HQ 964837

May 2, 2001

CLA-2 RR:CR:GC 964837 AM

**CATEGORY:** CLASSIFICATION

**TARIFF NO.:** 4015.19.10

Mr. Tim McMillen

Ansell Edmont Industrial Inc.

Box 6000

Cochocton, OH 43812-6000

**Re:** HQ 951033 and HQ 951586 revoked; non-medical use latex gloves

Dear Mr. McMillen:

This is in reference to Headquarters Rulings (HQs) 951033 and 951586,
dated June 8, 1992 and June 23, 1992, respectively, and issued to the
Port Director, of Customs, Cleveland Ohio, concerning protest
4103-91-000187 which you filed on June 13, 1991, against the
classification, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS), of non-medical use latex rubber gloves. In those rulings
it was determined that the subject gloves were classifiable under
subheading 4015.11.00, HTSUS, which provides for \"\[A\]rticles of
apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves), for all purposes,
of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber: \[G\]loves: \[S\]urgical
and medical.\"

In reviewing an unrelated protest, 1001-99-100923, dated February 24,
1999, submitted to the Port Director, of Customs, New York, also
concerning the classification of non-medical use latex rubber gloves, we
have reconsidered 957522 and 957561, dated May 24, 1995, and 961270,
dated April 15, 1998. This ruling revokes HQ 951033 and HQ 951586. HQs
964836, 964838, and 964839 of this date, revoke HQs 957522, 957561, and
961270, respectively. These revocations set forth Customs position as to
the classification of these goods and have no effect upon protests as to
past importations.

Pursuant to section 625 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1625(c)), notice of the proposed revocation of HQs 951033, 951586,
957522, 957561 and 961270, was published on March 14, 2001, in Volume
35, Number 11, of the CUSTOMS BULLETIN. Two comments were received in
opposition to the proposed revocation. After careful consideration of
the comments, as set forth in this ruling, we have determined to proceed
with the revocations.

**FACTS:**

The articles under consideration are two styles of disposable latex
gloves. One style is ambidextrous, powdered for easy on-off, comes in
9-1/2 inch length and .005 inch thickness and comes in two sizes. It is
packaged in boxes of 100 and in polybags of 1000. According to the
rulings, the sample box provided has a stick-on label bearing the legend
\"FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.\" Advertising literature provided specifies a
number of uses for the gloves and states that they are for use
\"\[a\]nywhere you need a light duty liquidproof glove.\" Information on
the box specifies that the gloves are made from natural latex for
greater finger dexterity extra sensitivity and tactility, that they do
not cause hand fatigue, that they have snug rolled cuffs for greater
protection and that they keep hands cool and comfortable.

A second style of the latex gloves is made for both left hand and right
hand application. They come in a 12 inch length, are .009 inches thick,
have an anti-slip bisque finish and come in half-sizes ranging from 6 to
9. Some of the gloves are packaged in an individual heat-sealed polybag
and some are packaged 50 right-hand or left-hand gloves per heat-sealed
polybag. Both of the packages are subsequently packaged in \"master\"
heat sealed polybags which, in turn, are packaged so that there are 200
pairs per case. These gloves are noted to provide a combination of
comfort, sensitivity and fit, offer a secure grip for both wet and dry
applications and to provide one of the industry\'s lowest particulate
levels for use in a clean room environment.

**ISSUE:**

Whether seamless, disposable latex rubber gloves for industrial use are
classifiable under subheading 4015.11.00, HTSUS.

**LAW AND ANALYSIS:**

Merchandise imported into the U.S. is classified under the HTSUS. Tariff
classification is governed by the principles set forth in the General
Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) and, in the absence of special language
or context that requires otherwise, by the Additional U.S. Rules of
Interpretation. The GRIs and the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation
are part of the HTSUS and are to be considered statutory provisions of
law.

GRI 1 requires that classification be determined first according to the
terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or
chapter notes and, unless otherwise required, according to the remaining
GRIs taken in order. GRI 6 requires that the classification of goods in
the subheadings of headings shall be determined according to the terms
of those subheadings, any related subheading notes and *mutatis
mutandis*, to the GRIs. In interpreting the HTSUS, the Explanatory Notes
(ENs) of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System may be
utilized. The ENs, although not dispositive or legally binding, provide
a commentary on the scope of each heading, and are (official
interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level)
generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. *See*
T.D. 89‑80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127 (August 23, 1989).

Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation 1(a) requires that \"a tariff
classification controlled by use (other than actual use) is to be
determined in accordance with the use in the United States at, or
immediately prior to, the date of importation, of goods of that class or
kind to which the imported goods belong, and the controlling use is the
principal use\".

The following HTSUS subheadings are relevant to the classification of
this product:

4015 Articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves),
for all purposes, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber:

Gloves:

4015.11.00 Surgical and medical

\* \* \* \* \*

4015.19 Other:

4015.19.10 Seamless

The EN for subheading 4015.11, states as follows: \"\[S\]urgical gloves
are thin, highly tear-resistant articles manufactured by immersion, of a
kind worn by surgeons. They are generally presented in sterile packs.\"

Subheading 4015.11, HTSUS, is a principal use provision. The court in
*E. M. Chemicals v. United States*, 20 C.I.T. 382, 923 F. Supp. 202
(1996 Ct. Intl. Trade) explained the application of these types of HTSUS
provisions thus:

> When applying a \"principal use\" provision, the Court must ascertain
> the class or kind of goods which are involved and decide whether the
> subject merchandise is a member of that class. See *supra* Additional
> US Rule of Interpretation 1 to the HTSUS. In determining the class or
> kind of goods, the Court examines factors which may include: (1) the
> general physical characteristics of the merchandise; (2) the
> expectation of the ultimate purchasers; (3) the channels of trade in
> which the merchandise moves; (4) the environment of the sale (e.g.,
> the manner in which the merchandise is advertised and displayed); (5)
> the usage of the merchandise; (6) the economic practicality of so
> using the import; and (7) the recognition in the trade of this use.
> *United States v. Carborundum Co*., 63 C.C.P.A. 98, 102, 536 F.2d 373,
> 377, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979, 50 L. Ed. 2d 587, 97 S. Ct. 490
> (1976); see also *Lenox Coll.*, 20 C.I.T., Slip Op. 96-30, at page 5.

Our decisions in HQs 951033, 951586, 957522, 957561, and 961270,
classifying disposable latex gloves for industrial use in subheading
4015.11.00, HTSUS, the provision for surgical and medical latex gloves,
were based on the premise that industrial use gloves and medical use
gloves are actually the same product and hence belong to the same class
or kind of merchandise. In those rulings, we noted that both industrial
use and medical use gloves were made on the same machines and of the
same materials. We went on to state that: \"there does not appear to be
any basis for distinguishing between these gloves and medical use latex
gloves.\" We now believe this statement is in error.

Both commentors argue that non-medical use gloves belong to the same
class or kind of merchandise as medical use gloves. At the outset, we
note that, if this is the case, then it is no more incumbent upon
Customs to classify all latex gloves as \"surgical and medical\" gloves
than it would be to classify all the gloves as \"other latex gloves.\"
The commentors state that latex gloves which bear the medical-use label
are sold by the same retailers and used in the same way as general
purpose non-medical gloves, thus, inadvertently arguing that the class
or kind of goods to which all latex gloves belong is \"other latex
gloves,\" against their stated position for classification as \"medical
gloves.\"

The International language of the tariff does not refer to medical
gloves at all. Through historical happenstance, the term \"Surgical and
medical\" was carried over from the Tariff Schedule of the United States
(\"TSUS\"), the precursor to the HTSUS, to subheading 4015.11, HTSUS.
The U.S. International Trade Commission is considering bringing the
HTSUS in conformity with the international language. Nevertheless, we
must interpret the language of the HTSUS as presently worded.

One commentor points out that the text of the EN refers only to surgical
gloves in sterile packs. We disagree. Given the history noted above, it
is at least ambiguous whether EN 4015.11 applies to only surgical
gloves, or whether, in the HTSUS, where the subheading is entitled
\"surgical and medical\", Congress intended for the EN to apply to both
terms. Regardless, there is a general concern, elicited by the EN, that
the gloves classified in subheading 4015.11 be of a quality different
from those classified as \"other\" latex gloves. In the United States,
that quality difference is governed by Food and Drug Administration
(\"FDA\") regulations, which, in turn, governs the use of the gloves.
Such gloves undergo stringent testing of their leak resistance and
adulteration. (21 CFR 800.20). According to the FDA, industrial use
gloves are latex gloves that have failed this test or were not tested.
Manufacturers may then sell the untested, adulterated or leaky gloves to
the cosmetic, food handling, electronic and other industries. There are
strict penalties for attempting to insert industrial use gloves into the
medical use market because they are of differing quality. (21 CFR
800.55). The quality difference and marketing of these gloves, where the
tear resistance of the article is specifically noted in the EN,
distinguishes the surgical and medical use gloves from the non-medical
use gloves.

Both commentors argue that the distinctions made in the proposed
revocation are not based on any real physical difference in the medical
and non-medical use gloves. Correct application of the
[Carborundum]{.underline} factors, the legal standard for analysis of
principal use provisions, reveals distinctions between medical and
non-medical use latex gloves based on real differences in the use of the
gloves, whether or not any particular glove, from a box labeled \"not
for medical use\" could theoretically form an effective barrier against
blood-borne pathogens and other bodily fluids.

1.  The general physical characteristics of a lot of non-medical use
    gloves may include a higher percentage of leaks, tears or pinholes
    than found in medical use gloves. Commentors point out that a
    particular non-medical use glove is likely to be physically exactly
    the same as a medical use glove. While this may be true, the
    imported product is non-medical use gloves packaged for retail sale.
    A given box of non-medical use gloves likely contains a higher
    number of defective gloves than a given box of medical use gloves.

2.  The expectation of the ultimate purchaser of medical gloves is that
    the glove serves as an effective barrier between blood-borne
    pathogens that may be lethal, and the wearers skin. The expectation
    of the purchaser of non-medical use gloves is that the gloves will
    protect the wearer against chemicals and other irritants and will
    create a generally hygienic environment for handling food, cosmetics
    and other products. Expectations about the quality of the glove are
    much higher among the ultimate purchasers of medical use gloves. So
    much so, that the FDA has proposed a new rule requiring additional
    testing of the tear resistance and degradation potential of medical
    use gloves due to concerns that medical use gloves be of a very high
    quality. (64 FR 41710, July 30, 1999). One commentor concedes this
    point by revealing that testing a particular lot of gloves for
    labeling as medical use gloves increases the marketing potential of
    the gloves because the ultimate purchaser prefers the assurance of a
    high quality product.

3.  Medical use gloves follow channels of trade to clinical settings.
    Commentors state that non-medical use gloves are sold through the
    same retailers as medical use gloves. However, non-medical use
    gloves do not enter the same industries as medical use gloves.
    Medical-use gloves appear in clinical settings where non-medical use
    gloves are prohibited from use under FDA guidelines (21 CFR 801 *et
    seq.*). Although another agency\'s regulations are not controlling
    in Customs classification decisions, where Customs must apply a
    \"use\" provision to merchandise, the controlling regulatory scheme
    is indeed relevant.

4.  The environment of the sale includes a label stating that
    non-medical use gloves are only for industrial use or for
    non-medical use. One commentor stated that medical use gloves have
    greater consumer appeal because of their assurance of quality and
    are marketed accordingly.

5.  The actual usage of gloves labeled specifically for non-medical use
    can not be a medical use because such use is prohibited by the FDA
    (21 CFR 801 *et seq.*).

6.  According to commentors, there is a slight cost difference in
    medical and non-medical use gloves but, they claim, this does not
    interfere with the use of medical gloves as non-medical use gloves.
    However, the proposed new rule by the FDA, which would require
    additional testing of medical use gloves, may again make using
    medical-use latex gloves as industrial or general purpose latex
    gloves prohibitive due to the difference in cost of the gloves.
    Nevertheless, the cost difference is not the only factor to
    consider.

7.  The recognition in the trade of industrial use is apparent by the
    labeling \"not for medical use.\"

On balance, application of the *Carborundum* factors reveals that the
correct classification for gloves imported for and labeled for
non-medical use is in subheading 4015.19.10, the provision for
\"\[A\]rticles of apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves),
for all purposes, of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber:
\[G\]loves: \[O\]ther: \[S\]eamless\".

**HOLDING:**

Latex gloves labeled for non-medical use are classified in subheading
4015.19.10, HTSUS, the provision for \"\[A\]rticles of apparel and
clothing accessories (including gloves), for all purposes, of vulcanized
rubber other than hard rubber: \[G\]loves: \[O\]ther: \[S\]eamless.\"

**EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS:**

HQs 951033 and 951586 are revoked. Although there is no consequence of
this action with regards to protest 4103-91-000187, future imports
occurring on or after this ruling\'s effective date should be classified
consistent with this ruling.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Commercial Rulings Division