OT:RR:CTF:FTM H325145 TSM
Ms. Judith L. Haggin
Total Logistics Resource, Inc.
P.O. Box 30419
Portland, OR 97294
RE: Affirmation of NY N323080; Tariff Classification and USMCA Eligibility of a Roll-up Blanket
Dear Ms. Haggin:
This is in response to your request, dated August 15, 2022, for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N323080, issued to your client, Pendleton Woolen Mills (“Pendleton”), on December 22, 2021. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) found that a certain roll-up blanket, also identified as “Item XR334_PREPRO,” was classified under subheading 6307.90.9891, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (“HTSUSA”), which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.” In addition, it was also determined that the roll-up blanket did not qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”). We have reviewed NY N323080 and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm NY N323080.
NY N323080 described the roll-up blanket at issue as follows:
Item XR334_PREPRO, described as a “Roll-Up Blanket,” is designed and intended to be used outdoors to sit or lay on while camping, stargazing, or picnicking. The blanket is comprised of two layers. The face side is a yarn dyed dobby weave composed of 100 percent wool fabric. The blanket is backed with 100 percent nylon filament woven fabric treated on the front with a durable water repellent (DWR) finish and coated on the back with polyurethane which you state renders the fabric water resistant. The blanket is bound along the edges with a narrow woven fabric. The blanket is designed to be rolled up for transport and storage. It features a leather handle, adjustable webbed straps, two plastic buckle clasps and a 2 x 3 inch leather patch imprinted with the brand name, “Pendleton.” The rectangular shaped blanket measures 60 inches in length by 70 inches in width. The blanket will be shipped to the United States from Mexico.
In your request for reconsideration, you argue that the roll-up blanket at issue is classified in heading 6301, HTSUS, which provides for “Blankets and traveling rugs.” We note that because the term “blanket” is not defined by the HTSUS or the relevant notes, we have consulted dictionaries to ascertain its meaning. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “blanket” as “a large usually oblong piece of woven fabric used as a bed covering.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines “blanket” as “a flat cover made of wool or similar warm material, usually used on a bed.” Dictionary.com defines “blanket” as “a large, rectangular piece of soft fabric, often with bound edges, used especially for warmth as a bed covering.” Upon consulting dictionary definitions of the term “blanket,” the Court of International Trade (CIT) found that: “first, that a blanket is a large (possibly oblong) piece of fabric, and second, that a blanket is used as a covering for warmth, often, but not always, as common knowledge dictates, on a bed.” See Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 3d 1319, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017).
Heading 6301, HTSUS, is an eo nomine provision, which provides for blankets by name. In Allstar, the CIT noted in this regard that an eo nomine provision includes all forms of the named article, even improved forms. However, when the article is in character or function something other than as described by a statutory provision and is either more limited or more diversified, and the difference is significant, it is not classifiable within that provision. Whether the article has features substantially in excess of those within the common meaning of the term must be assessed. Upon review, we find that some of the features of the roll-up blanket at issue are substantially in excess of features of a blanket as defined by the CIT in Allstar. While the court found that a blanket is a large piece of fabric that is used as a covering for warmth, often on a bed, according to the description provided in your reconsideration request, the roll-up blanket under consideration was primarily designed to be used as a ground cover to sit upon and provide protection from moisture, although it can also be used as a form of protection against wind or as a covering for cold temperatures. We find that the roll-up blanket’s use as a ground cover is substantially in excess of the typical features of a blanket, as defined by the court in Allstar. Accordingly, it is not classified in heading 6301, HTSUS.
In your reconsideration request, you also argue that CBP’s determination that blankets of heading 6301, HTSUS, generally have a thick heavy texture and are intended to provide protection against the cold, but not intended to sit upon while engaging in outdoor activities, is incorrect. You further argue in this regard that EN 63.01, which provides in relevant part that “[b]lankets… are … generally of thick heavy-texture material for protection against the cold,” refers to common attributes of blankets rather than conditions for their classification in heading 6301, HTSUS, because the term “generally” means that thick material is simply a common attribute of blankets. With regard to these arguments, we concur with your assessment that the term “generally” is typically descriptive of a common attribute. However, as discussed above, it is the roll-up blanket’s use as a ground cover that is substantially in excess of the typical features of a blanket, as defined by the court in Allstar. For this reason, classification in heading 6301, HTSUS, is not appropriate. Although EN 63.01 does not specifically exclude blankets similar to the roll-up blanket from the heading, we note that the product list is not exhaustive.
In your request, you further argue that heading 6301, HTSUS, provides for blankets “without qualification” and that GRI 1 supports classification of the roll-up blanket at issue in heading 6301, HTSUS, rather than heading 6307, HTSUS. Moreover, you claim that under GRI 3(a) the roll-up blanket would also be provided for in heading 6301, which is “more specific than other articles provided for in heading 6307.” With regard to your argument that heading 6301, HTSUS, provides for blankets “without qualification,” we disagree. As discussed above, a blanket is a large piece of fabric that is used as a covering for warmth, often on a bed. Because the roll-up blanket at issue is primarily designed for use as a ground cover, which is substantially in excess of the typical features of a blanket, classification in heading 6301, HTSUS, is not appropriate. Instead, by application of GRI 1, the roll-up blanket is classified in heading 6307, HTSUS. We note that classification under GRI 1 is appropriate because heading 6307, HTSUS, describes the roll-up blanket in its entirety. When goods can be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, consideration of other GRIs is not appropriate.
In your request, you also argue that outdoor use of the roll-up blanket at issue does not preclude its classification as a blanket, according to NY N320607. In this regard, we note that the merchandise at issue in NY N329697 is described as “a quilted blanket intended to be used for protection against the cold while camping, attending sporting events and other outdoor activities.” As such, it is a blanket used as a covering for warmth, provided for in heading 6301, HTSUS. In contrast, the roll-up blanket at issue here is designed primarily for use as a ground cover, which is a feature substantially in excess of the typical features of a blanket of heading 6301, HTSUS. For this reason, it is not classified in heading 6301, HTSUS.
In your reconsideration request, you further argue that classification in subheading 6301.20.00, HTSUS, is appropriate under Section XI Subheading Note 2(B)(b), which provides that “[i]n the case of textile products consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped fabric, no account shall be taken of the ground fabric.” We note that Subheading Note 2 (B)(b) is only relevant “[f]or the application of th[e] rule” laid out in Subheading Note 2(A), which is in turn dependent on the application of Section XI Note 2(A), directed toward the classification of goods that are a “mixture” of two or more textile materials which are to be classified as if consisting wholly of that one textile material which predominates by weight over each other single textile material. The mixture of textile materials contemplated is not a mixture of two or more separate fabrics or components, but a mixture of more than one textile material in the fabrics comprising the goods. However, the roll-up blanket at issue is made of two textile materials: wool and nylon, which are not combined as a mixture in a single fabric. Instead, the face side of the roll-up blanket is wool while the back side is nylon. Accordingly, because the roll-up blanket is not a “mixture of two or more textile materials” within the meaning of Section XI Note 2(A), Subheading Note 2(B)(b) is also not applicable.
Finally, you argue that the roll-up blanket at issue qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. You claim that only the origin of the face (surface) fabric component needs to be considered based on the application of Section XI Subheading Note 2(B)(b). However, as discussed above, Section XI Subheading Note 2(B)(b) is not applicable in this instance. Moreover, consistent with the analysis provided in NY N323080, the roll-up blanket at issue is not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA pursuant to GN 11(b)(iii) and the applicable rules under subdivision (o).
Accordingly, we affirm NY N323080, dated December 22, 2021, which correctly classifies the roll-up blanket at issue under subheading 6307.90.9891, HTSUSA, and determined that the roll-up blanket is not eligible for preferential treatment under the USMCA.
Sincerely,
Yuliya A. Gulis, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division