HQ 954886

November 16, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 954886 CMR

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO: 6104; 6114

Director, International Trade Affairs

Hasbro

32 West 23rd Street

New York, NY 10010

RE: Revocation of HRL 083229 of January 24, 1989; Classification

of children\'s dress-up sets containing apparel-type articles;

dress-up sets v. costumes v. fancy dress; dress-up sets

having the completeness of a costume are to be considered

costumes and classified as costumes

Dear Mr. Ranier:

On January 24, 1989, this office issued a ruling,

HRL 083229, to Hasbro regarding the classification of certain

children\'s dress-up sets. A sample was submitted for review and

was stated to be representative of a line of various articles

packaged and sold under the name \"Getting Pretty\". It has come to

our attention that an inconsistency exists in the classification

of certain articles, known as dress-up sets, and costumes. For

that reason, we have reviewed this area. The dress-up sets of

particular concern to Customs are the sets which are in essence

boxed costumes. The ruling issued to Hasbro appears to have

involved some dress-up sets which were basically costumes. For

that reason, Customs is issuing this modification of HRL 083229 to

Hasbro in regard to those sets.

FACTS:

The sample that was submitted in HRL 083229 was described

therein as a packaged set known as the \"Starlet\". The set

included:

an extremely short knit strapless dress, of sorts, with

iridescent ruffles, two elasticized iridescent sleeve puffs,

a string of beads, a pair of clip-on earrings, and a toy

plastic microphone. -2-

In your letter requesting a ruling, you described the dress-

up sets and discussed a distinction between the sets and costumes.

In your letter of March 8, 1988, the sets are described as

containing \"imitations of adult wearing apparel made of textile

materials\" and \"additional toy accessories such as a toy

microphone, a toy scepter, and also toy jewelry such as a necklace,

a bracelet and earrings.\" The sets were designed for girls, ages

3 to 6 and the size ranges were from 3 to 6x. In this letter, you

stated that your product did not consist of costumes. This appears

based on your belief that \"costumes are always associated with

holidays or special occasions and \[your\] sets, and the marketing

of them, are not set forth in this manner.\" You stated that your

product was designed for year round play by children playing grown-

up.

A letter in the file (from a director for soft toy engineering

at Hasbro to another company) apparently submitted to Customs to

support your classification position, refers to the dress-up sets

as \"kid sized, role playing sets\". In the letter, a statement

referencing similar products currently on the market refers to

these similar products as \"similar costume dress up outfits\".

\[Emphasis added.\]

ISSUE:

Are dress up sets consisting of a textile article, or

articles, which form a costume, classifiable as toys of Chapter

95, or classifiable as costumes, i.e., fancy dress, excluded from

Chapter 95?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Customs has issued numerous rulings on the classification of

textile costumes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States. Based upon Note 1(e) of Chapter 95 which excludes fancy

dress of textiles of Chapters 61 or 62, Customs has excluded

textile costumes from classification within Chapter 95. The

exclusion is based upon Customs understanding of the meanings of

the terms fancy dress, costume, and apparel. See for example,

HRL 087291 of December 4, 1990, HRL 082984 of October 23, 1989 and

084601 of September 8, 1989.

From the letters in the file which have been referenced, it

is clear that your company was aware that at least some of the

dress up sets at issue may be viewed as costumes. Customs erred

in accepting the argument that packaging and marketing for year -3-

round use for playing grown-up or dress-up, in and of itself,

caused what would otherwise be viewed as a costume to become

something else, i.e., a toy. Whether a costume is marketed for

use during a holiday, such as Halloween, or for a special occasion,

such as a costume party, or for year round use, it is still a

costume.

When a dress up set (such as the one described in HRL 083229,

the Starlet) contains fancy dress of textile and has the

completeness of a costume, it will be considered a costume

regardless of how it is packaged. In other words, dress up sets

which consist of fancy dress of textile (such as a short knit

strapless dress or a tunic or a skirt) and other items which taken

together as a whole create a costume will be classified in the same

manner and following the same analysis as costumes previously ruled

upon by Customs.

Most dress up sets consist principally of toy items packaged

on occasion with an item of textile, such as a piece of fabric.

These sets do not form costumes nor is the textile item generally

recognizable as fancy dress. These sets will continue to be

classified as toys. This office has been advised by the National

Import Specialist for toys that the majority of dress up sets fall

within this latter description and, in fact, the bulk of products

known and marketed as dress up sets do not contain any item of

textile.

In the case of the dress up set described in HRL 083229,

Customs believes it is more properly viewed as a costume and as

such, subject to Note 1(e) of Chapter 95, which states that Chapter

95 does not cover \"sports clothing or fancy dress, of textiles, of

chapter 61 or 62.\" As the items packaged with the dress serve as

accessories to the dress and to complete the costume, we believe

the dress and accompanying items are classifiable together as a set

under General Rule of Interpretation 3(b). Following GRI 3(b), the

set is classifiable by that component which imparts the essential

character. We believe the essential character is conferred by the

dress as it is the greatest bulk and is central to the costume

bringing the other items together to create the costume.

HOLDING:

In order to ensure uniformity of classification and treatment,

per 19 CFR 177.9(d), Customs is revoking HRL 083229 of January 24,

1989, effective with the date of this letter, to accord with the

above analysis. As a result of this revocation, the sample at

issue in HRL 083229, i.e., the Starlet dress up set, is

classifiable in the appropriate provision of Chapter 61 for the

knit strapless dress. Without a sample to review or information

regarding the fiber content of the dress, Customs -4-

cannot state which heading in Chapter 61, 6104, HTSUSA, which

covers knit dresses or 6114, HTSUSA, which covers other knit

garments, is appropriate for the dress.

This notice to you should be considered a revocation of HRL

083229 under 19 CFR 177.9(d)(1). It is not to be applied

retroactively to HRL 083229 (19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)) and will not,

therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of your

merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future

transactions in merchandise of this type, this revocation of HRL

083229 will be in effect. We recognize that pending transactions

may be adversely affected by this revocation in that current

contracts for importation arriving at a port subsequent to this

decision will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation

arises, you may, at your discretion, notify this office and may

apply for relief from the binding effects of this decision as may

be warranted by the circumstances. However, please be advised that

in some instances involving import restraints, such relief may

require separate approvals from other government agencies.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Commercial Rulings Division