HQ 080959: Tariff classification of certain infants' seats

us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-080959HQ 080959: Tariff classification of certain infants' seatsGuidance

Abrir fonte

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 080959

                                      July 8, 1988


             CLA-2 CO:R:C:G   080959  SM

             CATEGORY:  Classification

             TARIFF NO.:  9401.79.0030; 9503.90.6000

             Ralph H. Sheppard, Esq.
             Adduci, Dinan, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill
             551 Fifth Avenue
             New York, NY  10176

             RE:  Tariff classification of certain infants' seats

             Dear Mr. Sheppard:

                   Your letter of June 2, 1987, addressed to the Regional
             Commissioner, New York Region, has been referred to this
             office for reply.  You also submitted additional information
             to this office on April 20, 1988.  You request a classifica-
             tion ruling, on behalf of Summer Infant Products, Inc., for
             certain infants' seats of which the components will be im-
             ported either together or separately.  You state that although
             part of the seat will be assembled in Mexico, you wish to know
             the proper classification of the whole and the components
             without regard to whether the merchandise will be eligible for
             partial duty exemption under item 807.00, Tariff Schedules of
             the United States (TSUS).

             FACTS:

                   A sample of the infants' seat, unassembled in a box, was
             submitted to this office.  It consists of a one-piece quilted
             back and seat (the "cover") to be  stretched over a metal
             frame and fastened with snaps.  The cover features a stitched-
             on pocket on the back and a self-fabric restraining belt that
             fastens to two D-rings, also located on the back.  The tag on
             the cover indicates that the outer fabric is cotton and the
             filler is polyester.  Also included is a flat, quilted pad,
             roughly oval in shape, about twenty inches long by thirteen
             inches wide, with a U-shaped roll stitched around the upper
             edge and halfway down the sides.  The tag on the pad indicates
             that the outer fabric is cotton and the filler is polyester.
             The fabric for both the cover and the pad is stated to be
             manufactured, cut, and quilted in the United States, then sent
             to Mexico for sewing and assembly.  The metal frame is stated
             to be made in China and imported through Hong Kong.  A metal
             bar attaches at the sides of the frame and extends around the
             front to hold a number of plastic toys fitted to the bar.  The
             toys are stated to be manufactured in China.    











                                           -2-


             ISSUE:

                   How is the textile cover classified if imported sep-
             arately?  How is the pad classified if imported separately?
             How is the metal frame including the toy bar classified if
             imported separately?  How are the plastic toys classified if
             imported separately?  How are the frame and toy bar, cover,
             pad, and toys classified if imported together?

             LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                   Your position is that when the metal frame and toy bar
             are imported together with the cover, pad, and toys, all are
             classifiable together as an entirety, namely, furniture and
             parts thereof, not specially provided for, according to the
             component material of which the entirety is in chief value, in
             Subpart A, Part 4, Schedule 7, TSUS.  This proposed classifi-
             cation raises two issues:  whether the infants' seat is furni-
             ture and whether it is an entirety.

                   Articles classified as furniture must meet the require-
             ments of Headnote 1 of Subpart A, which provides in part that,
             for purposes of that subpart, "'[f]urniture' includes movable
             articles of utility, designed to be placed on the floor or
             ground, and used to equip dwellings . . . ."  The infants'
             seat is movable and would be useful in the home.  The accom-
             panying literature and a tag on the cover state specifically
             that it is not for use as a car seat.  The literature also
             states that one of the main features of the seat is that it
             will bounce as the infant moves, and that the rocking motion
             will thus become a learned response to sitting in the chair.
             It advises that the seat must therefore be placed on the
             floor, particularly when the infant reaches a stage of vigor-
             ous bouncing.  We conclude that, although the seat could be
             placed on an elevated surface, it is designed for bouncing and
             therefore for use on the floor.  The infants' seat thus meets
             the requirements for furniture.

                   We assume that if imported together, all the components
             of the seat would be unassembled in a box like the sample.
             General Interpretative Rule 10(h), TSUS,  provides, however,
             that "a tariff description for an article covers such article,
             whether assembled or not assembled . . . ."  Thus, the unas-
             sembled seat would still be classifiable under the furniture
             provision.  However, Rule 10(h) covers only the unassembled
             article, and not extra articles also included.  The next ques-
             tion, therefore, is whether all the components to be imported
             together constitute an entirety.    












                                           -3-

                   The entireties doctrine is a rule of tariff classifi-
             cation applicable when a question arises as to what consti-
             tutes a single tariff entity.  In Donalds Ltd., Inc. v. Uni-
             ted States, 32 Cust. Ct. 310, 314, C.D. 1619 (1954), the court
             described the two possible situations that may require the
             application of the doctrine:

                   (1) where physically separate entities are imported
                   in one importation, and the question is whether or
                   not they may be considered as a single commercial
                   unit and classified under a tariff provision appli-
                   cable to the unit, or (2) where a unit is imported,
                   and the question is whether or not the parts there-
                   of, rather than the unit, may each be individually
                   classified under tariff provisions applicable to the
                   parts.

             The first type of situation arose in North American Foreign
             Trading Corp. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 114, C.D. 3968
             (1970).  The court rejected an importer's claim that certain
             earphones imported with radios but usable with other equipment
             were dutiable with the radios as entireties.  The court found
             that the earphones were complete articles and had various uses
             other than with the imported radios.

                   There are no ironclad rules of universally applicable
             principles for determining whether merchandise should be
             classified and dutied as entireties.  Lafayette Radio Elec-
             tronics Corp. v. United States, 57 CCPA 62, C.A.D. 977, 421 F.
             2d 751 (1970), rev'g 62 Cust. Ct. 44, C.D. 3672, 294 F. Supp.
             950 (1969).  However, in our view, the facts in  North Ameri-
             can Foreign Trading Corp. are sufficiently similar to justify
             application of the rule in that case to the situation in this
             case.  The design of the infants' seat is such that the pad,
             which is complete in itself, is easily separated from the seat
             and used in other settings.  In fact, the seat is shown  on
             the box in use without the pad, and the pad is stated to be
             usable with other articles.  Articles similar to the pad are
             sold separately.  We conclude that the pad is not classifiable
             with the seat as an entirety.

                   The next question raised is how each component of the
             infants' seat would be classified if imported separately.
             Since the provisions for furniture in Subpart A of Part 4,
             Schedule 7, TSUS, specifically include parts, the first issue
             is whether any or all of the components are classifiable as
             parts of furniture.















                                           -4-



                   The term part is not defined in the tariff schedules.
             General Rule of Interpretation 10(ij), TSUS, covers situa-
             tions in which articles imported separately are sought to be
             classified under a provision for "parts" of another article.
             It states that "a provision for 'parts' of an article covers a
             product solely or chiefly used as a part of such article, but
             does not prevail over a specific provision for such part."  It
             does not, however, define the term part.  In the context of
             applying Rule 10(ij), the courts have made various judgments
             about when an article constitutes a part of another article.

                   There exists a great wealth of judicial literature on
             the subject of what constitutes "parts" for customs duty
             purposes.  "Parts" is a word of art in customs law.  Parts
             Manufacturing Associates, Inc. v. United States, 73 Cust. Ct.
             42, 45, C.D. 4552, 377 F. Supp. 1356 (1974).  In Vilem B. Haan
             v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 104, 117, C.D. 4260, 332 F.
             Supp. 182 (1971), the court examined many cases dealing with
             the subject of parts and determined that "[i]n all of them,
             the crucial inquiry pertained to the use and function of the
             controverted article and its relation and contribution to the
             parent article."  The merchandise in question in Haan was
             headrests for automobile seats.  The headrests were designed
             to slip over the back of auto front seats.  They featured two
             screws with which they could be attached to the back of the
             seat and knobs on either side that allowed for their adjust-
             ment.  With regard to the use and function of these articles,
             the court found that they had no other use than as auto seat
             headrests.  With regard to their relation and contribution to
             the parent article, the court found that they enhanced the
             usefulness and safety of the seats, contributing to the safety
             and efficient operation of the auto.  Once attached to the
             seats, they became a part of the seat.  They were thus clas-
             sifiable as parts of furniture designed for motor vehicle use.

                   We conclude that the metal frame with attaching metal
             toy bar and the cover of the Summer infants' seat are classi-
             fiable as parts of furniture.  However, the pad is not a part.
             With regard to the use of the pad, it is neither solely nor
             chiefly used with the seat.  It may be attached to the seat by
             tying it with a single ribbon.  But it is easily removed for
             other uses.  The fact that it is easily removed does not auto-
             matically mean that it is not a part.  Rather, it is the fact
             that virtually identical articles are sold separately and ad-
             vertised for a number of uses, such as in car seats, strol-
             lers, high chairs, swings, and carriers.  Even the submitted














                                           -5-


             Summer literature states that the pad can also be used with
             other infant products.  With regard to its relation and con-
             tribution to the parent article, i.e., the infants'  seat, the
             pad cannot be said to make it significantly more useful and
             safe as a seat.  The cover functions as a seat and back.
             Since the seat and back are padded textile, and not hard
             materials such as metal or plastic, an infant is not provided
             with any additional comfort by use of the pad.  The infants'
             seat itself is angled back so that a baby would be held in a
             semi-reclining position appropriate for infants who cannot sit
             up straight.  The pad may help position an infant's head, but
             the baby is held safely in place without it.  The illustrated
             packing box in fact shows the infants' seat in use both with
             and without the pad.

                   The toys--colorful plastic shapes and figures, one with
             rolling eyes--have slits that allow them to be fitted onto the
             metal bar.  All could be played with without being attached to
             the seat.  The term toy is defined in Subpart E of Part 5,
             Schedule 7, TSUS, as "any article chiefly used for the amuse-
             ment of children or adults."  While the plastic figures are
             stated, in the literature describing the Summer infants' seat,
             to be "educational toys," we do not think that any learning
             experience they may provide is such that they should be clas-
             sified as anything other than toys.  Since they are specifi-
             cally provided for, they cannot be classified as parts of
             furniture, following Rule 10(ij).   Even if more specifically
             provided for as parts, they would still be classifiable as
             toys pursuant to Headnote 1, Subpart E, Part 5, Schedule 7,
             TSUS.

              HOLDING:

                   If imported together, the metal frame, attaching toy bar
             and toys, and cover are classifiable as furniture, not spe-
             cially provided for, according to the component material of
             which they are in chief value, in Subpart A, Part 4, Schedule
             7, TSUS.  If imported separately, the metal frame with the
             attaching bar, and the cover, are classified as parts of
             furniture under the same provisions.

                   The pad is ornamented with an eyelet trim that serves no
             function and enhances the appearance of the pad.  It is clas-
             sified in Subpart A, Part 7, Schedule 3, TSUS, as other orna-
             mented articles of textile materials, not specially provided
             for, according to the textile fiber of which it is in chief
             value.  Although it is described in the accompanying litera-
             ture as a "support cushion," it does not meet the requirements
             for classification as a cushion under items 727.82 or 727.86,












                                           -6-


             TSUS, since such articles must be "fitted with springs,
             stuffed, or both, or of expanded, foamed, or sponge rubber or
             plastics."

                   The toys are classified under item 737.96, TSUS, as toys
             not specially provided for, wholly or almost wholly of rubber
             or plastics, not inflatable.

                   The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
             Annotated (HTSUSA) is scheduled to replace the TSUS.  The
             HTSUSA provisions applicable to the above-described merchan-
             dise are the following.  Heading 9401, HTSUSA, provides for
             seats and parts.  Under General Rule of Interpretation (GRI)
             2, a provision for an article includes a reference to the
             unassembled article.  The metal frame, toy bar and toys, and
             cover, if imported together, are classified under subheading
             9401.79.0030, HTSUSA, a provision for other seats with metal
             frames.  If imported separately, the metal frame including the
             toy bar, and the cover, are classified under the other seat
             parts provision, subheading 9401.90.5000, HTSUSA.

                   Heading 9503 provides for other toys.  The plastic toys,
             if imported separately, are classified under subheading
             9503.90.6000, HTSUSA.

                   Heading 6304 provides for other furnishing articles.
             The pad would be classified under the appropriate subheading
             for articles not knitted or crocheted, according to the fiber
             of which it is in chief weight.

                   This classification represents the present position of
             the Customs Service on the dutiable status of the merchandise
             under the proposed HTSUSA.  If there are changes prior to
             enactment, this advice may not continue to be applicable.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division




















             cc:  NIS Richard Eyskens
             cc:  NIS Larry Mushinske
             cc:  NIS Anthony Falcone
             cc:  NIS Tom McKenna
             cc:  CITA





















































Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.