CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 088794 PR

District Director of Customs
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island
San Pedro, California 90731

RE: Request for Further Review of Protest No. 27040-90-004770, Dated November 21, 1990, Concerning the Classification of a Bowling Glove

Dear Sir:

This ruling is on the protest that was filed against your decision in the liquidation on October 5, 1990, of Entry No. 224-2406911, dated January 25, 1990.

FACTS:

The submitted sample, style No. 350A, is a half-fingered unlined glove made primarily of cut and sewn nylon tricot that has been coated or laminated on its exterior surface with a heavy layer of plastics material. It has a quarter circle shaped piece of rubber stitched under the palm and a 4-« inch capped thumb opening with a fabric Velcro -like closure. The fourchettes and sidewalls are made of nylon knit fabric and the back of the glove is partially constructed of a nylon mesh fabric.

ISSUE:

The issue presented is whether the gloves are classifiable in Chapter 39, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as articles of plastics, or in Chapter 61, HTSUS, as knitted articles.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Imported goods are classifiable according to the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) of the HTSUS. GRI 1 provides that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings in the tariff and according to any pertinent section or chapter notes.

Here, the merchandise was classified under a provision for knitted gloves, impregnated, coated or covered with plastics, with fourchettes, in subheading 6116.10.45, HTSUS, with duty, as a product of Korea, at the rate of 14 percent ad valorem. The importer believes the gloves should be classified in subheading 3926.20.30, HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 3 percent ad valorem. That provision is under Heading 3926, which provides for other articles of plastics.

Note 2(l) to Chapter 39, HTSUS, states that Chapter 39 does not cover goods of Section XI (textiles and textile articles). Section XI, HTSUS, includes Chapter 61 where the provisions for knitted or crocheted gloves are located. However, Note 1(h) to Section XI states, in equally specific terms that the provisions in that section do not cover "Woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, * * * impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, or articles thereof, of chapter 39." (underscoring added)

This same issue was the subject of our ruling in Customs Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 088539, dated June 3, 1991. In that ruling, which concerned a golf glove and which held that GRI 1 governed the classification of the merchandise, it was stated:

Those fabrics that have been impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics, and are prevented from classification under Heading 5903 by virtue of Note 2, and articles classifiable according to those fabrics, are articles of Chapter 39 and disallowed classification in Section XI. The converse is also true, that fabrics which have been impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics, and which meet the requirements of Note 2 for classification under Heading 5903, and articles which are classified according to those fabrics, are goods of Section XI. As such, they are prohibited from classification in Chapter 39.

HOLDING:

Following the reasoning and holding of HRL 088539, the subject gloves were correctly classified. Due to changes made by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the gloves would presently be classified under the provision for knit gloves, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics and specially designed for use in sports, in subheading 6116.10.08, HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 5.5 percent ad valorem. This

change is retroactive to entries made after December 1, 1988, and before October 1, 1990, if a proper request for reliquidation has been filed by the importer prior to April 1, 1991. There is no evidence in the file (including the protest) to indicate that the importer has requested reliquidation of the subject entry pursuant to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 under subheading 6116.10.08. In the absence of such a request, the protest should be denied in full.

A copy of this decision should be appended to the Form 19, Notice of Action, to be sent to the protestant.


Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division