CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 079710 c
District Director of Customs
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island, San Pedro CA. 90731
Re: Decision an Application for Further Review of Protest
No. 2704-5-004924
Dear Sir:
This protest was filed against your decision in the
liquidation on August 9, 1985, of entry No. XX-XXXXXX-X dated
XXXXXXXXX XX, XXXX, covering a shipment of floor mats
manufactured in Japan.
FACTS
The merchandise involved is in three stages of
manufacture. The first form consists of finished carpet floor
mats, each of which consists of nylon pile carpet with the
auto maker's name or trade logo on the carpet surface and a
PVC or latex base. The second form is die-cut carpet for
floor mats which consists of nylon pile carpet only, pre-cut
to the prescribed shape. The third form is nylon pile carpet
for floor mats in rolls approximately 41 inches wide by 60
yards in length. The component material of chief value for
this merchandise in all three forms is nylon.
The above-listed entry was liquidated under the provision
for other articles not specially provided for, not ornamented,
of man-made fibers, pile or tufted construction in item
389.50, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS).
The protestant claims that the merchandise is properly
classifiable under the provision for floor coverings of pile
or tufted construction, in which the pile or tufts were
inserted or knotted into a pre-existing base, of textile
materials, other, other, of man-made fibers in item 360.83,
TSUS.
- 2 -
ISSUE:
Does the instant merchandise fall within the definition
of "floor coverings" for tariff purposes?
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Schedule 3, Part 5, Subpart A, Headnote 2(a), TSUS,
provides that "the term 'floor coverings' means carpeting,
carpets, rugs, matting, and mats, all the foregoing of any
size or shape, including squares or other segments designed to
be joined together, suitable for use as floor coverings in
homes, business establishments, institutions, vehicles, or
elsewhere".
The words "suitable for use" as applied in Customs law
mean actually, practically and commercially fit for such use.
Such suitability does not require that the merchandise be
chiefly used for the stated purpose, but it does require more
than evidence of a casual, incidental, exceptional, or
possible use. Keer, Maurer Co. v. United States, 46 CCPA 110,
114, C.A.D. 710 (1959), and cases cited therein.
The protestant asserts that its claim for classification
as floor coverings is supported by the following rulings:
(1) T.D. 56041(71) as modified by T.D. 56153(24);
(2) CIE 1393/66 abstracted as T.D. 66-72 (12);
(3) Headquarters Ruling letter (HRL) 046980;
(4) HRL 066849;
(5) HRL 077914;
(6) T.D. 56521(64), and
(7) HRL 045459
We agree that T.D. 56041(71) modified by T.D. 56153(24)
supports the protestant's claim. Specifically, that ruling
held that automobile mats made of cocoa fiber are classifiable
as floor coverings.
- 3 -
We do not agree that CIE 1393/66 abstracted as T.D. 66-
72(12) supports the protestant's claim. In that ruling it was
determined that carpets cut to a specific size and shape for
automobiles are classifiable as floor coverings. That
merchandise is distinguishable from the instant automobile
mats in that it appears the carpeting was used to actually
cover the floor of an automobile, rather than as a protective
mat to be placed upon the existing floor covering.
We do not agree that HRL 046980 dated September 7, 1976,
supports the protestant's claim. In that ruling it was held
that coir door mats claimed to be used in vestibules, hall-
ways, automobiles, etc., are classifiable as floor coverings.
However, it should be noted that the ruling states that "[t]he
mats are placed on the floor with a degree of permanency * * *
they will last, depending on quality, from one season to 4 to
5 seasons. They are not kept in a closet and used only during
inclement weather. The mats cover a distinct area of a
floor."
We do not agree that HRL 066849 dated December 1, 1980,
supports the protestant's claim. In that ruling it was held
that a bath rug designed to withstand the normal wear and tear
of a floor covering as well as absorb water is classifiable as
a floor covering. It is our view that this bath rug differs
from the floor mats in issue because it is placed directly on
the floor.
We do not agree that HRL 077914 dated May 6, 1986,
supports the protestant's claim. In that ruling certain fire-
retardant carpets or hearth rugs used to protect floor
coverings or the floor adjacent to the hearth were classified
as floor coverings. Again, those carpets may be distinguished
from the instant floor mats because they are used to protect
the floor when there is no floor covering near the hearth.
The protestant's claim that T.D. 56521(64) supports its
position with respect to the automobile mats in issue is not
well founded. In that ruling certain rubber matting in rolls
which was determined to be suitable for use as floor cover-
ings, protective coverings and automobile mats was classified
as floor coverings. It appears to us that the rubber matting
had multiple uses including use directly over a floor.
HRL 045409 dated September 3,1976, does not appear to
support the protestant's position in this matter. In this
ruling it was held that carpet blanks 6 feet long and 3 feet
10 inches wide are classifiable as floor coverings. Noting
that there is an overlay of plastic located where an
automobile operator's foot would rest while working the gas
- 4 -
pedal and the presence of a circular hole cut into the carpet
blank for the headlight dimmer switch, it appears that these
carpet blanks directly cover the floor of the automobile.
With the exception of the ruling set out in T.D.
56041(71), modified by T.D. 56153(24), all of the rulings
cited by the protestant covered mats, carpets and rugs which
were used directly on the floor. Thus, there was no question
that they were "suitable for use" as floor coverings within
the purview of Schedule 3, Part 5, Subpart A, Headnote 2(a),
TSUS.
In Bureau Letter (B/L) MFC 475.24-002460, dated
February 27, 1970, this office ruled that a vinyl carpet
runner is not classifiable as floor covering, because it is a
protector for a floor covering and is not suitable for use as
a floor covering.
In B/L MCS 475.24 dated March 9, 1970, this office ruled
that a carpet protective plastic matting is classifiable as
flexible sheets of plastics and not as floor coverings.
In HRL 068846 dated November 2, 1981, this office ruled
that a rubber floor mat placed over a car's natural floor
covering is classifiable under item 774.55, TSUS, rather than
as floor coverings.
It is our opinion that the last three rulings control the
classification of the instant merchandise. Certainly it is
the common understanding that car mats represented by the
sample are used to protect existing floor coverings from
wearing out. They are not placed directly over the floor of
an automobile. Also, there has been no evidence submitted
showing that the automobile mats are actually used to cover
the original floor of an automobile.
In view of the foregoing it is our position that the
finished floor mats for automobiles and the die-cut carpets
for floor mats are classifiable as liquidated under item
389.50, TSUS. Assuming that the carpeting imported in rolls
is suitable for use as a floor covering and is not dedicated
solely for use in the manufacture of floor mats, it is
classifiable under the provision for floor coverings of pile
or tufted construction, in which the pile or tufts were
inserted or knotted into a pre-existing base, of textile
materials, other, other, of man-made fibers in item 360.83,
TSUS.
- 5 -
HOLDING
The protest is denied as to the claimed classification of
the finished floor mats and die-cut carpets for floor mats.
The protest should be allowed as to the carpeting imported in
rolls provided it is suitable for use as floor covering and is
not dedicated solely for use in the manufacture of floor mats.
T.D. 56041(71) as modified by T.D. 56153(24) is revoked.
A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19
Notice of Action to be sent to the protestant.
Sincerely,
John Durant
Acting Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6cc: AD NY Seaport
1cc: Commercial Compliance
2cc: Chief CIE Branch
1cc: John Durant
DFCahill:mm:3/1/88