CLA-2-46:OT:RR:NC:2:230
Brian J. Murphy, Esq.
Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O’Hara, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1388
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE: The tariff classification of picnic baskets from China and Thailand
Dear Mr. Murphy:
In your letter dated November 4, 2009, you requested a tariff classification ruling for four styles of picnic baskets on behalf of your client, Picnic Time Inc. This request is a follow-up to your letter of September 4, 2009 and our reply of September 28, 2009 requesting additional information.
You have submitted four samples of picnic baskets described as follows: Highlander – Red Tartan (Style No. 301-55-401), Aviva (Style No. 302-56-991), Romance (Style No. 321-31-124), and Wedding Heart (Style No. 328-35-150). The samples are being returned as requested.
The four picnic baskets in question present different shapes and sizes, but they are all principally composed of the same materials as follows: flat bamboo strips, rattan in rod form, rattan in cane form, fiberboard (wood), textile fabric, and some inconsequential materials of plastic and metal. The bodies (including the lids) of the baskets are composed of bamboo strips and rattan rods and canes; the bottoms are made of fiberboard, and the handles are made of rattan canes. The inside of the baskets is lined with textile fabric. In their condition as imported, the subject picnic baskets are “outfitted” with utensils, plates, napkins, glasses, corkscrews, salt & pepper shakers, picnic blankets, wine holders, tablecloths, cutting boards, food containers, and other similar items. Each basket style has a different set of utensils, but all baskets are fitted to hold most of the tableware.
In the condition as imported, the picnic baskets and the tableware are put up together to carry out a specific activity. They constitute “goods put up in sets for retail sale,” and their tariff classification is governed by General Rule of Interpretation (“GRI”) 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. GRI 3(b) provides that mixtures, composite goods, and goods put up in sets for retail sale shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character. The essential character of the subject sets is imparted by the baskets, which provide the bulk and function of the products.
The classification of each set as a whole relies not only upon whether the basket imparts the essential character to the set according to GRI 3(b) but also on the composition and thus, on the material that imparts the essential character to the basket. You claim that the essential character of the subject baskets is imparted by the rattan rods, which you believe comprise the greatest bulk, area, and value of the baskets. Thus, you propose that the subject baskets should be classified as baskets of wickerwork (namely “twigs or other rod-like plaiting materials) in subheading 4602.12.1400, HTSUS. In support of your claim, you submitted as part of the original ruling request a chart listing the relative weights and surface areas of the rattan, the bamboo, and the wood (only the fiberboard). At our request, in your follow-up letter of November 4, 2009, you submitted an explanation of the breakdown methodology and the actual calculations, especially with respect to the surface areas. In addition, a new chart listing the relative weights and surface areas of the rattan and the bamboo was submitted. The results listed in the original chart do not agree with the results shown in the second chart. Nevertheless, you maintain that the rattan wickerwork predominates in terms of surface area and weight.
We have analyzed your methodology and your calculations, specifically for the surface areas. (However, we need to be aware that the weight and the surface area of the materials are interrelated.) Our analysis shows that the measurements used to calculate the rattan area were substantially exaggerated while the measurements for the bamboo were substantially understated. As we discussed with you over the telephone, the measurements and the calculations are a factual issue based on the submitted samples. The facts are clear that the submitted measurements are incorrect, and thus, the calculations are incorrect. This error creates the false appearance that the rattan rods cover a larger area of the baskets. However, a visual examination clearly establishes that this appearance is incorrect. This conclusion is supported by our careful measurements and calculations.
As we stated in the above description of the subject baskets, rattan canes are incorporated in the construction of the baskets and as the handles of the baskets. Chapter 46, Note 1, HTSUS, states as follows:
In this chapter the expression “plaiting materials” means materials in a state or form suitable for plaiting, interlacing or similar processes; it includes straw, osier or willow, bamboos, rattans, rushes, reeds, strips of wood, strips of other vegetable material (for example, strips of bark, narrow leaves and raffia or other strips obtained from broad leaves), unspun natural textile fibers, monofilament and strip and the like of plastics and strips of paper, but not strips of leather or composition leather or of felt or nonwovens, human hair, horsehair, textile rovings or yarns, or monofilament and strip and the like of chapter 54.
Rattan canes do not meet the terms of the expression “plaiting materials.” Canes are not in a state or form suitable for plaiting, interlacing, or similar processes. (See ruling HQ 956983.) Thus, they cannot be included in the calculations of the area and the weight of the rattan rods, which are considered “plaiting materials.” This misinterpretation of the definition “plaiting materials” has the effect of inflating the area and the weight of the rattan rods.
Chapter 44, Note 6, HTSUS, states as follows:
Subject to note 1 above and except where the context otherwise requires, any reference to “wood” in a heading of this chapter applies also to bamboo and other materials of a wood nature.
Thus, the rattan canes are in a state or form which makes them part of the wood component making up the baskets.
We find that the visual impact, the correct measurements, and the correct calculations do not support, as you claim, a classification of the subject picnic baskets in subheading 4602.12.1400, HTSUS, which provides for baskets of rattan wickerwork. We further find that the bamboo plaiting material provides the visual impact and the larger part of the surface area of the baskets. Thus, we conclude that according to GRI 3(b) the flat strips of bamboo plaiting material impart the baskets with their essential character.
The applicable subheading for the subject picnic baskets will be 4602.11.0900, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for basketwork, wickerwork, and other articles, made directly to shape from plaiting materials or made up from articles of heading 4601: of vegetable materials: of bamboo: other baskets and bags, whether or not lined: other (than wickerwork). The rate of duty will be 10 percent ad valorem.
Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/.
This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 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 Paul Garretto at (646) 733-3035.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Swierupski
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division