HQ 962634

October 25, 2001

CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 962634 GGD

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 4202.92.9060

Port Director

U.S. Customs Service

111 West Huron Street

Buffalo, New York 14242-2378

RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No.
0901-97-101793, filed

August 8, 1997, Concerning the Classification of Camera Housings;
Containers

of Heading 4202; Not Parts or Accessories of Cameras

Dear Sir:

This is a decision on a protest timely filed on August 8, 1997, against
your decision in the classification and liquidation of an entry of
protective housings (for various types of cameras) that were entered in
February 1997.

FACTS:

You classified the merchandise at issue in subheading 4202.92.9060,
HTSUSA, the provision for \"Trunks\...binocular cases, camera
cases\...and similar containers\...: Other: With outer surface of
sheeting of plastic or of textile materials: Other: Other, Other:
Other,\" with a general column one duty rate (in 1997) of 19.3 percent
ad valorem.

The protestant claims that the merchandise at issue should be classified
either in subheading 9007.91.8000, HTSUSA, the provision for
\"Cinematographic cameras and projectors, whether or not incorporating
sound recording or reproducing apparatus; parts and accessories thereof:
Parts and accessories: For cameras: Other,\" with a general column one
duty rate (in 1997) of 4.6 percent ad valorem; or in subheading
8529.90.8400, HTSUSA, the provision for \"Parts suitable for use solely
or principally with the apparatus of headings 8525 to 8528: Other: Other
parts of articles of headings

-2-

8525 and 8527, except parts of cellular telephones: Of articles of
subheading 8525.10.90, 8525.20, 8525.40.40, 8527.90.40 or 8527.90.85,\"
with an applicable duty rate (in 1997) of Free.

Although the individual articles at issue vary in shape, dimensions,
features, fittings, etc., all are containers (described as flexible
\"housings\") that protect, enhance and expand the uses of cameras
and/or video camera recorders in hostile environments (moisture-laden
air, rain, salt spray, sand, dust, etc.) and/or underwater. The
containers are essentially composed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic
sheeting that is double laminated, high frequency welded, resistant to
ultraviolet light, and tested to be watertight to depths ranging from 10
to 50 meters. The containers feature optical glass with seals and
adapter rings to connect a camera lens to the housing\'s interior glass.
Some of the housings have a built-in glove for fingertip control of a
camera. In part, advertising literature states:

> Take your camera and camcorder anywhere!
>
> The flexible EWA camera housing is the ideal protection for your
> camera and is a valuable accessory to really enjoy the use of your
> camera or camcorder, keeping it action-ready on boats, beaches,
> ski-slopes or underwater.
>
> Does the housing fit my camera? SLR \[single lens reflex\] and compact
> housings fit most cameras **universally**\....Camcorder housings have
> to be selected for specific camcorder models. For example, the model
> U-VST (#E176) fits most Sony TR models. NEVER GUESS! Consult the EWA
> size sheet with your exact camera brand and model number. Ask your
> dealer.

The goods are not imported with cameras or similar apparatuses. Although
the example is provided above of a housing said to fit \"most Sony TR
models,\" the protestant does not otherwise identify particular cameras
or apparatuses for which the imported articles are to be parts or
accessories.

ISSUE:

Whether the merchandise is classifiable as camera cases and/or similar
containers to those of heading 4202, HTSUSA; or as parts or parts and
accessories of cameras under headings 8529 and/or 9007, HTSUSA.

-3-

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with the General
Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of
goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the
tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event
that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if
the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI
may then be applied. The Explanatory Notes (EN) to the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System, which represent the official
interpretation of the tariff at the international level, facilitate
classification under the HTSUSA by offering guidance in understanding
the scope of the headings and GRI.

Pursuant to GRI 1, we first examine the terms of the headings. In
pertinent part, heading 9007, HTSUSA, provides for \"Cinematographic
cameras and projectors\...parts and accessories thereof.\" Heading 8529,
HTSUSA, covers \"Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the
apparatus of headings 8525 to 8528.\" Within those four headings, we
note that the heading most specifically related to cameras is heading
8525, HTSUSA, which provides, in part, for \"\...still image video
cameras or other video camera recorders.\" Heading 4202, HTSUSA,
provides for:

> Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, briefcases, school
> satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, **camera cases**, musical
> instrument cases, gun cases, holsters **and similar containers**;
> traveling bags, toiletry bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags,
> shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette cases, tobacco
> pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder
> cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of
> composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of
> vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with
> such materials or with paper. \[Emphasis added.\]

Proper classification within a provision for \"parts\" or \"parts and
accessories\" requires identification of the specific type of article
for which the good at issue is to be a part or accessory. If this
requirement is satisfied, Customs generally will consider an article to
be a part if: it must be combined with other articles to be used; or it
must be an integral, constituent or component part, without which the
article to which it is joined could not function; or it aids in the safe
and efficient operation of the main article; and it is identifiable by
shape or other characteristics as an article solely or principally used
as a part. Customs generally will consider an article to be an accessory
if: it facilitates use or handling; or it widens the range of uses of
the main article; or it improves the operation of the main article; or
it is not needed to enable the goods with which it is used to fulfill
its intended function; and it is identifiable as being intended solely
or principally for use with a specific article.

-4-

Although cameras are able to function with or without containers of
plastic sheeting, each of the articles at issue would widen a camera\'s
range of uses. The housings at issue more adequately satisfy the general
criteria to be considered accessories rather than parts. For judicial
guidance concerning the classification of parts or parts and
accessories, see *Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V.
Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States*, 914 F. Supp. 554, Slip Op. 95-206
(1995 Ct. Intl. Trade), aff'd, Slip Op. 96-1275, Slip Op. 96-1276,
decided April 2, 1997.

It does not directly follow that articles which may function as
accessories or as parts are classifiable as such. Additional U.S. Rule
of Interpretation 1 (c), states:

> In the absence of special language or context which otherwise
> requires\--
>
> \* \* \*
>
> \(c\) a provision for parts of an article covers products solely or
> principally used as a part of such articles but **a provision for
> \"parts\" or \"parts and accessories\" shall not prevail over a
> specific provision for such part or accessory.** \[Emphasis added.\]

In this case, the legal note above would preclude the claimed provisions
for parts or parts and accessories, from prevailing over a specific
provision for the containers. The terms of heading 4202, HTSUSA,
specifically provide, *eo nomine*, for \"camera cases\...and similar
containers.\" The protestant asserts, however, that the articles at
issue cannot be considered \"camera cases\" because it is commonly
accepted that the term connotes a rigid container of plastic, metal, or
textile and foam padding - all of which are materials indicative of the
importance of protection during transport. Protestant contends that the
housings are neither designed nor suitable for transporting a camera,
that they provide no protection during transport, that any protection
the housings provide against sand and moisture is a secondary feature,
and that each housing\'s main purpose is to permit a camera\'s use
underwater.

The FACTS section above recounts advertising and findings as to each
housing\'s material composition. The facts appear to contradict much of
what the protestant asserts. Also, with respect to component materials,
rigidity, and the reach of the expression \"similar containers,\"
pertinent explanatory notes to heading 4202 state that:

> This heading covers **only** the articles specifically named therein
> and similar containers. These containers may be rigid or with a rigid
> foundation, or soft and without foundation\....the articles covered by
> the first part of the heading may be

-5-

> of any material. The expression \"similar containers\" in the first
> part includes hat boxes, camera accessory cases, cartridge pouches,
> sheaths for hunting or camping knives, portable tool boxes or cases,
> specially shaped or internally fitted to contain particular tools with
> or without their accessories, etc.

In *Totes, Incorporated v. United States*, 18 C.I.T. 919, 865 F. Supp.
867 (1994), aff'd, 69 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the Court of
International Trade (CIT) examined the classification of automobile
trunk organizers (designed to store trunk necessities in an orderly
manner) and, applying the rule of *ejusdem generis*, determined whether
the organizers were of the same class or kind of containers as the
listed 4202 exemplars. Although finding significant disparity in the
physical characteristics, purposes, and uses of the individual
exemplars, the Court emphasized that the essential characteristics and
purposes of all of the exemplars were to organize, store, protect and
carry various items. Since the capability of the trunk organizers to
**carry** was a central issue in the case, the plaintiff attempted to
minimize the organizers' carrying capacity and function. The Court,
however, rejected any requirement that the principal design feature of
an article classified as a "similar container" under heading 4202, be
portability or transportation of the contents. The Court recognized that
portability is often only an incidental purpose of jewelry boxes and
certain tool chests classifiable under heading 4202, but that those
containers still retained their primary uses to organize, store and
protect articles.

Like the trunk organizers, the subject housings may not be principally
designed to transport contents, but if they were not suitable to
effectively transport contents, it is unlikely that prospective
consumers would be enticed through advertisement to purchase the
housings to \"Take \[their\] camera anywhere!\" We also do not accept
the protestant\'s attempts to denigrate the containers\' use in
protecting against numerous corrosive elements, valid characteristics
that are self-servingly described as secondary features to uses for
underwater photography.

In *Jewelpak Corp. v. United States*, 97 F. Supp. 1192, Slip Op. 2000-39
(denying cross-motions for summary judgment on April 13, 2000), 131 F.
Supp. 2d 100, Slip Op. 2001-4, decided January 24, 2001, the CIT
examined the classification of various presentation boxes for holding
specific pieces of jewelry including rings, bracelets, necklaces, and
watches. Customs had classified the boxes in subheading 4202.92.90,
HTSUSA. The goods were described as flip open boxes consisting of a top
and bottom shell (composed of either steel or plastic), connected by a
steel hinge, and possessing an outer covering of textile material or
plastic sheeting. While plaintiff agreed that a \"jewelry box\" could be
a large chest of the kind placed on a dresser for holding multiple

-6-

pieces of jewelry, it disputed the Government\'s position that a
\"jewelry box\" could also be any box for holding a piece of jewelry for
some period of time (short or long). The Court found that the jewelry
boxes were designed to protect as well as package jewelry, and that they
were also capable of being used for storage. After a bench trial, the
Court further concluded that the merchandise was suitable for long term
use and that the goods were therefore classified as \"jewelry boxes\"
under heading 4202, HTSUSA. The CIT\'s acceptance of the jewelry boxes\'
protective and storage purposes, and its main focus at trial on
suitability for long term use, suggest that all four essential
characteristics and purposes (i.e., to organize, store, protect and
carry various items) need not be present in all instances for a
container to be *ejusdem generis* with the exemplars of heading 4202,
HTSUSA.

In *Rooster Products, Inc. v. United States*, Slip Op. 00-60, decided
June 1, 2000, the CIT considered whether the imported leather \"tool
holders\" at issue were a form of \"tool bag,\" and whether they were
*ejusdem generis* with the exemplars of heading 4202, HTSUSA. Similar to
the protestant\'s argument herein, the plaintiff maintained that,
although the terms of heading 4202 specifically provide, *eo nomine*,
for \"tool bags\...and similar containers,\" the articles at issue could
not be considered \"bags.\" The Court pointed out that **an *eo nomine*
provision without terms of limitation includes all forms of the
article** in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. According to
the plaintiff, the tool holders functioned minimally to protect and
store, and since the articles were open at the top and could not be
closed, they did not fit the definitions of \"bag\" contained in several
lexicographic sources. Based upon other sources and definitions, its own
research, and its understanding of the term, the CIT found that a
\"bag\" did not have to close or be capable of closing, that \"\[t\]he
defining characteristics of a bag are that it must be a container of
flexible material with an opening at the top,\" and that the \"tool
holders\" at issue were a form of \"tool bag\" and were classified under
subheading 4202.91.00, HTSUS. The Court stated that:

> In the alternative, even if the tool holders could not be considered a
> form of tool bag it would be necessary to examine whether they are
> similar to the exemplars expressly listed\....When a tariff provision
> lists a number of items and is followed by a general word or phrase,
> like the provision at issue\'s use of the phrase \"similar
> containers,\" the rule of statutory construction called *ejusdem
> generis* applies. *See Avenues in Leather; Inc. v. United States*, 178
> F.3d 1241, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Imported merchandise falls within
> the general phrase if it
>
> possesses the essential characteristics or purposes uniting the listed
> exemplars and does not have a more specific primary purpose that is
> inconsistent with the listed exemplars.

-7-

In light of the above analysis, we find that the camera housings at
issue are classifiable under heading 4202, as containers that are
similar to camera cases, and are specifically classified in subheading
4202.92.9060, HTSUSA. For a similar result concerning protective bags
for cameras, see Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 964393, dated July 30,
2001. The ruling was published as a final notice of the revocation of
New York Ruling Letter (NY) F88775 (dated July 13, 2000), in the
[Customs Bulletin]{.underline}, Volume 35, Number 34, dated August 22,
2001.

HOLDING:

The various styles of containers described as camera housings are
classified in subheading 4202.92.9060, HTSUSA, the provision for
\"Trunks\...binocular cases, camera cases\...and similar containers\...:
Other: With outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile
materials: Other: Other, Other: Other.\" The general column one duty
rate (in 1997) is 19.3 percent ad valorem.

The protest should be 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 of the decision.

No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, 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, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and
by other methods of public distribution.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Commercial Rulings Division