CLA 2 RR:CR:TE 963584 SG
TARIFF NO: 6203.42.4015
Mr. Rafael Hernandez, Customs Compliance Manager
The Disney Store, Inc.
101 North Brand Boulevard, suite 1000
Glendale, California 91203-2671
RE: Classification of men’s pants; sleepwear vs. loungewear
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1999, requesting a binding classification ruling on a men’s garment manufactured in China, pursuant to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). A sample was submitted and will be returned under separate cover.
FACTS:
The sample identified as style MR-141, is a pair of men’s woven cotton flannel pants. It has a fully elasticized waistband with an identical fabric cover and a functional drawstring closure, a placketed fly front with a one button closure on the hidden inside placket, a rear patch pocket and hemmed leg bottoms.
No advertising has been presented, however you indicate that the garment will be marketed in your stores as sleepwear and sold in the same section as your sleep shirts and pajamas. It is your belief that the garment is classifiable in subheading 6207.91.3010, HTSUSA, based on New York Ruling Letter (NY) B88639.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject merchandise is properly classifiable as sleepwear under Heading 6207, HTSUS, or as an outerwear garment under heading 6203, HTSUS?
2
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the
terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Merchandise that cannot be
classified in accordance with GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI's taken in order.
Heading 6207, HTSUS, provides for, inter alia, men’s nightshirts, pajamas and similar articles. Customs has consistently ruled that pajamas are generally two piece garments worn for sleeping. One piece garments such as sleep shorts and sleep pants used for sleeping are not classifiable as pajamas, instead they fall into a residual provision within heading 6207, HTSUS, for similar articles.
If it is determined that the subject bottoms are classifiable as outerwear or loungewear, the applicable heading for the bottoms is heading 6203, HTSUS, which provides for, inter alia, trousers and shorts.
In determining the classification of garments submitted to be sleepwear, Customs usually considers the factors discussed in two court cases that addressed sleepwear. In Mast Industries, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 549, 552 (1985), aff’d 786 F.2d 144 (CAFC, 1986), the Court of
International Trade considered the classification of a garment claimed to be sleepwear. The court cited several lexicographic sources, among them Webster’s Third New International Dictionary which defined “nightclothes” as “garments to be worn to bed.” In Mast, the court determined that the garment at issue therein was designed, manufactured, and used as nightwear and therefore was classifiable as nightwear. Similarly, in St. Eve International, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 224 (1987), the court ruled the garments at issue therein were manufactured, marketed and advertised as nightwear and were chiefly used as nightwear. Finally, in Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 248 (1995), the court was faced with the issue of whether women’s boxer style shorts were classifiable as “outerwear” under heading 6204, HTSUS, or as “underwear” under heading 6208, HTSUS. The court stated the following, in pertinent part:
[P]laintiff’s preferred classification is supported by evidence that the boxers in issue were designed to be worn as underwear and that such use is practical. In addition, plaintiff showed that the intimate apparel industry perceives and merchandises the boxers as underwear. While not dispositive, the manner in which plaintiff’s garments are merchandised sheds light on what the industry perceives the merchandise to be.***
Further, evidence was provided that plaintiff’s merchandise is marketed as underwear.
While advertisements also are not dispositive as to correct classification under the
HTSUS, they are probative of the way that the importer viewed the merchandise
and of the market the importer was trying to reach.
3
Additionally, as this office has noted in prior rulings, “the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use.” See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 957809, dated June 21, 1995, citing
Mast Industries at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co.,50 CCPA 43, 46. C.A.D. 817
(1963).
Furthermore, we bring your attention to International Home Textile, Inc., Slip Op. 97-31, March 18, 1997, which classified garments similar to those at issue here as loungewear in heading 6103, HTSUS. The court therein stated:
Based upon a careful examination of the loungewear as well as the testimony of the various witnesses, the court finds that the loungewear items at issue do not share that essential character of privateness or private activity. As the parties have already stipulated, the loungewear is used primarily for lounging and not for sleeping. The court finds no basis in the exhibits, the witness testimony, or the loungewear’s construction and design to find that it is inappropriate, at a minimum, for the loungewear to be worn at
informal social occasions in and around the home, and for other individual, non private activities in and around the house e.g., watching movies at home with guests, barbequing
at a backyard gathering, doing outside home and yard maintenance work, washing the car,
walking the dog, and the like....
In the instant case, a physical examination of the garment at issue reveals several features which make it suitable for modesty purposes. The pants have a fly opening with a one button closure and hidden placket, a rear patch pocket, and hemmed leg bottoms. A one button fly closure is not a useful feature on sleepwear, but on loungewear or a multipurpose garment it serves to ensure modesty. Nor is a rear patch pocket a useful feature of sleepwear. Pockets are a common feature on men’s pants and the wearer would likely find it useful while lounging at home. These are features which would not normally be found on sleepwear, but would on loungewear. These features are not indicative of sleepwear, but of a multi purpose garment that may (and probably will) be principally worn for the type of non-private activities named in International Home Textiles, Inc. Finally, although the bottoms may be worn to bed for sleeping, it is our opinion that their principal use is for “home comfort” and lounging. In addition, these bottoms can easily make the transition from inside the home (in a private setting) to outside the home (and a more social environment). See for example HQ 958594 dated January 26, 1996, in which we held that a placketed fly opening with a substantial one button closure on similar bottoms was indicative of multi-purpose garments which will be worn for purposes other than sleeping. In addition, the sample submitted is made of fabric heavy enough for outdoor use even in cool weather.
In past rulings, Customs has stated that the crucial factor in the classification of a garment is the garment itself. As the court pointed out in Mast, "the merchandise itself may be strong evidence of use." Mast at 552, citing United States v. Bruce Duncan Co., 50 CCPA 43, 46,
C.A.D. 817 (1963). However, when presented with a garment which is somewhat ambiguous and
4
not clearly recognizable as sleepwear or underwear or outerwear, Customs will consider other
factors such as environment of sale, advertising and marketing, recognition in the trade of virtually identical merchandise, and documentation incidental to the purchase and sale of the merchandise, such as purchase orders, invoices, and other internal documentation. It should be
noted that Customs considers these factors in totality and no single factor is determinative of classification as each of these factors viewed alone may be flawed. For instance, Customs recognizes that internal documentation and descriptions on invoices may be self serving as was noted by the court in Regaliti, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 92 80 (May 21, 1992).
In this case you state that the garment will be marketed in The Disney Store as men’s sleepwear. In Mast, 9 CIT 549, at 551, the court pointed out that the expert witnesses in that case agreed "that most consumers purchase and use a garment in the manner in which it is marketed." No documentation as to marketing was in fact submitted.
Based on our examination of the garment supplied, we find that it is loungewear, i.e., loose, casual clothes that are worn in the home for comfort. The fabric, construction and design are suitable for the type of nonprivate activities named in International Home Textile, Inc. In addition, the rear patch pocket is a feature which would be useful on a loungewear garment rather than on a sleepwear garment. Finally, although the garment may be worn to bed for sleeping, in our opinion its principal use is for lounging.
The garment classified in NY B88639, of August 20, 1997, was not identical to the garment at issue here. It did not have a rear patch pocket or a functional drawstring, features found on the garment at issue. In addition, it had a fully elasticized exposed waistband. The waistband on the garment here at issue is completely covered. Although both garments have a one button fly, the fly on this garment is hidden by a cover placket. We note that we do not have the sample from NY B88639 so we are unable to make an actual comparison of the two garments. However, our decision in the instant case is based on physical characteristics of the sample garment, including the heavy fabric.
HOLDING:
The subject garment, style MR-141, is classified in subheading 6203.42.4015, HTSUSA, which provides for “Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Trousers and breeches: Men’s: Other.” The applicable general column one rate of duty is 17.2 percent ad valorem and the textile quota category is 347.
The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, the visa and quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since part categories are the result of international bilateral agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the most current information available, we suggest you
5
check, close to the time of shipment, the Status Report On Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service which is updated weekly and is available for inspection at your local Customs office.
Due to the changeable nature of the statistical annotation (the ninth and tenth digits of the classification) and the restraint (quota/visa) categories, you should contact your local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of any import restraints or requirements.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division