CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084068 CMR
TARIFF NO.:
Ms. Julie White
Import Specialist
Nordstrom
P.O. Box 870
Seattle, Washington 98111-0870
RE: Reconsideration of NYRL 837830 of March 17, 1989
Dear Ms. White:
This ruling is in response to your letter of March 28, 1989,
requesting reconsideration of NYRL 837830 of March 17, 1989. In that
ruling, plastic hangers imported with garments were classified with
the garments with which they are imported.
FACTS:
Samples of various styles of hangers were submitted. All of the
hangers are plastic with metal wire top hooks. Some have metal
clasps for skirts or slacks. The hangers are imported with garments
for the purpose of shipping and handling the garments they support.
The hangers are removed from these garments at retail. When a
garment is sold, the hanger is removed and reused to display another
garment.
The countries of origin of the hangers are Hong Kong, Taiwan and
Korea.
ISSUE:
Were the hangers properly classified in NYRL 837830 with the
garments with which they are imported?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The classification of the plastic hangers with the garments with
which they are imported in NYRL 837830 was based on the decision in
Holly Stores, Inc. v. The United States, 534 F. Supp. 818 (1981),
-2-
aff'd, 697 F.2d 1387 (Fed.Cir. 1982). Although this decision
involves the interpretation of the meaning of "reuse" as it appears
in General Headnote 6(b) of the Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUS), we believe it is applicable in understanding the meaning of
"repetitive use" as it appears in General Rule of Interpretation
(GRI) 5(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
Each provision addresses the issue of when containers imported with
goods are classifiable with those goods or classifiable separately.
Holly Stores involved the classification of plastic and plastic
coated wire clothes hangers imported with garments by the plaintiff,
Holly Stores. The issue turned on whether the hangers were "designed
for, or capable of, reuse" within the meaning of General Headnote
6(b), TSUS. If considered designed for, or capable of, reuse, the
hangers were to be treated as separate articles of commerce; if not,
they were to be treated as part of the value of the clothing with
which they were shipped and dutied at the rate for the clothing.
You state that the hangers at issue are used for more than the
shipping and handling of the garments with which they are imported.
The hangers are reused many times for displaying other garments in
your stores. The hangers in Holly Stores were also used for
displaying other garments after the garments they were shipped with
were sold. The Court in Holly Stores found that such "reuse" of the
hangers was not sufficient to be considered reuse in the commercial
sense as contemplated in General Headnote 6(b). The reuse of the
hangers by the plaintiff's stores was "limited to the operation of
[the plaintiff's] own enterprise." The Court found the reuse of the
hangers to be only "incidental and fugitive relative to [the
plaintiff's] own scale of operations." While we recognize that the
hangers at issue here are more substantial in construction than those
at issue in Holly Stores, their use is very much the same.
The term "reuse" as used in the container provision, General
Headnote 6(b), is reuse in a practical, commercial sense. It is
reuse in terms of commercial shipping or transportation purposes.
Tariff Classification Study, Seventh Supplemental Report, page 99.
Reuse such as that claimed is not the reuse contemplated. As the
Court stated in Holly Stores at 289, the hangers do not enter the
mainstream of commerce; they do not become separate items of
commerce. The function of the hangers was for shipment and
presentation of the garments to the consumer. Reuse of the hangers
to hang other garments was not viewed by the Court as a reuse in the
commercial sense intended in General Headnote 6(b).
We believe the Court's interpretation of "reuse" in Holly Stores
applies to the interpretation of "repetitive use" in GRI 5(b) and the
correct application of that Rule of Interpretation. "Clearly
suitable for repetitive use" as used in GRI 5(b) is taken to mean
repetitive use in the practical, commercial sense. This
interpretation follows the case law as reflected in Holly Stores and
-3-
other various container cases. See, United States v. Hohner et al.,
4 Ct.Cust.Appls. 122, T.D. 33393 (1913); United States v. W.J.
Mulligan & Co., 29 CCPA 117, C.A.D. 179 (1941); and R.J. Saunders &
Co., Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 4387 (1972).
The reuse of the hangers at issue is not viewed as a repetitive
use in the commercial sense.
HOLDING:
The hangers at issue were correctly classified in NYRL 837830
with the garments with which they are imported, and therefore,
dutiable at the same rate as such garments.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6cc: Area Director, New York Seaport
1cc: CITA
1cc: Legal Reference Section
1cc: Phil Robins