MAR-2 OT:RR:NC:TAB:354
Mr. John M. Peterson
Neville Peterson LLP
17 State Street – 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
RE: CLASSIFICATION AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING OF IMPORTED BASEBALL MITTS
Dear Mr. Peterson:
This is in response to your letter dated May 6th, 2008, written on behalf of your client, Akadema Professional Inc., requesting a ruling on the classification and marking of leather catchers’ mitts and whether the proposed marking “Made in USA” is an acceptable marking for the completed mitts. The submitted sample will be retained by our office.
You state that Akadema plans to import various baseball glove parts as unassembled glove “production kits” and transform the imported components and materials into completed baseball catchers’ mitts. Akadema will import various cowhide leather glove components, lacings, reinforcement and padding materials, which will be used to assemble the mitts in the United States. You have submitted samples of these components as they will be imported into the United States, which you state will be placed in a glove “production kit.” Components in the kit made of leather will include lacing, glove parts, binding, web (a pocket area used to trap thrown or hit balls), and welting; textile parts will include cut to shape lining components and thread (yarn used to assemble the mitts together); also included in the kit will be a patch of synthetic fur which is sewn to the inside of the wrist strap. In the U.S., Akadema will assemble these components to make a finished baseball mitt in what you state is a time consuming and detail-oriented process.
Processes performed in China:
Tanning of hides
Taxing of hides and die-cutting into parts
Embossing certain parts with stamping foil
Felt padding material cut to shape
The glove parts needed to make a single mitt, together with lacing and other necessary components will then be packed into a “kit” and shipped to the United States.
Processes performed in the United States:
Counting and examining the cut leather pieces in the kit
Conducting over thirty separate sewing assembly operations to form the shell of the glove, including assembly of each finger, insertion of welting along each finger back and fourchette seam, joining of fingers with palm trank, fabrication of back of glove shell, fabrication of wrist strap
Insertion of felt padding
Sewing of inner trank to secure padding in place
Forming of glove web through formation and attachment of web components
Lacing of glove by manual operation in order to close glove shell and heel, and to assemble web to glove body
Final inspection, testing and packaging
CLASSIFICATION:
Tariff classification of articles imported into the customs territory of the United States is governed under the HTS by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI’s) and any relevant section or chapter notes. GRI 2(a) provides as follows:
Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.
For the purpose of this Rule [2(a)], “articles presented unassembled or disassembled” means articles the components of which are to be assembled either by means of fixing devices (screws, nuts, bolts, etc.) or by riveting or welding, for example, provided only simple assembly operations are involved. According to your letter, the assembly requires a high level of skill and is not considered a “simple assembly.” Based on the information provided, we find that the merchandise at issue is not an incomplete or unassembled mitt.
The applicable subheading for the leather components will be 4205.00.8000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other articles of leather or of composition leather. The rate of duty will be free.
The applicable subheading for the synthetic fur will be 4304.00.0000, HTSUS, which provides for artificial fur and articles thereof. The rate of duty will be 6.5% ad valorem.
You indicate that the textile components are made of felt material that is cut to shape in China. The applicable subheading for the felt components will be 6307.90.9889, HTSUS, which provides for other made up textile articles, other. The rate of duty will be 7% ad valorem.
Your inquiry does not provide enough information for us to give a classification ruling on the polyester yarn that you state will originate in China and will be used to assemble the mitt in the U.S. Your request for a classification ruling should include the following:
Is it filament or staple fiber?
Is it 85% or more of polyester?
Is it single or is it multiple?
Is it on a support weighing in excess of 1 kg. (including support)?
Does it have a final Z twist?
Is it dressed for use as sewing thread?
What is the decitex (or denier)?
Please provide a sample of the yarn.
MARKING:
Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b)), mandates that the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. must be able to find the marking easily and read it without strain. Section 134.1(d) defines the ultimate purchaser as generally the last person in the U.S. who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. 19 CFR 134.1(d)(1) states that if an imported article will be used in manufacture, the manufacturer may be the ultimate purchaser if he subjects the imported article to a process which results in a substantial transformation of the article. The case of U.S. v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940), provides that an article used in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character or use differing from that of the constituent article will be considered substantially transformed and that the manufacturer or processor will be considered the ultimate purchaser of the constituent materials. In such circumstances, the imported article is excepted from marking and only the outermost container is required to be marked. See, 19 CFR 134.35.
In this case, the imported components are substantially transformed as a result of the U.S. processing, and therefore the U.S. manufacturer is the ultimate purchaser of the imported components and under 19 CFR 134.35 only the containers which reach the ultimate purchaser are required to be marked with the country of origin "Made in China".
Regarding the question whether “Assembled in U.S.A.” or “Assembled in U.S.A. from components of China” is acceptable for labeling requirements, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has jurisdiction concerning the use of the phrase “MADE IN THE USA” or similar words denoting U.S. origin. Consequently, any inquiries regarding the use of such phrases reflecting U.S. origin should be directed to the FTC, at the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room 172, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 177).
A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Deborah Marinucci at 646-733-3054.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Swierupski
Director,
National Commodity
Specialist Division