HQ 953384

September 14, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 953384 KCC

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 7020.00.00

District Director

U.S. Customs Service

Lincoln Juarez Bridge, Building #2

P.O. Box 3130

Laredo, Texas 78044-3130

RE: Protest No. 2304-92-100135; glasses for half-yard-of-ale and

foot-of-ale; 7013.29.60; condition as imported; U.S. v.

Citroen; HRL 088579; parts; Willoughby Camera; yard-of-ale;

Riekes Crisa

Dear District Director:

This is in response to the Application for Further Review of

Protest No. 2304-92-100135, which pertains to the tariff

classification of glasses for half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). A further submission dated August 27, 1993, regarding

an August 20, 1993, meeting, and samples were submitted for

consideration.

FACTS:

The glasses at issue are in the shape of either a tall

drinking glass or vase. The half-yard-of-ale glass is 18\" tall

and holds 25 oz. of liquid, and the foot-of-ale is 12\" tall and

holds 12 oz. of liquid. After importation, the majority of

glasses are fitted with wooden stands and sold. A small portion

of the glasses are sold as replacements.

The entries of the glasses were liquidated starting March

13, 1992, under subheading 7013.29.60, HTSUS, which provides for

drinking glasses valued over \$5.00 each. In a protest timely

filed on May 26, 1992, Crisa Corporation, contends that the

glasses are properly classified under subheading 7020.00.00,

HTSUS, which provides for other articles of glass.

The subheadings under consideration are as follows:

7013.29.60 Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen,

toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar

purposes (other than that of heading 7010 or

7018)\...Drinking glasses, other than of glass-

ceramics\...Other\...Other\...Valued over \$3

each\...Other\...Value over \$5 each (7.2%)

\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*

7020.00.00 Other articles of glass (6.6%)

ISSUE:

Are the glasses for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale

properly classified as drinking glasses under subheading

7013.29.60, HTSUS, or as other articles of glass under subheading

7020.00.00, HTSUS?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is

governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI\'s). GRI 1,

HTSUS, states in part that \"for legal purposes, classification

shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and

any relative section or chapter notes\....\" Classification is

based upon the condition of the articles at the time of

importation. United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407 (1911).

The issue to be decided is whether, in their condition as

imported, the glasses are a part of the half-yard-of-ale or foot-

of-ale. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 088579, dated May

23, 1991, this office stated that \"a part is generally an article

which is an integral, constituent or compound part, without which

the article to which it is joined could not function.\" See also,

United States v. Willougby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 CCPA 322, 324,

T.D. 46 (1933), cert. denied, 292 U.S. 640 (1934).

This issue has been addressed by the U.S. Court of

International Trade in Riekes Crisa Corp v. United States, 14 CIT

235 (1990). Riekes Crisa classified a glass for the yard-of-ale

as articles not specially provided for, of glass, in item 548.05,

Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (the precursor

provision to subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS). The court stated

that the glass was only a part of the completed yard-of-ale and,

therefore, could not be classified as a drinking glass in items

546.56 and 546.59, TSUS, depending upon the value of the article

(the precursor provision to subheading 7013.29, HTSUS). The

court stated that \"\[t\]he evidence established that the imported

articles are not substantially complete in their condition as

imported, since the omission of the wooden stand is very signifi-

cant to the overall functioning of the complete article.\" The

court relied heavily on the evidence that in its imported condi-

tion the glass could not stand unless placed on the accompanying

wooden stand. Therefore, the glass was found to be a part of an

article and could not be classified as a drinking glass.

Congress has indicated that earlier tariff decisions must

not be disregarded in applying the HTSUS. The conference report

to the Omnibus Trade Bill of 1988, stated that \"on a case-by-

case basis prior decisions should be considered instructive in

interpreting the HTS\[US\], particularly where the nomenclature

previously interpreted in those decisions remain unchanged and no

dissimilar interpretation is required by the text of the

HTS\[US\].\" H. Rep. No. 100-576, 100th cong., 2d Sess. 548, 550

(1988). Since the subject nomenclature in the TSUS (items 546.56

and 546.59) and HTSUS (heading 7013) are similar, because they

are the respective tariff provisions which cover drinking

glasses, and the articles at issue in Riekes Crisa and the

instant case are similar, we find that Riekes Crisa is

instructive.

In rendering its decision, the court in Riekes Crisa

referred only to the \"Yard-of-Ales.\" The protestant contends

that half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale were included within the

scope of Riekes Crisa. The protestant has submitted a letter

from the plaintiff\'s counsel in Riekes Crisa which states that

the case was brought to contest the tariff classification of the

entire \"family-of-ales.\" In support of this contention, the

protestant states that the court ordered an entry of the half-

yard-of-ale to be reliquidated pursuant to its decision. As

evidence, the protestant has submitted the \"Judgment Order\" in

Riekes Crisa to show that style number 2326 which is described as

\"yard-of-ale\" was reliquidated pursuant to the courts finding.

However, the protestant submitted product brochures which state

that style number 2326 is actually a half-yard-of-ale.

Additionally, protestant has submitted \"Decision and Judgment

Upon Agreed Statement of Facts\" in Riekes Crisa Corp., v. U.S.,

case no. 78-1-00193 dated November 1, 1991, and case no. 78-5-

00755 dated October 29, 1991, which reliquidated style no. 2326,

\"half-yard-of-ale\", pursuant to Riekes Crisa, supra.

The protestant contends that classification of the glasses

for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale under heading 7013,

HTSUS, is inconsistent with Riekes Crisa, because Riekes Crisa

was concerned with the classification of glasses for the entire

\"family-of-ales\", and not just the glass for the \"yard-of-ale.\"

However, if we do not find that Riekes Crisa case dealt with the

\"family-of-ale\", the protestant submits that the reasoning in

Riekes Crisa is applicable to the instant case. Except for the

size, the glasses for the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale have

the same characteristics and are imported, sold, and used in the

same manner as the glass for the yard-of-ale.

We do not find that Riekes Crisa dealt with the glasses for

the entire \"family-of-ales.\" We are limited to the language of

the court which dealt only with the glass for the \"Yard-of-

Ales.\" If the court meant to include the half-yard-of ale or

foot-of-ale, it would have specifically stated that it was

examining the glasses for the entire \"family-of-ales.\"

Regardless of this, we are of the opinion that the glasses at

issue are similar to the glass for the yard-of-ale and,

therefore, the reasoning in Riekes Crisa should be analyzed.

Like Riekes Crisa, the protestant has submitted evidence

that the glasses are not substantially complete in their

condition as imported, since the omission of the wooden stand is

very significant to the overall functioning of the completed

article. The Riekes Crisa court relied heavily on evidence that

the yard-of-ale glass could not stand unless placed in the wooden

stand. Although the glasses at issue can stand alone and, at

first glance, may look like drinking glasses, they do not have

the characteristics necessary to function as drinking glasses.

Generally, in glassware stability is provided either by

designing the base of the article with a diameter at least equal

to the diameter of the top opening (e.g., stemware) or by

designing an article with a base heavy enough to counterbalance

the weight of the rest of the article (e.g., tumblers). Neither

of these methods is used with the glasses at issue. The glasses

at issue are capable of standing alone when filled with ale,

however they are very susceptible to tipping over. The glasses,

with their long necks and with the diameter of the top opening

larger than the diameter of the base, are not stability designed

to stand alone. Stability is not built into the glass article

itself, as with a drinking glass, but is designed to be provided

by the separate wooden stand.

The protestant has submitted brochures which depict the

entire yard-of-ale, half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale. The

merchandise is marketed and sold as an article which consists of

two components, the stand and the glass. The protestant does

state that, at times, the glasses are sold individually as

replacement parts. However, the wooden stand is necessary for

the proper use of the article. Moreover, the glasses account for

less than 50 percent of the total cost for the half-yard-of-ale

and foot-of-ale.

Based on the above analysis and Riekes Crisa, we are of the

opinion that the glasses at issue are considered parts of the

half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale. It is well established that

where there is no provision for parts of articles under a tariff

provision, imported merchandise held to be parts will not be

subject to classification thereunder. As heading 7013, HTSUS,

does not provide for parts of drinking glass, classification

under that heading is impossible. Therefore, the glasses are

classifiable under subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS, which provides

for other articles of glass.

HOLDING:

The glasses of the half-yard-of-ale and foot-of-ale are

classified under subheading 7020.00.00, HTSUS, as other articles

of glass. The protest should be granted. A copy of this

decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided

to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director