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