CBP Proposes to Revoke 67 Rulings on Textile Costumes
In the July 2 issue of the CBP Customs Bulletin (Vol. 48, No. 26), CBP published a notice that proposes to revoke or modify 67 rulings and similar treatment for the tariff classification of textile costumes. The rulings proposed for revocation, all issued between 2004 and 2009, classified textile costumes as festive articles in Chapter 95. CBP is proposing to revoke the rulings because a note to chapter 95 excludes "fancy dress" made of textiles.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Comments on Proposed Revocations Due Aug. 1
CBP said consideration will be given to any written comments received by Aug. 1 before taking this action. In addition, any party who has received a ruling or decision on the merchandise that is subject to the proposed revocations, or any party involved with a substantially identical transaction, should advise CBP by the date that written comments on the proposed ruling are due. (An importer's failure to advise CBP of such rulings, decisions, or substantially identical transactions may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations subsequent to the effective date of the final decision in this notice.)
Proposed Modifications, Revocations
CBP is proposing to modify or revoke the rulings below, and any rulings on these products that may exist but have not been specifically identified. CBP is also proposing to revoke or modify any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
Textile Costumes
| Item: Textile costumes. For example, one of the revoked rulings is on Disney princess costumes. The Snow White costume consists of a bodice with red and blue panels embellished with gold trim made of sequins and cording and a clear plastic oval brooch painted with an image of the animated Snow White character; short puffed sleeves made of woven red satin embellished with six blue satin strips and contrasting yellow stitching; and a voluminous circular skirt comprising three layers of fabrics, of which the top layer is gold iridescent fabric. |
| Current: 9505.90.6000, Free, (Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke articles; parts and accessories thereof: Other: Other) |
| Proposed: Chapters 61 and 62. For example, the Disney princess costume would be classified under subheading 6204.43.4040, 16%, (Women's or girls' suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, dresses, skirts, breeches and shorts (Other than swimwear): Dresses: Of synthetic fibers: Other: Other: Girls') |
| Reason: Note 1(e) to Chapter 95 excludes "sports clothing or fancy dress, of textiles, of chapter 61 or 62." The definition of "fancy dress" includes costumes, and the costumes at issue are of textiles. They meet the relevant criteria set forth in the CBP Informed Compliance Publication "What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Textile Costumes under the HTSUS": styling, construction, finishing touches, and embellishments. Also, in Rubie's Costume Co. v. U.S. (2003), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that wearing apparel is identified by the extent of styling features and finishing, and only "textile costumes of a flimsy nature and construction, lacking in durability, and generally recognized as not being normal articles of apparel" can be classified under heading 9505. |
| Proposed for revocation or modification: NY N027014 (2008), NY K83403 (2004), NY L81066 (2005), NY L82278 (2005), NY L82673 (2005), NY L84051 (2005), NY L84065 (2005), NY L84592 (2005), NY L86277 (2005), NY L86408 (2005), NY L86785 (2005), NY L88866 (2005), NY L89162 (2005), NY L89639 (2006), NY M80259 (2006), NY M82564 (2006), NY M82555 (2006), NY M82557 (2006), NY M82870 (2006), NY M83049 (2006), NY M83412 (2006), NY M83459 (2006), NY M83583 (2006), NY M83609 (2006), NY M83667 (2006), NY M83566 (2006), NY M83567 (2006), NY M83296 (2006), NY M83801 (2006), NY M84006 (2006), NY M84061 (2006), NY M84056 (2006), NY M84062 (2006), NY M84282 (2006), NY M84306 (2006), NY M84605 (2006), NY N003786 (2006), NY N004139 (2006), NY N005598 (2007), NY N008032 (2007), NY N008367 (2007), NY N008669 (2007), NY N008745 (2007), NY N008373 (2007), NY N009114 (2007), NY N009115 (2007), NY N009917 (2007), NY N011304 (2007), NY N016963 (2007), NY N017888 (2007), NY N018623 (2007), NY N018979 (2007), NY N019574 (2007), NY N020170 (2007), NY N021727 (2008), NY N021728 (2008), NY N022634 (2008), NY N023081 (2008), NY N024183 (2008), NY N025200 (2008), NY N027005 (2008), NY N028720 (2008), NY N029295 (2008), NY N031058 (2008), NY N031081 (2008), NY N042615 (2008), and NY N075960 (2009) are proposed for revocation. |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H217715 |