CBP Denies Protest Review of Raincoat Classification, Says Rulings Override ICPs
CBP denied a further review of protest submitted by Item House, the importer, challenging a Port of Tacoma, Wash. classification of raincoats that were imported and liquidated in 2010. The company sought a further review of protest because "CBP has not determined whether a garment with the particular combination of features that the subject garment possesses is classified as an anorak or similar garment," said the agency. CBP found the coats were properly classified at liquidation as 6202.13.40 and maintains a 27.7 percent duty rate. The agency noted that while there may be some discrepancy between the relevant Informed Compliance Publication (ICP) and past rulings, the company should defer to the rulings.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
At entry, Item House classified the coats as 6202.93.45 (Women's or girls' overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6204: Anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets): Of man-made fibers: Other: Other: Other: Water resistant). CBP in Tacoma disagreed with the classification and liquidated the goods as 6202.13.40 (Women's or girls' overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), windbreakers and similar articles (including padded, sleeveless jackets), other than those of heading 6204: Overcoats, carcoats, capes, cloaks and similar coats: Of man-made fibers: Other: Other.)
Item House filed a protest in 2011 asking CBP to instead classify the merchandise as 6210.50.50 (Garments, made up of fabrics of heading 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907: Other women's or girls' garments: Of man-made fibers: Other). Item House said the coats fit the classification requirements for heading 5903, but CBP found that the goods were precluded from classification in heading 6210 because there is no plastic coating visible to the naked eye, a requirement for heading 5903.
Item House also asked CBP to instead classify the goods under 6202.93.45, the classification originally used at entry, as an anorak. Item House pointed to a CBP ICP on Classification of Coated and Water Resistant Apparel (here) that says an anorak must only "contain a tightening at the waist or a tightening at the wrists," which Item House claims is a broad enough description to include its merchandise. Past agency rulings on anoraks provide a different definition and "in a case like this one, where there appears to be a discrepancy between the ICP and CBP's prior rulings, the standard set by our prior rulings takes precedence," the agency said. "Whereas the ICPs constitute non-binding advice to the trade, CBP's prior rulings are binding upon the agency. In the present case, our prior rulings dictate that both tightening at the waist and at the wrists are required for garments to be classified as anoraks." The goods also aren't close enough to an anorak to warrant a "similar article" classification, said CBP.
Although the coats were identified in commercial invoices and entry documents as "ladies' woven raincoats," Item House claimed they were described incorrectly at the item, said CBP. Still, "because it was "identified repeatedly as 'woven raincoats' on multiple documents" CBP finds "the argument that they were mislabeled to be unpersuasive." The goods were properly classified upon liquidation because they meet the required exemplars for raincoats, the agency said, citing its ICP on Apparel Terminology under the HTSUS (here). CBP's denial, which was recently released, is dated Sept. 9.