H326186

H326186 October 6, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H326186 TJS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NOS.: 6203.42.45, 6204.62.80, 6204.63.90 Mr. Rick Van Arnam Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, LLP 100 William Street, Suite 305 New York, New York 10038 RE: Affirmation of NY N323823; Classification of woven garments Dear Mr. Van Arnam, This is in response to your request for reconsideration, dated July 5, 2022, of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N323823, issued on April 13, 2022, which concerns the tariff classification of four styles of pants under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). This request for reconsideration was filed on behalf of your client, Sanko Tekstil Isletmeleri San. Ve Tic. A.S. (“Sanko” or “Requestor”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm NY N323823. You requested that certain information submitted in connection with this request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The items that you specified will not be released to the public and will be withheld from the published version of this decision. In NY N323823, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) classified four styles of men’s and women’s lower body garments, specifically, styles M05, M20, W04, and W09; determined that the country of origin marking on styles M05 and W09 were not acceptable; and noted that the submitted samples for styles M20, M05, and W09 were not properly marked with their fiber content. 1 Your request for reconsideration concerns the classification of only styles M05, W09, and W04. In NY N323823, CBP classified style M05 in subheading 6203.42.45, HTSUS, which provides for “Men’s or boys’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, trousers, bib and brace 1 CBP classified style M20 in subheading 6212.90.00, HTSUS, which provides for “Brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted: Other.” overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Other.” Style W09 was classified in subheading 6204.62.80, HTSUS, which provides for “Women’s or girls’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, dresses, skirts, divided skirts, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of cotton: Other: Other: Other: Other.” Style W04 was classified in subheading 6204.63.90, HTSUS, which provides for “Women’s or girls’ suits, ensembles, suit-type jackets, blazers, dresses, skirts, divided skirts, trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear): Trousers, bib and brace overalls, breeches and shorts: Of synthetic fibers: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.” You request classification of styles M05, W09, and W04 under heading 6212, and specifically in subheading 6212.90.00, HTSUS, which provides for “Brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted: Other.” NY N323823 described the products at issue as follows: Style M05 is a pair of men’s trousers. In your letter, you state that the garment is constructed from 70% cotton, 21% polyester, and 9% elastane woven fabric. Style M05 features a sewn-on waistband with five belt loops, a leather patch with a company logo at the right back waistband through which a belt may be threaded, a zippered fly front opening with a metal button closure on the waistband, slant front panels, a sewn-in crotch panel that extends to the top of the lower leg, back patch pockets, tapered lower legs, and hemmed leg openings. According to CBP laboratory analysis, the sample of style M05 was determined to be of woven construction and 67.2% cotton, 23.8% polyester, 9% elastomeric in content. Style W09 is a pair of women’s trousers. In your letter, you state that the garment is constructed from 81.5% cotton, 8.5% elastane, and 10% polyester woven fabric.2 The trousers feature a waistband with six belt loops, a zippered fly front opening with a metal button closure, two front pockets, a watch pocket within the right front pocket, two rear patch pockets, and hemmed leg openings. According to CBP laboratory analysis, the sample of style W09 was determined to be of woven construction and 66.6% cotton, 23.4% polyester, 10% elastomeric fiber in content. Style W04 is a pair of women’s trousers. In your letter, you state that the garment is constructed from 86% polyester and 14% elastane woven fabric. The pull-on trousers extend from the waist to the ankles and feature a wide waistband and hemmed leg openings. According to CBP laboratory analysis, the sample of style W04 was determined to be of woven construction and 85.5% polyester, 14.5% elastomeric fiber in content. 2 In your request for reconsideration, you indicated that internal lab testing of style W09 determined the fiber content to be 69% cotton, 21% polyester, and 9% elastomeric. 2 The question in this case is whether the subject articles are classifiable as “similar articles” of heading 6212, HTSUS. The term “similar articles” appearing after a list of articles invokes the rule of ejusdem generis, which means “of the same kind.” In tariff classification cases, “ejusdem generis requires that the imported merchandise possess the essential characteristics or purposes that unite the articles enumerated eo nomine in order to be classified under the general terms.” Sports Graphics, Inc., v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. United States, 10 Ct. Int’l Trade 154, 157, 641 F. Supp. 808, 810 (1986)). In Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (hereinafter “Victoria’s Secret”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), in applying the principle of ejusdem generis, determined that the unifying feature of the articles listed in heading 6212, HTSUS, is “the paramount function of support” and that the primacy of their support function “is not overridden by an additional outerwear coverage function so significant as to dominate or even to be of roughly the same importance as the support function.” The CAFC further indicated that while some garments provide body support, they cannot reasonably be considered “similar articles” under heading 6212, HTSUS, and specifically used certain jeans that “are designed to flatten, trim, and lift certain parts of the body” as one example. See id. The CAFC also affirmed the finding of the United States Court of International Trade with respect to the classification of two tops with built-in shelf-bras, known as the Bra Top and Bodyshaper, indicating that they “do not share the unifying characteristics of heading 6212” because “both garments are ‘designed for two purposes, coverage and support’.” Id. at 1109. Specifically, those two garments were “wearable in public without needing an additional layer” as evidenced by marketing materials. Id. Sanko indicates that it utilizes special patented woven compression technology to manufacture styles M05, W09, and W04 to provide graduated compression along the wearer’s appendage. Along with the request for reconsideration, compression test results concerning the subject style garments to indicate that the paramount function of the garments is the support was also submitted. In the request for reconsideration, the Requestor contends that while the subject garments “can function as outerwear” their “primary purpose…is to provide this long-term body and muscle support using graduated levels of compression.” Sanko notes that CBP has previously classified compression garments under heading 6212, HTSUS, and cite to the following rulings in support of this statement: Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 966804, dated January 13, 2004, HQ 965621, dated October 16, 2002,