CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086860 CMR
John B. Pellegrini, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
529 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017-4608
RE: Reconsideration of HRL 084964; classification of a
handkerchief with a triangle embroidered in one corner
Dear Mr. Pellegrini:
This ruling is in response to your submission of March 26,
1990, on behalf of I. Shalom & Company, Inc., requesting
reconsideration of HRL 084964 of September 19, 1989. That ruling
classified a woven cotton handkerchief embroidered in one corner
in non-contrasting stitching with a triangle measuring 14 cm by
9 cm as a handkerchief not containing lace or embroidery in
subheading 6213.20.10, HTSUSA. A sample handkerchief was
received with your submission.
FACTS:
The subject handkerchief is made of woven cotton and
measures approximately 46 cm by 46 cm. The handkerchief is
hemmed on all sides and has a triangle embroidered in one corner.
The triangle has sides which measure 14 mm., 14 mm. and 9 mm.
The handkerchiefs will be sold in clear plastic packaging in
quantities of three, six and a dozen. The handkerchiefs will be
folded so that the embroidery is visible to prospective
purchasers.
ISSUE:
Was the subject handkerchief correctly classified in HRL
084964 in subheading 6213.20.10, HTSUSA, as a handkerchief not
containing lace or embroidery, or should it be classified as an
embroidered handkerchief in subheading 6213.20.20, HTSUSA?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that
"classification shall be determined according to the terms of the
headings and any relative section or chapter notes, provided such
headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to [the
remaining GRIs taken in order]."
This article is clearly a handkerchief. The issue is
whether the triangle which appears in one corner is significant
enough to justify classification of the handkerchief as an
embroidered handkerchief. In HRL 084964, Customs held that in
order for the handkerchief to be considered embroidered, the
embroidery should produce an ornamental effect and that in this
case, the embroidery failed to produce such an ornamental effect.
Since the embroidered triangle failed to perform a commercial
purpose, it did not affect the classification of the merchandise.
In your arguments for classification of this handkerchief as
embroidered, you point out that the breakout for cotton handker-
chiefs not containing lace or embroidery and other cotton
handkerchiefs appears at the eight digit level (the United States
legal level). For this reason, you believe that previous
judicial and administrative decisions which construe the term
embroidery should be taken into account. We agree. However, we
disagree with your conclusion that a review of these judicial and
administrative decisions leads to a classification of the subject
handkerchief as embroidered. In fact, we reach the exact
opposite conclusion.
In Baylis Brothers, Inc. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 336,
C.D. 3383 (1968), aff'd, 416 F.2d 1383 (CCPA 1969), [which you
cite in your submission for the proposition that the stitching
need not be in a contrasting color], the Court discusses
embroidery and states: "By definition and legislative and
judicial understanding, it is established that the operative
feature of embroidery, for tariff purposes, is the ornamental
characteristic of the stitching." Id. at 339.
Two rulings, NYRL 816071 (December 27, 1985) and NYRL 831513
(September 9, 1988), are cited in your submission to support
classification of the subject handkerchief as embroidered. The
first involved an embroidered cloverleaf design in one corner of
a handkerchief; the other, an embroidered monogram. Each was
classified as ornamented with embroidery. These rulings are
specific to the articles at issue in them. The cloverleaf design
is described as decorative in NYRL 817071. NYRL 831513 is silent
regarding the embroidered monogram.
-3-
In HRL 084964, Customs ruled that the triangle embroidered
in the corner of the subject handkerchief did not produce an
ornamental effect. This determination was based on a visual
examination of the handkerchief. Upon reexamination, we see no
reason to change our decision.
We believe the triangle embroidered in one corner of the
subject handkerchief to be negligible and find support for our
position in United States v. Harden, 68 Fed. 182, 15 C.C.A. 358,
cert. denied, 163 U.S. 709 (1895). In that case, the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that
the circuit court correctly held that cotton hemstitched
handkerchiefs embroidered with only an initial letter were not
classified as embroidered and hemstitched handkerchiefs. The
court stated two grounds for its decision. The first was that
these goods were not commercially regarded as embroidered. The
second, and especially pertinent here, was that "the embroidery
of a single letter upon the corner of the handkerchief is so
limited in its extent and of such comparative narrowness as not
to require that the handkerchiefs should be regarded as
embroidered." Harden, 68 Fed. at 183.
We believe the triangle embroidered in one corner of the
subject handkerchief is akin to the single letter discussed in
Harden. It is so limited and inconsequential as not to require
that the handkerchief be considered as embroidered.
HOLDING:
The classification of the subject handkerchief as set forth
in HRL 084964 of September 19, 1989, is affirmed. The
handkerchief is classified in subheading 6213.20.1000, HTSUSA,
which provides for handkerchiefs, of cotton, hemmed, not
containing lace or embroidery. The textile category is 330 and
the rate of duty is 14 percent ad valorem.
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 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.
-4-
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