• HQ H187716
• Dec 01, 2014

• Type : Classification • HTSUS : 6201.93.35
•  Related:   085974; 965258; 957061   

CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H187716 AMM

Port Director
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Service Port of Newark/NewYork
1100 Raymond Boulevard
Newark, NJ 07102

RE: Tariff classification of Jackets; Protest No. 4601-11-100881

Dear Port Director:

This letter is in reply to protest, and application for further review (AFR), number 4601-11-100881, dated May 20, 2011, filed on behalf of Stretch-o-Rama, Inc. (Stretch-o-Rama), against U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) reclassification and subsequent liquidation by the Port of Newark (the Port) of thirteen (13) entries of woven jackets.

FACTS:

This protest pertains to thirteen (13) entries of woven jackets. The entries took place between June 28, 2010 and August 25, 2010. All thirteen (13) entries were liquidated on November 26, 2010. The imported jackets vary by gender, size, outer shell material type, color, customer, and trademark. For example, Entry No. XXXX170-0 consists of: five (5) styles of men’s polyester/spandex woven jackets (identified by Style Nos. F9KL70BKRS, F9KL70CHRS, F9KL70BLRS, F9KR19BKMXSZ, and F9KR19BKMXSZ), three (3) styles of ladies’ polyester/spandex woven jackets (identified by Style Nos. F6KL67BKMXSZ, F6KL67WHMXSZ, and F6KL67FWMXSZ), and one (1) style of men’s 100% polyester woven jacket (identified by Style No. F9AT50BKDPF). The other twelve entries consist of other styles of woven jackets.

The protestant asserts that the entries under protest concern jackets with outer shells made from one of seven (7) different fabrics. In their supplemental submission, dated June 11, 2013, Stretch-o-Rama indicated that the “230T Ripstop Taslan” fabric is used on all styles which include the code AT50 in the Style No.; that the “Poly/Spandex Woven” fabric is used on all styles which include the codes KL70, KR19, and KR56; that the “230T Honey Comb” fabric is used on all styles which include the codes AL02, KP23 and KP40; that the “210D Oxford” fabric is used on all styles which include the codes AT52 and KP92; that the “240T Dewspo” fabric is used on all styles which include the codes KM65, KP24, KM77, KR65, KM70, and KL89; that the “290T Taffeta” fabric is used on all styles which include the code KP44; and that the “230T Ripstop” fabric is used on all styles which include the code KP49.

A boy’s jacket, labeled “U.S. Polo Assn. F7KP48BKRS2 Size 10/12” was taken from Entry No. XXXX516-9. This entry is not included in Protest No. 4601-11-100881. However, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this jacket uses the “230T Ripstop Taslan” fabric, which is also used in some of the jackets included in Entry Nos. XXXX170-0 and XXXX700-4. Stretch-o-Rama has submitted specification sheets indicating that styles which include the codes AT50 and KP48 use the same outer shell fabric. CBP performed water resistance testing on three swatches taken directly from this sample jacket. According to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101531, dated December 9, 2010, the outer woven shell of the sample jacket was wholly of polyester and had an application of plastic material. Specimens taken directly from the garment passed the water resistance test described by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.

A second boy’s jacket was taken from Entry No. XXXX516-9. This entry is not included in Protest No. 4601-11-100881. However, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this jacket uses the “230T Ripstop” fabric, which is also used in the jackets included in Entry No. XXXX707-9. According to the original invoice submitted with the entry documents, this jacket has the code KP13 in its style number. Stretch-o-Rama asserts that the specification sheets they submitted indicate that styles which include the codes KP49 and KP13 use the same outer shell fabric. However, the KP49 spec sheet says that the outer shell is of “230T Ripstop” fabric, while the KP13 spec sheet says that the outer shell is of “230T Polyester Woven Taslan.” CBP performed water resistance testing on three swatches taken directly from this sample jacket. According to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101529, dated December 13, 2010, the outer woven shell of the sample jacket was wholly of polyester and had an application of acrylic plastic material. Specimens taken directly from the garment passed the water resistance test described by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.

A boy’s jacket, labeled “U.S. Polo Assn. F4KP230BKXVH Size 4T”, was taken from Entry No. XXXX748-8. This entry is not included in Protest No. 4601-11-100881. However, it uses the “230T Honey Comb” fabric, which is also used in some of the jackets included in Entry Nos. XXXX696-4, XXXX700-4, XXXX705-3, XXXX706-1, and XXXX973-5. Stretch-o-Rama has submitted specification sheets indicating that styles which include the codes AL02, KP23 and KP40 use the same outer shell fabric. CBP performed water resistance testing on three swatches taken directly from this sample jacket. According to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006, dated July 23, 2010, the outer woven shell of the sample jacket was wholly of polyester and had an application of acrylic type plastic material. The outer shell was composed of two panels, with stitch lines approximately 4 inches apart throughout the garment. Specimens taken directly from the garment did not pass the water resistance test described by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.

A boy’s jacket, labeled “F7KP29BKHV” was taken from Entry No. XXXX607-6. This entry is not included in Protest No. 4601-11-100881. However, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this jacket uses the “240T Dewspo” fabric, which is also used in some of the jackets included in Entry Nos. XXXX706-1, XXXX452-1, XXXX456-2, XXXX485-1, XXXX486-9, XXXX412-7, and XXXX765-6. Stretch-o-Rama has submitted specification sheets indicating that styles which include the codes KM65, KP24, KM77, KR65, KM70, and KL89 use the same outer shell fabric. CBP performed water resistance testing on three swatches taken directly from this sample jacket. According to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101535, dated November 2, 2010, the outer woven shell of the sample jacket was wholly of polyester and had an application of acrylic plastic material. Specimens taken directly from the garment passed the water resistance test described by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.

Stretch-o-Rama submitted data from an independent laboratory with regard to the “210D Oxford” and “290T Taffeta” fabrics, asserting that the fabric passed the water resistance test described by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS. With regard to the fabric “Poly/Spandex Woven”, no data was submitted by Stretch-o-Rama, samples were taken or submitted, and no CBP laboratory testing was performed.

The subject merchandise was entered under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, which provides in pertinent part for “[A]noraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Water resistant”. The Port liquidated the subject merchandise under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS, which provides in pertinent part for “[A]noraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other”, based on CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006.

On November 14, 2011, protestant submitted additional samples, alleged to be Fabric No. KP23. However, according to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY20111994, dated December 21, 2011, the samples submitted were not identical to the fabric taken from the sample jacket, in that they used a different plastic application, and the fabric was of a different weight and weave.

ISSUE:

Whether the instant jackets are classified as “water resistant” under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, or “other than water resistant” under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially we note that the matter is protestable under 19 U.S.C. §1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification and the rate and amount of duties chargeable. The protest was timely filed on May 20, 2011, within 180 days of liquidation, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1514(c)(3).

Further review of Protest 4601-11-100881 was properly accorded to protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §174.24. Specifically, in accordance with Section 174.24(a), the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee, or with a decision made at any port with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise. Stretch-o-Rama alleges that the Port’s decision was inconsistent with Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 956258, dated August 4, 1994.

Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied.

The 2010 HTSUS provisions under consideration are:

6201 Men's or boys' overcoats, carcoats, capes,cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): 6201.93 Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: 6201.93.30 Water resistant ----------------------------------- 6201.93.35 Other

Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, states, in pertinent part:

For the purposes of subheading[] … 6201.93.30 …, the term “water resistant” means that garments classifiable in those subheadings must have a water resistance (see ASTM designations D 3600-81 and D 3781-79) such that, under a head pressure of 600 millimeters, not more than 1.0 gram of water penetrates after two minutes when tested in accordance with AATCC Test Method 35-1985. This water resistance must be the result of a rubber or plastics application to the outer shell, lining or inner lining.

There is no dispute that the instant merchandise is classified in heading 6201, HTSUS. Rather, the dispute is the proper 8-digit national tariff rate that is applicable. As a result, GRI 6 applies.

GRI 6 states: For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section, chapter and subchapter notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.

A. The “230T Honey Comb” Fabric

CBP collected a sample from Entry No. XXXX748-8, a boy’s jacket labeled “U.S. Polo Assn. F4KP230BKXVH Size 4T”. This jacket has an outer shell made from the “230T Honey Comb” fabric. This fabric is the same as that used in some of the jackets included in Entry Nos. XXXX696-4, XXXX700-4, XXXX705-3, XXXX706-1, and XXXX973-5, which are the subject of the instant protest. Water resistance testing, in accordance with Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, was performed on 8 inch square samples taken directly from the outer woven shell fabric of the jacket. See CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006. It was not possible to obtain 8 inch square samples without seams, because the entire jacket included stitch lines that were approximately 4 inches apart. According to the CBP Laboratory, the swatches taken from the sample jacket did not pass the water resistance test. See CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006.

CBP has previously addressed the issue of whether a garment’s seams affect the water resistance test of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS. In HQ 085974, dated December 28, 1989, CBP stated that:

The test required by Note 2 is made on an eight inch (per side) square of fabric. If it is determined by the responsible Customs import specialist that there is a question whether a particular garment qualifies under Note 2 for classification as a "water resistant" garment and an eight inch square piece of fabric without seams (or quilting stitching) cannot be obtained from the garment, then Customs will accept and test a separate swatch of identical fabric. If no such fabric is submitted for Customs to test, the test will be performed on a representative section of fabric from the garment without regard to whether that fabric contains a seam (or quilting stitching). If the test is performed on more than one section of fabric and one section passes but another section does not, the garment will not be considered to have complied with the requirements of Note 2. * * *

Furthermore, in HQ 965258, dated August 4, 1994, CBP stated:

It is our view that any time a garment does not contain a sufficient area of fabric to allow testing for water resistance without including a seam or quilting stitches, an attempt should be made to obtain a swatch of identical fabric for testing. If such a swatch is not furnished, then the fabric which contains a plastics application should be tested in its condition as found in the garment (including seams, but minus any padding if the fabric is quilted). * * * No headquarters administrative ruling, of which we are aware, has set out definitive criteria for determining whether a swatch meets the “identical fabric” standard. Any such criteria must, of course, be reasonable. It appears to this office that it would be unreasonable to reject a swatch solely because that swatch was not produced at the same time as the original fabric. In this regard, we note that even samples taken from the same roll fabric may have different test results. The rejection of swatches supplied after importation should be based on a difference in the physical characteristics between the fabric(s) comprising the subject garments and the submitted swatch(es). That difference should be articulateable—e.g. different materials, weight, yarn count, yarn number, etc. * * *

The samples used for water resistance testing in CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006 were taken directly from a jacket sized for a toddler. It was impossible to obtain 8 inch square swatches from that jacket that did not have seams. The Port did not request a swatch of identical fabric before liquidating the entry.

After AFR was granted, CBP asked Stretch-o-Rama for three swatches of identical fabric for testing in accordance with HQ 965258. On November 14, 2011, Stretch-o-Rama delivered three swatches, identified as “KP23”, for testing. These swatches were sent to the CBP Laboratory for comparison to the samples taken from the jacket labeled “U.S. Polo Assn. F4KP230BKXVH Size 4T”, to verify that they were “identical fabric.”

According to CBP Laboratory Report No. NY20111994, dated December 21, 2011, the swatches identified as “KP23” consist of polyester filament yarns of an alternating plain and basket weave, coated with a visible application of polyvinyl chloride plastic, and weighing 208.2 g/m2. The swatches taken directly from the jacket labeled “U.S. Polo Assn. F4KP230BKXVH Size 4T” consist of a polyester filament yarns of a dobby weave, coated with a non-visible application of acrylic plastic, and weighing 66.7 g/m2. The swatches supplied by the importer are not the same fabric, because they use a different weave, are coated with a different plastic, and weigh a different amount. See HQ 965258.

Therefore, because no swatches of identical fabric were submitted for testing, it is appropriate to perform this test on a representative section of fabric taken from the actual garment, without regard to whether the fabric contains a seam. See HQ 085974. This testing has already been performed; samples taken from the actual jacket failed the water resistance test of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS. See CBP Laboratory Report No. NY20101006.

The importer further asserts that the testing procedure or methodology used by CBP in Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006 was flawed, because samples with seams were tested. The importer also submitted data from an outside laboratory, showing that the outer shell fabric meets the water resistance test of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2639(a)(1) (1994), CBP enjoys a statutory presumption of correctness. Thus, an importer has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a Customs decision was incorrect. Ford Motor Company v. United States, 157 F.3d 849, 855 (Fed. Cir. 1998); American Sporting Goods v. United States, 27 C.I.T. 450; 259 F. Supp. 2d 1302; 25 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1345; 2003 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 45. Furthermore, it is “well settled that the methods of weighing, measuring, and testing merchandise used by customs officers and the results obtained are presumed to be correct.” Aluminum Company of America v. United States, 60 C.C.P.A. 148, 151, 477 F.2d 1396, 1398 (1973) (“Alcoa”). Absent a conclusive showing that the testing method used by the CBP laboratory is in error, or that the Customs’ laboratory results are erroneous, there is a presumption that the results are correct. See Exxon Corp. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 378, 81 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 4772 (1978). “If a prima facie case is made out, the presumption is destroyed, and the Government has the burden of going forward with the evidence.” Alcoa, 477 F.2d at 1399; American Sporting Goods, 27 C.I.T. 450.

Stretch-o-Rama has failed to meet their burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of correctness that CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101006 is correct. See HQ 085974. As such, all styles of jackets using the “230T Honey Comb” fabric cannot be considered “water resistant” within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, and are properly classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS, which provides for: “[B]oys' … anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Other”.

B. The “230T Ripstop Taslan” and “240T Dewspo” Fabrics

With regard to the “230T Ripstop Taslan” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which include the code AT50 in the style number. Stretch-o-Rama further asserts that the jacket tested under CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101531, which includes the code KP48, also uses the “230T Ripstop Taslan” fabric, and has submitted specification sheets in support of this assertion. As such, Stretch-o-Rama has provided evidence that the material used for the jacket tested in the above identified lab report is the same as the fabric used in the jackets which are the subject of the instant protest. Therefore, the data obtained from CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101531, which showed that the “230T Ripstop Taslan” fabric is water resistant within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, can be applied to jackets in the instant protest which include the code AT50 in their style number.

With regard to the “240T Dewspo” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which include the codes KM65, KP24, KM77, KR65, KM70, and KL89 in the style number. Stretch-o-Rama further asserts that the jacket tested under CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101535, which includes the code KP29, also uses the “240T Dewspo” fabric, and has submitted specification sheets in support of this assertion. As such, Stretch-o-Rama has provided evidence that the material used for the jacket tested in the above identified lab report is the same as the fabric used in the jackets which are the subject of the instant protest. Therefore, the data obtained from CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101535, which showed that the “240T Dewspo” fabric is water resistant within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, can be applied to jackets in the instant protest which include the codes KM65, KP24, KM77, KR65, KM70, and KL89 in their style number. As such, all styles of jackets using the “240T Dewspo” fabric are considered “water resistant” within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, and are properly classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, which provides for: “[B]oys' … anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Water resistant”.

C. The “230T Ripstop” Fabric

With regard to the “230T Ripstop” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which include the code KP49 in the style number. Stretch-o-Rama further asserts that the jacket tested under CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101531, which includes the code KP13, also uses the “230T Ripstop” fabric, and has submitted specification sheets in support of this assertion. However, the KP49 spec sheet submitted by Stretch-o-Rama says that the outer shell is of “230T Ripstop” fabric, while the KP13 spec sheet says that the outer shell is of “230T Polyester Woven Taslan.” These appear to be different fabrics, and as such, the results of CBP Laboratory Report No. NY 20101531 does not apply to the “230T Ripstop” fabric. Stretch-o-Rama has provided no additional evidence that the material used for the jacket tested in the above identified lab report is the same as the fabric used in the jackets which are the subject of the instant protest.

At the time of entry, CBP determined that there was a question as to whether the jackets which incorporated the “230T Ripstop” fabrics met the water resistance test of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62. Furthermore, CBP determined that these goods were properly classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS, as other than water resistant. Protestant has provided no evidence that the jackets at issue are “water resistant” within the meaning of the HTSUS. No jackets were made available for testing, and no swatches of fabric were submitted for evaluation. As such, all styles of jackets using the “230T Ripstop” fabrics, namely, styles which include the code KP49, cannot be considered “water resistant” within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, and are properly classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

D. The “210D Oxford” and “290T Taffeta” Fabrics

With regard to the “210D Oxford” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which include the codes AT52 and KP92 in the style number. With regard to the “290T Taffeta” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which includes the code KP44 in the style number. No sample of these fabrics was ever tested by CBP. No jackets were retained from the entries, and no swatches were submitted by Stretch-o-Rama. Rather, Stretch-o-Rama has submitted the results of testing done overseas on samples of these fabrics. The data submitted shows that the samples tested passed the test described in Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.

Although Customs does not usually accept the results of lab tests conducted overseas, in this case there is no other evidence to rebut Stretch-o-Rama’s assertion. See, e.g., HQ 957061, dated March 30, 1995. Because CBP has no evidence to the contrary, all styles of jackets using the “210D Oxford” and “290T Taffeta” fabrics, namely styles which include the codes AT52, KP92, and KP44, are considered “water resistant” within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, and are properly classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

E. The “Poly/Spandex Woven” Fabric

With regard to the “Poly/Spandex Woven” fabric, Stretch-o-Rama asserts that this fabric is used on styles which include the codes KL70, KR19, and KR56 in the style number. No sample of these fabrics was ever tested by CBP. No jackets were retained from the entries, and no swatches were submitted by Stretch-o-Rama. Furthermore, Stretch-o-Rama did not submit any test results conducted on their behalf.

As such, all styles of jackets using the “Poly/Spandex Woven” fabrics, namely styles which include the codes KL70, KR19, and KR56, cannot be considered “water resistant” within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, and are properly classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

HOLDING:

By application of GRI 1 and GRI 6, the garments which include the fabrics “230T Honey Comb”, “Poly/Spandex Woven”, and “230T Ripstop”, which are the subject of Protest No. 4601-11-100881, are classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS, which provides for “Men's or boys' overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Other”. The column one, general rate of duty is 27.7% ad valorem.

By application of GRI 1 and GRI 6, the garments which include the fabrics “230T Ripstop Taslan”, “210D Oxford”, “240T Dewspo”, and “290T Taffeta”, which are the subject of Protest No. 4601-11-100881, are classified under heading 6201, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, which provides for “Men's or boys' overcoats, carcoats, capes,cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6203: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Water resistant”. The column one, general rate of duty is 7.1% ad valorem.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX170-0, jackets with style numbers that include the code AT50 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, while jackets with style numbers including the codes KL70 and KR19 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX696-4, the jackets with style numbers that include the codes KP23 and KP40 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX700-4, jackets with style numbers that include the code AT50 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, while jackets with style numbers including the codes KP23 and KR56 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX705-3, jackets with style numbers that include the codes AT52 and KP92 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, while jackets with style numbers including the code AL02 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX706-1, jackets with style numbers that include the codes KM65, KP24, and KP44 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS, while jackets with style numbers including the code KP40 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX707-9, the jackets with style numbers that include the code KP49 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX452-1, the jackets with style numbers that include the code KM77 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX456-2, the jackets with style numbers that include the code KR65 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX485-1, the jackets with style numbers that include the codes KM70 and KP24 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX486-9, the jackets with style numbers that include the code KL89 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX412-7, the jackets with style numbers that include the codes AT52 and KM77 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

With regard to Entry No. XXXX973-5, the jackets with style numbers that include the code KP23 are classified under subheading 6201.93.35, HTSUS.

Finally, with regard to Entry No. XXXX765-6, the jackets with style numbers that include the codes AT52 and KM65 are classified under subheading 6201.93.30, HTSUS.

You are instructed to DENY this protest, EXCEPT to the extent that reclassification of the merchandise as indicated above results in a partial allowance.

In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.

Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision Regulations and Rulings of the Office of International Trade will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.


Sincerely,

Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division