OT:RR:CTF:FTM H313361 MD
Mr. Tim Probasco
inShield Wiper, LLC
1595 Archer Road
San Marcos, California 92078
Re: Affirmation of NY N313570; Tariff Classification of “The inShield Wiper ®” from China or Vietnam
Dear Mr. Probasco:
This is in response to your e-mail, dated August 26, 2020, requesting reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N313570, issued to you on August 21, 2020. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) classified the “inShield Wiper®” (“inShield Wiper”) under subheading 6307.10.2030, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Annotated) (“HTSUSA”), which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Floorcloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths: Other: Other.” We have reviewed NY N313570, determined that it is correct, and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm NY N313570.
NY N313570 concerns two variations of essentially the same inShield Wiper, described as follows:
[A] dusting pad consisting of a 1.75 centimeter thick sponge covered with an 80 percent polyester and 20 percent polyamide microfiber fabric. Sewn to the backside of the textile covered sponge is a loop material used to secure the pad to a high density polyethylene (HDPE) base which includes a hook material glued and sewn to the top surface. The hook material also secures two woven elastic straps in place that loop around the assembled duster. On the backside of the HDPE base, a layer of neoprene is glued under the woven elastic straps that provides a cushion for the [] hand when [] inserted under the straps. [It] measures approximately 12 x 17 centimeters and is designed to be used to wipe away haze, fingerprints, smudges, smears and dust off of interior windshields, electronic touchscreens, stainless steel appliances, glass and mirrors… [A variant of the inShield Wiper includes] an additional looped strap that is secured under the neoprene. The looped strap holds a two ounce polyethylene terephthalate (PET) spray bottle.
CBP found that both variants of the inShield Wiper were classified under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA, which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Floorcloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths: Other: Other.” Specifically, CBP concluded that both of the inShield Wiper variants are composite goods made of textile and plastic. As such, CBP classified both variants of the inShield Wiper in accordance with General Rule of Interpretation (“GRI” or “GRIs”) 3(b), which specifically applies to composite goods. Furthermore, GRI 3(b) provides that composite goods made up of different components shall be classified as if they consisted of the component, which gives it its essential character. Accordingly, CBP determined that the microfiber fabric provided the inShield Wiper with a cleaning surface – its essential character – and thus classified it under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA.
In your request for reconsideration, you request that CBP “reconsider their opinion regarding GRI 3(b)” and the essential character determination of NY N313570. You assert that the essential character of the inShield Wiper is its base, rather than the microfiber fabric it attaches to. Thus, in your submission, you contend that the inShield Wiper should be classified under subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA, which provides for “Brooms, brushes (including brushes constituting parts of machines, appliances or vehicles), hand-operated mechanical floor-sweepers, not motorized, mops and feather dusters; prepared knots and tufts for broom or brush making; paint pads and rollers; squeegees (other than roller squeegees): Other: Other: Other.” You refer to the inShield utility patent, the cost breakdowns of the inShield Wiper, and a set of CBP rulings to support your position.
Upon review, we find that the inShield Wiper was properly classified under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA. At the outset, we note that this product is excluded from classification in heading 9603, HTSUS, at-large, and subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA, specifically. While neither legally binding nor dispositive, Explanatory Notes (“ENs”) provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings. The ENs for heading 9603 specifically identify products “consist[ing] either of small tufts or knots of flexible or springy fibres or filaments mounted in a broom or brush stock” or “consist[ing] of a bundle of textile cords or vegetable fibres mounted on a handle.” Although the inShield Wiper consists of a “textile covered sponge” - as opposed to the “tufts,” “knots,” or “bundle[s]” of textiles enumerated in the ENs - it conspicuously lacks any sort of “stock” or “handle” for the textile cleaning surface to be “mounted” to.
In contrast, each of the CBP rulings supplied to support the re-classification of the inShield Wiper under subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA, identify products, which meet the criteria enumerated by the ENs. In NY K88957, dated September 10, 2004, the Swiffer™ Duster was described as a “fluffy, feather-like fiber duster” with either a “small, plastic handle” or “an extendable, pivoting handle.” In NY N081358, dated November 13, 2009, the “Y-shaped dusters” at-issue were described as “polyester microfiber yarn with plastic and metal handles.” In NY N127396, dated October 27, 2010, the “Multi-Angle Microfiber Duster” was described as a “fabric duster-head, consisting of a bundle of textile cords on one side and a mop-head on the other side, attached to a plastic handle.” All three products were ultimately classified under subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA. Due to the fundamental and conspicuous differences between the inShield Wiper and other products properly classified under subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA, we find that inShield Wiper is not classified under subheading 9603.90.8050, HTSUSA.
As to the ultimate CBP classification of the inShield Wiper under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA, for “[o]ther made up articles, including dress patterns: Floorcloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths: Other: Other,” we find that this classification was correct. As previously enumerated, both versions of the inShield Wiper are considered composite goods made of textile and plastic. Classification of composite goods is done under GRI 3(b); which states that composite goods are classified as if they consisted of the component which gives it its essential character. The essential character of an article is “that which is indispensable to the structure, core or condition of the article, i.e., what it is.” Structural Industries v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). EN VIII to GRI 3(b) explains that “[t]he factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of the constituent material in relation to the use of the goods.” Court decisions on the essential character for GRI 3(b) purposes have looked primarily to the role of the constituent material in relation to the use of the goods. See Estee Lauder, Inc. v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1296 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012); Structural Industries, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1330; Conair Corp. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 888 (2005); Home Depot USA, Inc. v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006), aff’d 491 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In this case, the microfiber fabric imparts the essential character of the inShield Wiper, allowing it to function as “glass cleaning device” as defined within its patent application and common understanding of use. The microfiber fabric serves an invaluable role – the provision of a cleaning surface. Effectively, without the microfiber fabric, the inShield Wiper would be unable to serve its intended purpose. The importance of the microfiber fabric is underscored by the notion that it is designed to be “washable and reusable” for the entirety of the inShield Wiper’s lifespan. It is only at the “preference of the user” that the microfiber fabric is also disposable. While the inShield Wiper base is important – as it assists the user in making the most out of the microfiber fabric’s cleaning ability – it is not an integral part of what makes the inShield Wiper a cleaning device in the first place. In this regard, the inShield Wiper base does not change the essential character of the microfiber fabric nor its use as a cleaning device within the context of its classification. Accordingly, we agree with CBP’s initial determination that the microfiber fabric, which provides the inShield Wiper with a cleaning surface, provides the inShield Wiper with its essential character.
Furthermore, in support of our conclusion, we find NY N256358, dated September 5, 2014, particularly instructive. The product at issue in NY N256358 was the “Nook and Cranny Finger Shammy,” an article of “100% nonwoven polyester” which was attached to a complex, proprietary device which allowed for users to “clean or polish narrow crevices and small spaces.” CBP found that the applicable heading for the “Nook and Cranny Finger Shammy” was heading 6307, HTSUS. CBP reached this conclusion despite a suggestion that the product’s “individual components,” such as its unique aluminum frame, “determine the classification of the item.” Instead, CBP determined that the device’s textile fabric cleaning surface imparted its essential character and classified it as such – in turn, noting that the product “cannot be classified in heading 9603” due to its construction.
Therefore, since inShield Wiper’s “textile covered sponge” imparts its essential character, there exists an established and uninterrupted line of rulings, which classify fabric covered sponges within subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA. See NY E88001, dated October 19, 1999; NY M84750, dated July 21, 2006; NY N005084, dated January 24, 2007; NY N276560, dated July 12, 2016; and NY N308850, dated February 7, 2020. For example, in NY N308850, CBP determined that two “plastic foam sponge[s] covered entirely in a knit polyester mesh fabric” were properly classified under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA. Thus, “textile covered sponges” are classified in subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA.
Upon review, we find that the inShield Wiper is properly classified under subheading 6307.10.2030, HTSUSA, which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Floorcloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths: Other: Other.” Accordingly, we affirm NY N313570, dated August 21, 2020, which correctly classified the inShield Wiper.
Sincerely,
For Craig T. Clark, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division