HQ 955440: Reconsideration of HRL 954337; DD 885233; jacket with attached scarf

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 955440

                         December 7, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 955440 NLP

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 6202.93.4500; 6202.93.5021

Mr. Robert L. Eisen and Ms. Karen Bysiewicz
Coudert Brothers
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-7794

RE:  Reconsideration of HRL 954337; DD 885233; jacket with  attached scarf 

Dear Mr. Eisen and Ms. Bysiewicz:

     On May 11, 1993, Customs issued to you District Ruling
Letter (DD) 885233, which classified a child's jacket with an
attached scarf as a set under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS).  In a letter to Customs Headquarters,
dated June 3, 1993, you requested reconsideration of DD 885233
and provided us with a sample jacket with an attached scarf. 
After reviewing your submission and the enclosed sample, Customs
issued HRL 954337 on October 25, 1993, wherein we determined that
the jacket and scarf combination was classified as a composite
good, not a set.  Therefore, the ruling modified DD 885233.  Upon
discussion with our New York office and review of HRL 954337, it
is our position that this ruling should be revoked and DD 885233
should be affirmed.

FACTS:

     DD 885233 dealt with the classification of a jacket and an
attached scarf.  In describing the attachment of the scarf to the
jacket the ruling stated the following: "The 100 percent acrylic
knit scarf is attached at the back of the collar with top
stitching."  DD 885233 held that the jacket and scarf were
considered a set and were classified based on their essential
character, which was represented by the jacket.  DD 885233 held
that, if the jacket passed the water resistance test as specified
in Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, then the set was
classifiable in subheading 6202.93.4500, HTSUS, which provides
for "[w]omen's or girls' overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks,
anoraks...: [a]noraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and
similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): [o]f
man-made fibers: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther: [w]ater resistant." 
The rate of duty is 7.6% ad valorem and the textile category code
is 635.  If the jacket did not pass the water resistance test,
then the set was classifiable in subheading 6202.93.5021, HTSUS,
which provides for "[w]omen's or girls' overcoats, carcoats,
capes, cloaks, anoraks...: [a]noraks (including ski-jackets),
windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless
jackets): [o]f man-made fibers: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther:
[o]ther: [g]irls'."  The rate of duty is 29.5% ad valorem and the
textile category code is 635.  Moreover, as the jacket and scarf
constituted a set, each of the articles required their own
separate visa for quota purposes.

     On June 3, 1993, you requested a reconsideration of DD
885233.  As part of your submission, you enclosed a sample of a
jacket and scarf combination. It was your position that the
jacket and scarf formed an inseparable whole and should be
considered a composite good for tariff purposes.  Furthermore, 
for articles that are considered to be composite goods for tariff
purposes, the textile category and quota-visa requirements are
determined by the classification of the component which imparts
the essential character and only one visa is required for these
articles.  

     On October 25, 1993, we issued HRL 954337 to you.  This
ruling held that the sample jacket and scarf were considered a
composite good for tariff purposes and, therefore, only one visa
was required for the combination.  This ruling modified DD
885233.   

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Upon review of both DD 885233 and HRL 954337, it is our
position the jacket and scarf combinations described in the
rulings are distinguishable.  The difference between the two
combinations lies in the physical connection between the jacket
and scarf.  For example, DD 885233 describes the attachment of
the scarf in following manner: "The 100 percent acrylic knit
scarf is attached at the back of the collar with top stitching." 
In discussing the method of attachment with our National Import
Specialist we were informed that the stitching was easily removed
and the two items could be separated with neither piece
sustaining any damage.  Therefore, the jacket and scarf were not
considered a composite good pursuant to General Rule of
Interpretation (GRI) 3(b).  The jacket and scarf were considered
to be a set and each item was, therefore, subject to visa
requirements and quota restraints.

     In HRL 954337, the attachment of the scarf to the jacket was
described in the following manner: "The scarf is machine stitched
to the outer and inner shell of the jacket at a point underneath
the hood.  The stitching extends for approximately 2 inches in
the vertical direction and a 1/2 of an inch in the horizontal
direction."  Moreover, this ruling stated that "[t]he scarf could
only be removed with effort and damage to both the jacket and 

scarf."  Therefore, Customs determined that the jacket and 
scarf were an inseparable whole and were classified as a
composite good.

     As the description of the merchandise in HRL 954337 differs
significantly from the articles described in DD 885233, HRL
954337 cannot be considered a valid modification of the
classification set out in DD 885233.  Therefore, in accordance
with Customs Regulations 177.9(d), HRL 954337 is revoked.  

     Moreover, Section 177.9(a)(2), Customs Regulations (19 CFR
177.9(a)(2), states the following:

          Each ruling letter setting forth the proper  classification of an article under the provisions of the    Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States will be     applied only with respect to transactions involving articles     identical to the sample submitted with the ruling request or
     to articles whose description is identical to the      description set forth in the ruling letter.  

As the garments in each ruling are not identical, HRL 954337
cannot be applied with respect to transactions involving articles
described in DD 885233.

     We agree with the conclusion reached in DD 885233 concerning
the classification of the jacket and scarf described therein as a
set and we, therefore, affirm DD 885233.   

HOLDING:

     In order to ensure uniformity in Customs classification of
this merchandise and eliminate uncertainty, pursuant to section
177.9(d)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(d)(1)), HRL 954337
is revoked by this ruling and the holding in DD 885233 is
affirmed.  

     The jacket and scarf are classified in subheading
6202.93.4500, HTSUS,, if they pass the water resistance test as
specified in Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 62, HTSUS.  If
they do not pass the water resistance test, the jacket and scarf
are classified in subheading 6202.93.5021, HTSUS.  As the jacket
and scarf are considered a set, a separate visa is required for
each item.                         

                                   Sincerely,



                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division