CBP case study: Why touchscreen coated work gloves stayed in HTS 6116.10.65 — and why the Section 301 exclusion didn't apply
GRI 1In this case CBP classified polyurethane-coated knit polyester work gloves under HTS 6116.10.65 at a 13.2% base rate and, because the gloves tested at roughly 76% textile by weight, denied the Section 301 exclusion, leaving an added 7.5% China duty in place.
The classification under heading 6116 (gloves, knitted or crocheted, impregnated, coated or covered with plastics or rubber) was not actually in dispute here — the importer conceded 6116.10.65. The real contest was over the Chapter 99 Section 301 layer. The importer sought the exclusion at 9903.88.57, which by its terms covers only qualifying products containing less than 50% textile fibers by weight. Because CBP's laboratory found the gloves were approximately 76% textile by weight, they sat above that threshold and outside the exclusion. An obvious alternative worth naming is heading 6216 (gloves not knitted or crocheted); that path was not used because these gloves are knit polyester coated with polyurethane, squarely within the knitted/crocheted terms of 6116. This tracks the rule that a claimed Chapter 99 exclusion is read strictly and turns on objective, lab-verified composition — not on the importer's stated percentages or the outcome of a separate prior protest. Final classification depends on the importer's actual product and should be confirmed by a licensed customs broker.
- Confirm the textile-versus-plastic/rubber weight split of coated gloves with independent lab testing before relying on any weight-based Section 301 exclusion
- Check the exact exclusion note language (e.g., a 'less than 50% textile' threshold) against your actual composition rather than assuming eligibility from a past entry
- Budget for the base rate plus any current China Section 301 amount, and keep lab reports and bills of material on file to support entries
| Path | Code | Base duty |
|---|---|---|
| Path CBP used (classification undisputed; exclusion denied) | 6116.10.65 | 13.2% |
| Alternative path (claimed Section 301 exclusion) illustrative | 9903.88.57 | excludes the added 7.5% |
| On a $40,000 shipment, the 13.2% base duty is about $5,280. With the Section 301 addition of 7.5% under 9903.88.15 (~$3,000), the total lands near $8,280; had the exclusion applied the ~$3,000 add-on would have been avoided. Treat the exact Chapter 99 rate as a variable to verify against the current tariff schedule. | ||
Illustrative comparison only. The alternative heading is one contrast possibility — the exact subheading for a different product configuration would need separate analysis (other Chapter 84/85 or specific provisions may apply). Any Section 301 / Chapter 99 figure assumes the goods remain subject to that measure at the time of entry; always verify the current Chapter 99 status and any applicable exclusions.
- Relying on internally reported composition percentages that a CBP lab may not confirm — here the stated split differed from the tested 76% textile figure
- Assuming a Section 301 exclusion from one protest automatically carries to another entry of a similar item
- Missing the strict, threshold-based reading of Chapter 99 exclusion notes, which can leave the added duty in place
- If lab testing showed the gloves were less than 50% textile by weight → the product might have fallen within the 9903.88.57 exclusion and avoided the added Section 301 duty
- If the gloves were not knitted or crocheted (e.g., woven or leather construction) → classification could shift out of heading 6116 toward another glove provision such as heading 6216
- If the origin were a country other than China → the Section 301 China measures would not be the relevant Chapter 99 variable, changing the added-duty analysis
From a documentation lens, the lesson we take away is that a Section 301 exclusion often lives or dies on a single measured attribute — here, textile weight percent. When an exclusion note sets a numeric threshold, an independent lab report matched to that exact wording is worth far more than a prior entry's treatment or an internal bill-of-material estimate.
Was the HTS classification itself in dispute in this ruling?
No. The importer accepted classification under 6116.10.65, HTSUS. The dispute was whether the gloves qualified for a Section 301 exclusion under 9903.88.57. Final classification of any specific product still depends on its actual characteristics and should be confirmed by a licensed customs broker.
Why didn't the claimed Section 301 exclusion apply here?
The exclusion required qualifying products to contain less than 50% textile fibers by weight, and a CBP lab found the sample gloves were approximately 76% textile by weight. In this case that put the gloves outside the exclusion's scope, so the added China duty remained. Verify current Chapter 99 language before relying on any exclusion.