kit must be classified separately under their respective headings
in the HTSUS.  The classification of any of these articles on an
individual basis does not seem to present any unusual
difficulties.  However, if you are unsure of the classification
of a particular article, you should use the District Rulings
procedure as usual.

     Accordingly, we are revoking NY 825024 pursuant to 19 CFR
177.9(d)(1).  This revocation will not be applied retroactively
to NY 825024 [19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)] and will not, therefore, affect
past transactions under that ruling.  However, for the purposes
of future transactions in merchandise of this type, NY 825024
will not be valid precedent.  We recognize that pending
transactions may be adversely affected by this revocation, in
that current contracts for importations arriving at a port
subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it.  
If such a situation arises, you may apply for relief from the
binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by the
circumstances. 

                           Sincerely,



                           John Durant, Director
                           Commercial Rulings Division

Enclosure