HQ 951294

August 28, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951294 SK

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 6216.00.3225

Edward Macejka

Swany USA Corporation

Crossroads Industrial Park

Gloversville, N.Y. 12078

RE: Classification of ladies\' gloves; woven nylon; vinyl

internal reinforcement; knit fourchettes; Stonewall Trading

Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482, C.D. 4023 (1970);

heading 6216, HTSUSA; HRL 082336 (11/21/88)

Dear Mr. Macejka:

This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1992,

requesting classification of ladies\' gloves. Two different

styles were sent to this office for examination.

FACTS:

Two styles were submitted for examination: style 2206T5 and

2207T5 (no indication was provided as to which glove was which

style). Each style is affixed with a tag which reads \"1A\" and

\"2A\" and the gloves, where it is necessary to differentiate,

shall be referred to by these numbers. Styles 1A and 2A are

identical in all respects except that each has a different

decorative pattern stitched onto the back of the glove and style

2A has a gathered elastic band surrounding the entire wrist.

Style 1A has a gathered elastic band extending only across the

bottom of the wrist.

The gloves are constructed from woven nylon fabric with a

2mm layer of foam rubber on the inner surface. The gloves

feature acrylic knit fourchettes, sidewalls and cuffs. The

lining consists of 100% cotton knit with \"Thinsulate\" and 3mm of

foam rubber. The gloves have internal textile-backed vinyl

reinforcement and foam padding across the back of the knuckles,

elasticized wrists, and a hook and clasp. A 1-1/4 inch wide

piece of textile-backed vinyl is sewn internally across the palm

and is further reinforced by three double rows of external

stitching. A separate vinyl piece is sewn under the palm side of

the thumb.

\- 2 -

ISSUE:

Whether the articles at issue are classifiable as ski

gloves?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is in accordance

with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI\'s) taken in order.

GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according

to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter

notes.

The threshold question is whether the submitted gloves have

been designed for use in skiing and whether they are properly

classifiable as \"other gloves \... especially designed for use in

sports, including ski\[ing\]\", under heading 6216, HTSUSA. Several

characteristics deemed indicative of such design were enumerated

in Stonewall Trading Company v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 482,

C.D. 4023 (1970). In Stonewall, the Court held that certain

vinyl gloves were classifiable as \"other ski equipment\" in item

734.97, TSUS, (now provided for in various HTS subheadings)

because the gloves were deemed to have been especially designed

for use as ski gloves by exhibiting the following:

1\) A hook and clasp to hold the gloves together;

2\) An extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb to

meet the stress caused by the flexing of the knuckles

when the skier grasps the ski pole;

3\) An extra piece of vinyl with padding reinforcement and

and inside stitching which is securely stitched across

the middle of the glove where the knuckles bend and cause

stress;

4\) Cuffs with an elastic gauntlet to hold the gloves firm

around the wrist so as to be waterproof and to keep it

securely on the hand.

It is important to recognize that these criteria are not

prerequisites mandated of all ski gloves. Rather, they provide a

guideline intended to aid in determining whether certain gloves

have been designed for use in skiing. These criteria are neither

mandatory, nor all-inclusive, and a case by case analysis will be

used by Customs in determining whether a glove\'s design merits

classification as a ski glove under heading 6216, HTSUSA. See

Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 082336, dated November 21, 1988,

in which Customs noted, \"\[t\]he fact that the court found

\- 3 -

certain gloves to be classifiable as other ski equipment cannot

be construed as either a limitation or as a blanket approval for

any gloves that possess such \[the same\] features.\" We further

note that even if a glove were to possess all the features

enumerated supra, it would not definitively serve to classify the

glove as a ski glove; a glove may possess all these features and

still be deemed unacceptable for use as a ski glove.

Upon examination of the submitted samples, it is apparent

that at least three of the characteristics set forth in Stonewall

have been marginally met: the gloves have a hook and clasp, there

is an extra piece of padding reinforcement where the knuckles

bend, and both gloves have cuffs with elasticized gauntlets.

All these features are rather insubstantial in nature. The hook

and clasp is of a light plastic that unhooks easily, the

reinforcement sewn to the inside of the glove is internal only

and the elasticized cuffs do not provide a waterproof barrier

sufficiently tight so as to prevent water, snow and ice from

entering the glove when skiing.

The second characteristic in Stonewall, which refers to an

extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb to meet the stress

caused by the flexing of the knuckles when the skier grasps the

ski pole, leaves some question as to precisely where along the

thumb the vinyl is supposed to be stitched. An examination of

both submitted samples reveals that there is an extra piece of

vinyl inserted into the palm-side of the thumb. The vinyl does

not extend to the thumb crotch (that area which covers the right

angle created by thumb and forefinger) nor along the top of the

thumb. The purpose of reinforcement is to ensure that gloves are

sufficiently strong and durable so as to withstand the rigors of

skiing. When the glove is used to grasp a ski pole, very little,

if any, of the thumb crotch comes in contact with the ski pole.

Reinforcement of the thumb crotch is therefore not necessary as

it is the fingers and the top third of the palm which usually

come into contact with a ski pole when a conventional grip is

used. Also, the thumb is only slightly bent when gripping a ski

pole. As there is little bending of the thumb knuckle, the

submitted samples need not possess vinyl reinforcement on the top

side of the thumb. Accordingly, the vinyl reinforcement which

lines only the palm-side of the thumb is adequate for use in

skiing.

Our examination of the subject merchandise indicates that

while the gloves may technically meet the guidelines set forth in

Stonewall, these gloves are nevertheless ill-suited for use in

skiing for several reasons. First, the fourchettes, sidewalls

and cuffs on these styles are constructed from acrylic knit

\- 4 -

fibers to which snow tends to adhere. This fabric easily absorbs

water and allows that water to pass to the hands of the wearer.

Obviously, this is not an acceptable characteristic for a ski

glove. Second, the knit cuffs and elasticized wrists on these

gloves are not sufficiently tight to prevent snow and water from

entering the gloves. For the aforegoing reasons, it is clear

that these gloves are not practical for use in skiing.

The Stonewall Court created a rebuttable presumption that a

glove possessing all four of the enumerated characteristics has

been designed as a ski glove. Customs may consider other factors

which effectively refute this presumption. Such factors may

include whether the gloves are functionally practicable for use

in skiing, whether the gloves appear suitable for use in skiing,

and whether the gloves are marketed as ski gloves. While a

glove\'s appearance, and the manner in which it is marketed, are

certainly indicators of classification, it is the glove\'s

suitability for use in skiing that is determinative of whether

classification as a ski glove is proper. In other words, even if

the Stonewall characteristics have been met, a glove is not

classifiable as a ski glove if it is not functionally practicable

for use as such.

It is Customs\' opinion that neither of the gloves in the

instant case are properly classifiable as ski gloves. The gloves

are not suitable for use in skiing primarily because they would

allow a skier\'s hands to get wet easily by virtue of knit

fourchettes and loose cuffs. Moreover, the gloves are advertised

in the Swaney catalog simply as \"Ladies\' Thinsulate Gloves\", and

not as ski gloves.

HOLDING:

The submitted samples are both classifiable under subheading

6216.00.3225, HTSUSA, which provides for gloves, mittens and

mitts: impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber:

other: with fourchettes\... subject to man-made fiber restraints.

The applicable rate of duty is 14% ad valorem and the textile

quota category is 631.

The designated textile and apparel category may be

subdivided into parts. If so, visa and quota requirements

applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since

part categories are the result of international bilateral

agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and

changes, to obtain the most current information available, we

suggest that your client check, close to the time of shipment,

the Status Report on Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an

internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service, which is updated

weekly and is available at your local Customs office.

\- 5 -

Due to the nature of the statistical annotation (the ninth

and tenth digits of the classification) and the restraint

(quota/visa) categories, you should contact your local Customs

office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the

current status of any import restraints or requirements.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Commercial Rulings Division