HQ 965265

March 7, 2002

CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 965265 mbg

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 6201.93.3000, 6201.93.3511

Service Port Director

1000 2^nd^ Avenue

Suite 2100

Seattle, WA 98104-1020

RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No.
3001-01-100221; Men's Hybrid Shirt/Jacket; Revocation of NY D89780

Dear Sir:

This is a decision on application for further review of protest number,
3001-01-100221 timely filed by Meeks, Sheppard & Pillsbury,LLP on behalf
of Cutter & Buck Inc., against decisions at your port regarding the
classification and entry of men's golfing "shirts" which were the
subject of New York Ruling Letter ("NY") D89780, dated April 19, 1999,
and Headquarters Ruling Letter ("HQ") 964181, dated April 4, 2001. The
entries at issue herein were entered on May 15, 2000; June 2, 2000; July
15, 2000; and July 16, 2000.

FACTS:

The merchandise in question is a v-neck pullover short sleeved shirt
made of polyester with a teflon impregnation and Climaguard fabric. The
garment has an interior 100 percent polyester knit mesh lining. The
lining covers the torso area only and does not extend to the sleeves.
The waist features a ribknit waistband and there are two side seam
pockets at waist level. The short sleeves are banded with ribknit cuffs
that measure 20 inches in circumference. The importer submitted a claim
that the shell fabric is Teflon® impregnated and therefore, further
claimed that the garment was both wind and water resistant.

ISSUE:

Whether merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation of
a ruling published in the [Customs Bulletin]{.underline} pursuant to 19
U.S.C. 1625(c) is classified in accordance with the ruling being revoked
or in accordance with the revoking ruling?

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On April 19, 1999, U.S. Customs issued New York Ruling Letter ("NY")
D89780 to AKA International, Inc. on behalf of Cutter & Buck, regarding
the tariff classification of a windbreaker. The windbreaker was
originally classified in heading 6211.33.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated ("HTSUSA") which provides for
among other things, men's other woven garments not otherwise provided
for. Counsel for the importer requested that Customs Headquarters
reconsider the classification of the subject merchandise and upon
review, it was determined that the subject merchandise was more properly
classified in subheading 6201.93.3000, HTSUSA, if determined to be water
resistant or in the alternative in subheading 6201.93.3511, HTSUSA, if
not determined to be water resistant pursuant to U.S. Additional Legal
Note 2 for Chapter 62 of the HTSUSA.

Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625
(c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization)
of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L.
103-182, 107 Stat. 2057), a notice was published on December 20, 2000,
in Vol. 34, No. 51 of the *Customs Bulletin*, proposing to revoke NY
D89780 and to revoke the treatment pertaining to the men's garment
similar to a windbreaker. As explained in a notice published on February
21, 2001, in Vol. 35, No. 8 of the *Customs Bulletin*, the period within
which to submit comments on this proposal was extended to March 23,
2001. No comments were received in response to these notices and the
final notice of revocation was subsequently published on May 2, 2001 in
Vol. 35, No. 17/18 of the *Customs Bulletin*.

On July 13, 2001, counsel for protestant filed a protest with the port
of Seattle, protest no. 3001-01-100221, in which counsel claims that
four entries should be classified in subheading 6201.93, HTSUSA,
pursuant to the analysis in HQ 964181. The protest identifies the
entries as follows:

[Entry No. Date of Entry Date of Liquidation]{.underline}

WC4-0021635-2 6/2/00 4/13/01

WC4-0021087-6 5/15/00 4/27/01

WC4-1000089-5 7/16/00 6/1/01

WC4-1000099-4 7/15/00 6/8/01

In the final notice of revocation published on May 2, 2001 in Vol. 35,
No. 17/18 of the *Customs Bulletin*, Customs stated:

> This action \[for change in tariff classification\] is effective for
> merchandise *entered* or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption *on
> or after July 2, 2001.*

The effective date is based on 19 U.S.C. 1625(c), modification and
revocation, which provides in the last sentence of the section that:

> The final ruling or decision shall become effective 60 days after the
> date of its publication \[in the Customs Bulletin\].

(bracketed material added.)

You have stated that the four entries subject to the current protest
were entered into the customs territory of the United States *prior* to
the effective date published in the *Customs Bulletin*. Therefore, the
change in tariff classification is not applicable to those entries and
the classification of the garments in the aforementioned entries is
governed by NY D89780. As provided in NY D89780, the garments were
originally classified in heading 6211.33.0040, HTSUSA, which provides
for among other things, men's other woven garments not otherwise
provided for. We concur.

HOLDING:

Protest is DENIED.

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065,
dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to
mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant
no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of
the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be
accomplished prior to mailing the decision.

Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to
the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at
[www.customs.gov]{.underline}, by means of the Freedom of Information
Act, and other methods of public distribution.

> Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

> Commercial Rulings Division