HQ 086022: Multiple pairs of laces of differing colors or designs,imported with athletic shoes, raises presumption that multiplepairs of laces are intended for simultaneous use. The shoes plusall pairs of laces is a single article, or, where these laces arenot in eyelets, unassembled under GRI 2(a). composite;set;GRI 3;GRI1

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 086022

                               February 15, 1990


CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  086022  HP

CATEGORY:  Classification

Mr. Ronald W. Gerdes
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
1120 19TH Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-3605

RE:  Multiple pairs of laces of differing colors or designs,
imported with athletic shoes, raises presumption that multiple
pairs of laces are intended for simultaneous use.  The shoes plus
all pairs of laces is a single article, or, where these laces are
not in eyelets, unassembled under GRI 2(a). composite;set;GRI 3;
GRI
1

Dear Mr. Gerdes:

     This is in reply to your letter of November 28, 1989,
concerning the tariff classification of multiple pairs of shoe
laces inserted into the eyelets of one pair of athletic-type
shoes,
produced in Taiwan, Thailand, China, Korea and Indonesia, under
the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA
).
Please reference your client Meldisco - Division of Melville
Corporation.

FACTS:

     The merchandise at issue consists of either two pairs or
three
pairs of shoe laces either fully or partially inserted into the
eyelets of one pair of athletic-type shoes at the time of importa
tion.  All shoes can simultaneously accommodate, through styling
and use of eyelets, the number of laces inserted at importation.
In all cases, the colors or designs of the multiple pairs of
laces
correspond to the color scheme of the athletic-type shoes; viz.
one
pair of black and grey athletic-type shoes imported with one
black
lace and one grey lace inserted into the eyelets of each shoe.
Classification of the shoes themselves is not being addressed.

ISSUE:

     Whether multiple pairs of shoe laces inserted into the
eyelets
of a single pair of athletic-type shoes constitute a set with
those
athletic-type shoes, for classification purposes under the HTSUSA
?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Chapter 64, HTSUSA, provides for, inter alia, athletic-type
shoes.  Heading 6307, HTSUSA, provides for, inter alia, shoe
laces
of textile materials.  No individual provision exists
specifically
covering athletic-type shoes with their laces.  The General Rules
of Interpretation (GRIs) to the HTSUSA govern the classification
of goods in the tariff schedule.  GRI 1 states, in pertinent part
:

... classification shall be determined accord
ing to the terms of the headings and any
relative section or chapter notes and, pro
vided such headings or notes do not otherwise
require, according to the following provisions
[taken in order]:

2.(a)Any reference in a heading to an
article shall be taken to include a
reference to that article [either]
incomplete or unfinished, ... [or]
complete or finished (or falling
[sic.] to be classified as complete
or finished by virtue of this rule),
entered unassembled or disassembled.
[Emphasis added.]

                                               * * *

3.When by application of Rule 2(b) [goods
of more than one material or substance]
or for any other reason, goods are, prima
facie, classifiable under two or more
headings, classification shall be ef
fected as follows:

                                               * * *

(b)... [C]omposite goods ... made up of
different components, and goods put
up in sets for retail sale, which
cannot be classified by reference to
3(a) [which requires that goods be
classified, if possible, under the
more specific of the competing
provisions], shall be classified as
if they consisted of the ... com
ponent which gives them their essen
tial character, insofar as this
criterion is applicable.


     It is well accepted under Customs law that when one pair of
shoes requiring laces is imported without its laces, that pair of
shoes is treated as an incomplete or unfinished pair of shoes
under GRI 2(a), supra.  It follows, therefore, that when a pair of
shoes is imported with its corresponding pair of laces the mer
chandise is considered a complete article (i.e., an incomplete
pair of shoes completed), rather than a composite good under GRI
3.
     It is our opinion that where one pair of shoes is imported
with one pair of laces (i.e., a completed pair of shoes), the
attachment of the laces has no effect upon the classification of
the pair of shoes.  The shoes and their laces are a complete
article; any further analysis under GRI 3, therefore, is unneces
sary.

     Once this conclusion is reached, we must now ask ourselves
whether the "completed article" analysis can be extended to one
pair of shoes imported with multiple pairs of laces, where those
laces are intended to be worn simultaneously with the first pair
of laces; id est, "completing" the shoes in the manner the desig
ners intended.  Fashion is a constantly evolving phenomena, where
new styles are continuously coming into vogue.  Advertising mater
ials furnished with your ruling request clearly demonstrate that
a current fashion trend is toward the simultaneous wearing of
multiple pairs of laces with one pair of athletic-type shoes.  See
also HRL 075283 of April 29, 1985 (indicating fashion trend as
early as 1985).  It has been maintained, therefore, that a new
"completed article," (i.e., one pair of athletic-type shoes worn
with multiple pairs of laces) has been created.  Cf. Mast Ind
ustries, Inc. v. United States, 9 C.I.T. 549, 551 (1985) (taking
judicial notice of fact that "most consumers purchase and use a
garment in the manner in which it is marketed").   We agree.

     In HRL 084712 of August 24, 1989, we held that where multiple
pairs of shoe laces are imported loose in the same packing con
tainer as one pair of athletic-type shoes, the second pair of
laces, plus any additional pairs of laces, form a set with the
shoes.  Accord HRL 085487 of September 27, 1989 (modifying on
other grounds HRL 084712).  Therefore, pursuant to the Directive
of December 23, 1988, to the Commissioner of Customs from the
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements,
Department of Commerce, as amended August 24, 1989, the additional
pairs of laces required separate visas and reporting of quota.  In
attempting to distinguish the instant matter, it has been sug
gested that since the instant laces are at least partially laced
into the eyelets of the shoes at the time of importation, the rule
of HRL 084712 does not apply to this matter.

     This suggestion fails to address the rationale behind HRL
084712, which does not depend on whether the laces are laced, or
partially laced, into the eyelets of the shoes.  In HRL 084712, a
complete pair of shoes was formed by the association, with the
unlaced shoes, of one pair of laces; the additional pairs of laces
were redundant, intended as replacement or alternate lacings. In
requesting classification as a set under GRI 3(b), Reebok stated
that they were providing additional pairs of laces to "allow [the
wearer] a choice of several colorful shoe lacings".  Emphasis
added.  This would permit "the consumer [to] therefore coordinate
his/her attire."  The intent behind supplying the additional pairs
of laces was to meet a particular need, not create a "completed
article."  Indeed, the "whole" (the shoes readily usable without
any additional construction or components) was formed prior to the
additional pairs of laces entering the picture.  Classification as
a set was, therefore, a logical extension of the use toward which
the additional components were to be applied.
     In the instant matter, the new "completed article" manifests
itself when the additional pairs of laces are imported with the
shoes.  In HRL 084712, the multiple pairs of laces simply allowed
the consumer a different way to coordinate his/her attire.  In the
instant matter, the formation of a "new" completed article (a pair
of shoes worn with multiple pairs of laces), the fundamental
distinguishing factor between this case and HRL 084712, does
exist.  HRL 084712 is therefore distinguishable, and the instant
merchandise is classifiable as articles presented unassembled or
disassembled.  See also HRL 085487, supra ("[t]he first pair of
laces imported with the shoes is considered a part of the shoes,
not a set therewith).  Emphasis added.

HOLDING:

     As a result of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Cus
toms Service that where multiple pairs of laces are imported with
one pair of athletic-type shoes which can accommodate, through
styling and use of eyelets, all of the pairs of laces simul
taneously, and those pairs of laces are of differing colors and/or
designs, absent evidence that the laces are intended to be used
separately (a situation which existed, for example, in HRL
084712), a presumption is raised that the multiple pairs of laces
are intended to be worn simultaneously.  The one pair of shoes
plus all pairs of laces is therefore considered a single article,
or, where these laces are not laced into the eyelets, a single
article presented unassembled under GRI 2(a).  Under the CITA
directive, supra, no visa is required in either case.

     We note that where multiple pairs of laces of like colors
and/or designs are imported, laced or not laced, with one pair of
shoes, a presumption is raised diametrically opposed to the single
article premise referred to above.  These additional pairs of
laces are presumed to be for replacement purposes (constituting a
redundancy in the already completed pair of shoes).  Such addi
tional laces would form a set with the shoes, under the reasoning
of HRL 084712, supra.

     All previous rulings not in accordance with the analysis
espoused herein are modified in conformity with the foregoing.


                                            Sincerely,


                                       John Durant, Director
                                    Commercial Rulings Division