[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 61 (Thursday, March 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16511-16512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6398]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Dec. 05-11]


Interpretive Rule Concerning Classification of Baseball-Style 
Caps With Ornamental Braid

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final interpretive rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document concerns the proper classification under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) of baseball-
style caps featuring ornamental braid located between peak and crown. 
In an effort to achieve uniformity in the classification of this 
commodity, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has adopted as final a 
proposed interpretive rule whereby ornamental braid on a baseball-style 
cap, located between peak and crown in a width of \1/8\ of an inch or 
greater, will render the cap classifiable in the HTSUS as ``wholly or 
in part of braid.'' Conversely, such braid in a width of less than \1/
8\ of an inch will result in a cap being classifiable in the HTSUS as 
``not in part of braid.''

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Frazier, Textiles Branch, 
Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs and Border Protection, Tel. 
(202) 572-8821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This document concerns the proper classification under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) of baseball-
style caps featuring ornamental braid located between peak and crown. 
The specific issue presented is how wide ornamental braid on a 
baseball-style cap must be in order to render the cap classifiable in 
the HTSUS as either ``wholly or in part of braid'' or ``not in part of 
braid.''
    Baseball-style caps are classifiable in heading 6505 of the HTSUS 
which provides for, in pertinent part, ``hats and other headgear, 
knitted or crocheted, or made up from lace, felt or other textile 
fabric, in the piece (but not in strips), whether or not lined or 
trimmed; * * *.'' Within heading 6505, HTSUS, two subheadings 
differentiate between hats and other headgear that are ``wholly or in 
part of braid'' and those that are ``not in part of braid.'' See HTSUS 
subheadings 6505.90.50 and 6505.90.70 which provide for, in pertinent 
part, hats and other headgear ``wholly or in part of braid,'' and HTSUS 
subheadings 6505.90.60 and 6505.90.80 which provide for hats and other 
headgear which are ``not in part of braid.'' It is noted that hats and 
other headgear that are classifiable as ``not in part of braid'' carry 
a higher rate of duty than those that are classifiable as ``wholly or 
in part of braid.''
    In cases where baseball-style caps feature ornamental braid located 
between the peak and crown, the determinative issue is whether the 
braid impacts classification at the subheading level so as to render 
the cap classifiable as either ``in part of braid'' or ``not in part of 
braid.'' The 2004 HTSUS defines the term ``in part of'' in General Note 
3(h)(v)(B), HTSUS, which states that ``in part of'' or ``containing'' 
means that the goods contain a significant quantity of the named 
material and that ``with regard to the application of the quantitative 
concepts specified above, it is intended that the de minimis rule 
apply.''
    The de minimis rule is applicable in customs practice principally 
in determining whether the presence of some ingredient in an imported 
commodity affects its classification. See Ruth F. Sturm, A Manual of 
Customs Law 182 (1974). The rule stands for the proposition that:

Certain amounts of an ingredient, although substantial, may be 
ignored for classification purposes, depending upon many different 
circumstances, including 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 Company v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2094 
(1959), appeal dismissed, 47 CCPA 173 (1959).

    On August 27, 2004, a document was published in the Federal 
Register (69 FR 52726) in which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
solicited public comment as to the appropriateness of a proposed 
interpretive rule whereby ornamental braid on a baseball-style cap, 
located between peak and crown in a width of \1/8\ of an inch or 
greater, will render the cap classifiable as ``wholly or in part of 
braid.'' Conversely, CBP proposed that such braid in a width of less 
than \1/8\ of an inch would result in a cap being classifiable as ``not 
in part of braid.'' The proposed standard was based on several 
previously issued Headquarters Rulings Letters which had adopted the 
\1/8\ of an inch standard for purposes of applying the de minimis rule 
to this type of commodity. The proposed interpretive rule set forth in 
69 FR 52726 was offered as a means of ensuring the uniform application 
of the de minimis rule and providing consistency in the classification 
of baseball-style caps with braid trim.

Discussion of Comment

    No comments were received in response to the solicitation of public 
comment in 69 FR 52726.

Conclusion

    Upon due consideration, CBP has decided to adopt as final the 
proposed interpretive rule published in the Federal Register (69 FR 
52726) on August 27, 2004.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this document was Ms. Suzanne Kingsbury, 
Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs and 
Border Protection. However, personnel

[[Page 16512]]

from other offices participated in its development.

    Dated: March 28, 2005.
Robert C. Bonner,
Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 05-6398 Filed 3-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P