[Federal Register: August 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 52726-52727]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27au04-60]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Proposed Interpretive Rule Concerning Classification of Baseball-
Style Caps With Ornamental Braid
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security.
ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule; solicitation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document concerns the proper classification under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) of baseball-
style caps featuring ornamental braid located between peak and crown.
The specific issue presented is how wide must ornamental braid be on a
baseball-style cap to be classified in the HTSUS as either ``wholly or
in part of braid'' rather than ``not in part of braid.'' In an effort
to achieve uniformity in the classification of this commodity, Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing that ornamental braid on a
baseball-style cap, located between peak and crown, in a width of \1/8\
of an inch or greater will render the cap classifiable as ``wholly or
in part of braid.'' Conversely, it is proposed that such braid in a
width of less than \1/8\ of an inch will result in a cap being
classifiable as ``not in part of braid.'' CBP is soliciting public
comment as to the appropriateness of the proposed threshold width.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (preferably in triplicate) may be submitted
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Regulations & Rulings,
Attention: Regulations Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20229. Submitted comments may be inspected at Customs
and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC, during
regular business hours. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments
should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572-
8768.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Frazier, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Office of Regulations & Rulings, Textiles Branch,
(202) 572-8821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Baseball-style caps are classifiable in heading 6505 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) which provides
for, in pertinent part, ``hats and other headgear, knitted or
crocheted, or made up from lace, felt or other textile fabric, in the
piece (but not in strips), whether or not lined or trimmed; * * *.''
Within heading 6505, HTSUS, two subheadings differentiate between hats
and other headgear that are ``wholly or in part of braid'' and those
that are ``not in part of braid.'' See HTSUS subheadings 6505.90.50 and
6505.90.70 which provide for, in pertinent part, hats and other
headgear ``wholly or in part of braid'', and HTSUS subheadings
6505.90.60 and 6505.90.80 which provide for hats and other headgear
which are ``not in part of braid.'' In this regard, it is noted that
hats and other headgear that are classifiable as ``not in part of
braid'' carry a higher rate of duty than those that are classifiable as
``wholly or in part of braid.''
In cases where baseball-style caps feature ornamental braid located
between the peak and crown, the determinative issue is whether the
braid impacts classification at the subheading level so as to render
the cap classifiable as either ``in part of braid'' or ``not in part of
braid.'' The 2003 HTSUS defines the term ``in part of'' in General Note
22. General Note 22(e)(ii), HTSUS, provides that ``in part of'' or
``containing'' means that the goods contain a significant quantity of
the named material and that ``with regard to the application of the
quantitative concepts specified above, it is intended that the de
minimis rule apply.''
The de minimis rule is applicable in customs practice principally
in determining whether the presence of some ingredient in an imported
commodity affects its classification. See Ruth F. Sturm, A Manual of
Customs Law 182 (1974). The rule stands for the proposition that:
Certain amounts of an ingredient, although substantial, may be
ignored for classification purposes, depending upon many different
circumstances, including the purpose which Congress sought to bring
about by the language used and whether or not the amount used has
really changed or affected the nature of the article, and of course,
its salability.
Varsity Watch Company v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2094
(1959), appeal dismissed, 47 CCPA 173 (1959).
In a prior application of the de minimis rule to the term ``in part
of braid,'' CBP determined that if the quantity of ornamental braid in
an article serves a useful purpose or affects the nature of the article
or increases the salability of the article, the baseball style cap
would be considered ``in part of braid'' for classification purposes.
See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 087060, dated August 17, 1990, in
which CBP determined that a baseball-style cap with non-contrasting
ornamental braid measuring nine inches long and \3/16\-inch wide
between the peak and the crown was classifiable as ``not in part of
braid.'' Upon reconsideration of this ruling, CBP held in HQ 088438,
dated January 14, 1991, that the cap was classifiable as ``in part of
braid'' by application of the de minimis rule.
After the issuance of these rulings, CBP published a proposed
interpretive rule in the Federal Register concerning the classification
of baseball-style caps featuring ornamental braid located between peak
and crown. See 56 FR 46134, dated September 10, 1991. The proposed
interpretive rule solicited comment from the public as to the
appropriate width of ornamental braid on a baseball-style cap that
would be determinative of classification for purposes of the de minimis
rule. Three comments were received; however, none of the submitted
comments assisted CBP in formulating a definitive threshold width.
CBP did not publish a final interpretive rule on this issue. Since
publication of the proposed interpretive rule in 1991, CBP has issued
inconsistent classification rulings on merchandise featuring ornamental
braid of various widths. In this regard, it is noted that several of
these rulings adopted a \1/8\ of an inch standard for purposes of the
de minimis rule. In this document, CBP proposes this same standard as a
means of ensuring the uniform application of the de minimis rule and
providing consistency in the classification of baseball-style caps with
braid trim. It is CBP's view that braid trim in widths of less than \1/
8\ of an inch will not appreciably affect a cap's salability or
utility. Accordingly, CBP is proposing that ornamental braid on a
baseball-style cap in a width of \1/8\ of an inch or greater will
render the cap classifiable as ``wholly or in part of braid.''
Conversely, it is proposed that such braid in a width of less than 1/8
of an inch will result in a cap being classifiable as ``not in part of
braid.''
CBP is soliciting public comment as to the appropriateness of the
proposed threshold width.
[[Page 52727]]
Comments
CBP will consider written comments timely submitted in its review
of the proposed width (i.e., less than \1/8\ of in inch) at which
ornamental braid located between peak and crown on a baseball-style cap
should be considered de minimis so as to result in the cap's
classification in the HTSUS as ``not in part of braid.'' Submitted
comments will be available for public inspection in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and Sec. 103.11(b) of the
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)) on regular business days between
the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street,
NW., Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted documents should
be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572-8768.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was Ms. Suzanne Kingsbury,
Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.
Dated: August 23, 2004.
Robert C. Bonner,
Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 04-19581 Filed 8-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P