Tariff classification of beaded handbag
Active· CBP ruling HQ 081483· Issued 1989-04-27
Ruling text
HQ 081483
April 27 1989
CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 081483 LS 826183
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 4202.22.8050
Ms. Thea Costabile
Patrick Powers Customhouse Broker
Post Office Box 30155
JFK Airport Station
Jamaica, New York 11430
RE: Tariff classification of beaded handbag
Dear Ms. Costabile:
Your inquiry, dated November 2, 1987, concerning the
tariff classification of a beaded handbag, was referred to this
office for a direct reply to you. Your request was submitted
on behalf of Milor Ltd.
FACTS:
The handbag in question is an evening bag made of a man-
made fiber textile material which is imported from Macau.
Beads, bugles, and spangles are sewn in a design onto the
textile outer surface of one side of the handbag. The handbag
has a nylon lining. Between the outer textile material and the
lining is a foam material. The bag has a nylon zipper. Narrow
pieces of cardboard are sewn on the upper edge of the bag,
along the zipper. The bag also has a braided shoulder strap
made of man-made fibers.
ISSUE:
What is the applicable tariff classification provision for
this handbag under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA)?
- 2 -
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of products under the HTSUSA is governed by
the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides
that classification shall be determined according to the terms
of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.
Heading 4202 in Chapter 42 provides for handbags of
textile materials or handbags wholly or mainly covered with
such materials. Subheading 4202.22, HTSUSA, provides for
"Handbags, whether or not with shoulder strap, including those
without handle: With outer surface of plastic sheeting or of
textile materials." Since this handbag is made of textile
material, with plastic beads, bugles, and spangles sewn onto
the textile surface of one side, we find that the appropriate
subheading is 4202.22, HTSUSA.
Subheading 4202.22.40, HTSUSA, provides for handbags which
have an outer surface of textile materials wholly or in part of
braid. For the reasons discussed below we find that subheading
4202.22.40, HTSUSA, is not applicable, and that the appropriate
subheading is 4202.22.80, HTSUSA.
Since the handbag is not wholly of braid, we must decide
whether it is "in part of braid." General Note 7(e)(ii)
provides that "in part of," when used between the description
of an article and a material, means that "the goods contain a
significant quantity of the named material." General Note 7(e)
further provides that the de minimis rule applies to this
principle. Since General Headnote 9(f) of the Tariff Schedules
of the United States Annotated (TSUSA) sets forth a definition
of "in part of" which is identical to that contained in the
HTSUSA and also provides for application of the de minimis
rule, we refer to the court decisions and administrative
rulings which interpret this phrase and rule under the TSUSA.
The de minimis rule provides that an ingredient or
component of an article may be ignored for classification
purposes depending upon "the purpose which Congress sought to
bring about by the language used and whether or not the amount
used has really changed or affected the nature of the article
and, of course, its salability." Varsity Watch Co. v. United
States, 34 CCPA 155, C.A.D. 359 (1947). See also Headquarters
Ruling Letter 073592, dated June 12, 1984.
The term "significant," as used in the definition of "in
part of," has been interpreted to mean "a degree of usefulness,
being meaningful or necessary, or denoting employment for a
reason." C.S.D. 80-90. In that decision Customs determined
that an item contains a significant quantity of braid if that
quantity serves a useful purpose and/or increases the
salability of the article.
- 3 -
A dual quantitative-functional test has emerged from
several court decisions to determine whether an article is "in
part of" an ingredient for tariff classification purposes. The
quantitative approach provides that "in part of" refers to a
substantial part in a commercial sense. E. Fougera & Co. v.
United States, T.D. 41632, 49 Treas. Dec. 986 (1926). Thus, an
article is "in part of" an ingredient if that ingredient is
present in commercially meaningful or substantial quantities.
Cavalier Shipping Co. v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 440, 444,
C.D. 4317 (1971), aff'd, 60 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 1103 (1973). The
functional approach, which is set forth in Cavalier Shipping,
provides that an article is "in part of" an ingredient if
quantitatively insignificant amounts of it are present in a
sufficient quantity so as "to perform a part in the primary
function of the article." 60 CCPA at 156. In Aceto Chemical
Co. v. United States, 75 Cust. Ct. 167, C.D. 4625 (1975),
aff'd, 64 CCPA 78, C.A.D. 1186 (1977), the Customs Court
interpreted the phrase "a part in the primary function of the
article" to mean that the ingredient in question must play a
role which is the primary function of the article rather than a
role which is just related to the primary function. The court
stated its view that a quantitatively minute amount of an
ingredient should control classification only in the most
limited circumstances.
In Bantam Travelware v. United States, Slip Op. 87-131
(Ct. Int'l Trade, decided December 3, 1987), Appeal No. 88-1217
pending, the court relied on the approach in Genender Wholesale
v. United States, 1 CIT 278 (1981), aff'd, 69 CCPA 146 (1982),
in determining whether luggage with braided material in the
handles and straps, not observable to the naked eye, contained
a significant quantity of braid so as to be considered "in part
of" braid. The factors considered by the court were the
commercial utility of the quantity of braided material in the
subject merchandise, its effect on salability, consumer
preference, and the relevant trade's recognition of the use of
braid in the fabrication of luggage. The court found that
there was insufficient evidence to establish that the use of
braid produced any meaningful advantage with respect to the
actual performance or appearance of the product. Further,
there was no proof that the use of braided materials added to
the salability of the luggage.
Applying these interpretations of the phrase "in part of"
to the instant handbag with a braided shoulder strap, we find
that the handbag does not contain a significant quantity of
braided material. We fail to find a commercial utility which
is attributable to the braided material. It appears that the
utility of the handbag with the strap would be the same whether
- 4 -
or not the material of the strap is of a braided construction.
There is no indication that the use of braid adds to the
salability of the handbag. As to the quantitative approach, we
find that the braided material should not control
classification because it is not present in a commercially
meaningful quantity. The braided material of the strap makes
up a small percentage of the handbag's overall material.
Applying the functional test set forth in Aceto Chemical Co.,
we find that the braided construction of the strap does not
perform the primary function of the handbag, i.e., carrying
articles, but only assists in that primary function. Further,
with respect to the de minimis rule, it cannot be said that the
amount of braid is significant enough to really change or
affect the nature of the article.
HOLDING:
For the foregoing reasons, the braided construction of the
handbag's strap is not present in a significant quantity so as
to cause the handbag to be "in part of braid." Therefore, the
handbag is not classifiable in subheading 4202.22.40, HTSUSA.
The applicable provision under the HTSUSA is subheading
4202.22.80, which provides for "handbags, whether or not with
shoulder strap, including those without handle, with outer
surface of textile materials: other: other: other," dutiable
at the column 1 rate of 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable
textile category is 670.
Due to the changeable 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
schreiber library 081483LS
6cc: Area Director, New York Seaport
LSchreiber:jaj:4/11/89
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 081483, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:17:56Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.