CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086138 HP
Ms. Linda Stohr
Best Customs Service
P.O. Box 92815
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2815
RE: Multiple pairs of laces of differing colors or designs,
imported with athletic shoes, raises presumption that multiple
pairs of laces are intended for simultaneous use. The shoes plus
all pairs of laces is a single article, or, where these laces are
not in eyelets, unassembled under GRI 2(a). composite;set;GRI
3;GRI 1
Dear Ms. Stohr:
This is in reply to your letter of October 20, 1989,
concerning the tariff classification of shoe laces imported with
athletic shoes, produced in Korea, under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Please
reference your client SsangYong USA, Inc.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue consists of two pairs of shoe laces
either laced into the shoes, or in the individual box, of differ-
ing colors. The principal use of the footwear will be as basket-
ball shoes, training shoes, and running shoes. Classification of
the shoes themselves is not being addressed.
ISSUE:
Whether multiple pairs of shoe laces inserted into the
eyelets of a single pair of athletic-type shoes constitute a set
with those athletic-type shoes, for classification purposes under
the HTSUSA?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Chapter 64, HTSUSA, provides for, inter alia, athletic-type
shoes. Heading 6307, HTSUSA, provides for, inter alia, shoe
laces of textile materials. No individual provision exists
specifically covering athletic-type shoes with their laces. The
General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) to the HTSUSA govern the
classification of goods in the tariff schedule. GRI 1 states, in
pertinent part:
... classification shall be determined ac-
cording to the terms of the headings and any
relative section or chapter notes and, pro-
vided such headings or notes do not otherwise
require, according to the following
provisions [taken in order]:
2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an
article shall be taken to include a
reference to that article [either]
incomplete or unfinished, ... [or]
complete or finished (or falling
[sic.] to be classified as complete
or finished by virtue of this
rule), entered unassembled or dis-
assembled. [Emphasis added.]
* * *
3. When by application of Rule 2(b) [goods
of more than one material or substance]
or for any other reason, goods are,
prima facie, classifiable under two or
more headings, classification shall be
effected as follows:
* * *
(b) ... [C]omposite goods ... made up
of different components, and goods
put up in sets for retail sale,
which cannot be classified by
reference to 3(a) [which requires
that goods be classified, if possi-
ble, under the more specific of the
competing provisions], shall be
classified as if they consisted of
the ... component which gives them
their essential character, insofar
as this criterion is applicable.
It is well accepted under Customs law that when one pair of
shoes requiring laces is imported without its laces, that pair of
shoes is treated as an incomplete or unfinished pair of shoes
under GRI 2(a), supra. It follows, therefore, that when a pair
of shoes is imported with its corresponding pair of laces the
merchandise is considered a complete article (i.e., an incomplete
pair of shoes completed), rather than a composite good under GRI
3.
It is our opinion that where one pair of shoes is imported
with one pair of laces (i.e., a completed pair of shoes), the
attachment of the laces has no effect upon the classification of
the pair of shoes. The shoes and their laces are a complete
article; any further analysis under GRI 3, therefore, is unneces-
sary.
Once this conclusion is reached, we must now ask ourselves
whether the "completed article" analysis can be extended to one
pair of shoes imported with multiple pairs of laces, where those
laces are intended to be worn simultaneously with the first pair
of laces; id est, "completing" the shoes in the manner the desig-
ners intended. Fashion is a constantly evolving phenomena, where
new styles are continuously coming into vogue. Advertising
materials clearly demonstrate that a current fashion trend is
toward the simultaneous wearing of multiple pairs of laces with
one pair of athletic-type shoes. See also HRL 075283 of April
29, 1985 (indicating fashion trend as early as 1985). It has
been maintained, therefore, that a new "completed article,"
(i.e., one pair of athletic-type shoes worn with multiple pairs
of laces) has been created. Cf. Mast Industries, Inc. v. United
States, 9 C.I.T. 549, 551 (1985) (taking judicial notice of fact
that "most consumers purchase and use a garment in the manner in
which it is marketed"). We agree.
In HRL 084712 of August 24, 1989, we held that where multi-
ple pairs of shoe laces are imported loose in the same packing
container as one pair of athletic-type shoes, the second pair of
laces, plus any additional pairs of laces, form a set with the
shoes. Accord HRL 085487 of September 27, 1989 (modifying on
other grounds HRL 084712). Therefore, pursuant to the Directive
of December 23, 1988, to the Commissioner of Customs from the
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements,
Department of Commerce, as amended August 24, 1989, the
additional pairs of laces required separate visas and reporting
of quota. In attempting to distinguish the instant matter, it
has been suggested that since the instant laces are at least
partially laced into the eyelets of the shoes at the time of
importation, the rule of HRL 084712 does not apply to this
matter.
This suggestion fails to address the rationale behind HRL
084712, which does not depend on whether the laces are laced, or
partially laced, into the eyelets of the shoes. In HRL 084712, a
complete pair of shoes was formed by the association, with the
unlaced shoes, of one pair of laces; the additional pairs of
laces were redundant, intended as replacement or alternate
lacings. In requesting classification as a set under GRI 3(b),
Reebok stated that they were providing additional pairs of laces
to "allow [the wearer] a choice of several colorful shoe lac-
ings". Emphasis added. This would permit "the consumer [to]
therefore coordinate his/her attire." The intent behind
supplying the additional pairs of laces was to meet a particular
need, not create a "completed article." Indeed, the "whole" (the
shoes readily usable without any additional construction or com-
ponents) was formed prior to the additional pairs of laces
entering the picture. Classification as a set was, therefore, a
logical extension of the use toward which the additional compo-
nents were to be applied.
In the instant matter, the new "completed article" manifests
itself when the additional pairs of laces are imported with the
shoes. In HRL 084712, the multiple pairs of laces simply allowed
the consumer a different way to coordinate his/her attire. In
the instant matter, the formation of a "new" completed article (a
pair of shoes worn with multiple pairs of laces), the fundamental
distinguishing factor between this case and HRL 084712, does
exist. HRL 084712 is therefore distinguishable, and the instant
merchandise is classifiable as articles presented unassembled or
disassembled. See also HRL 085487, supra ("[t]he first pair of
laces imported with the shoes is considered a part of the shoes,
not a set therewith). Emphasis added.
HOLDING:
As a result of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Cus-
toms Service that where multiple pairs of laces are imported with
one pair of athletic-type shoes which can accommodate, through
styling and use of eyelets, all of the pairs of laces simul-
taneously, and those pairs of laces are of differing colors
and/or designs, absent evidence that the laces are intended to be
used separately (a situation which existed, for example, in HRL
084712), a presumption is raised that the multiple pairs of laces
are intended to be worn simultaneously. The one pair of shoes
plus all pairs of laces is therefore considered a single article,
or, where these laces are not laced into the eyelets, a single
article presented unassembled under GRI 2(a). Under the CITA
directive, supra, no visa is required in either case.
We note that where multiple pairs of laces of like colors
and/or designs are imported, laced or not laced, with one pair of
shoes, a presumption is raised diametrically opposed to the
single article premise referred to above. These additional pairs
of laces are presumed to be for replacement purposes (constitu-
ting a redundancy in the already completed pair of shoes). Such
additional laces would form a set with the shoes, under the
reasoning of HRL 084712, supra.
All previous rulings not in accordance with the analysis
espoused herein are modified in conformity with the foregoing.
Sincerely,
JOHN DURANT, DIRECTOR
COMMERCIAL RULINGS DIVISION