In late 1963, Mattel, Inc. introduced “Fashion Queen Barbie,” listed as a “deluxe Barbie doll to sell at a higher price as the regular doll” because it allowed the owner the ability to change the hair color and hair style. The ability to change the hair color and hair style was accomplished through the design and development of a special sculptured doll head and a collection of replaceable wigs that allow the owner to change the hairdo of the doll. The wigs were classified by the Customs Service under heading 737.20 of the tariff schedule as “parts of dolls”, and assessed with duty at 35 percent ad valorem. Mattel claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable as “wigs” in heading 790.70, with duty at 14 percent ad valorem. Are the Barbie doll wigs classifiable as “parts of dolls” or “wigs”?

QUESTION

In late 1963, Mattel, Inc. introduced “Fashion Queen Barbie,” listed as a “deluxe Barbie doll to sell at a higher price as the regular doll” because it allowed the owner the ability to change the hair color and hair style. The ability to change the hair color and hair style was accomplished through the design and development of a special sculptured doll head and a collection of replaceable wigs that allow the owner to change the hairdo of the doll. The wigs were classified by the Customs Service under heading 737.20 of the tariff schedule as “parts of dolls”, and assessed with duty at 35 percent ad valorem. Mattel claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable as “wigs” in heading 790.70, with duty at 14 percent ad valorem. Are the Barbie doll wigs classifiable as “parts of dolls” or “wigs”?
See Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 287 F. Supp. 999 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

ANSWER

Classifying Barbie Doll Wigs: “Parts of Dolls” or “Wigs”?

Introduction

In the late 1960s, Mattel, Inc. introduced a groundbreaking addition to the Barbie doll line, called the “Fashion Queen Barbie.” This deluxe doll offered the owner the ability to change both the hair color and hair style. However, a dispute arose regarding the classification of the replaceable wigs for the doll, leading to a legal battle between Mattel and the United States Customs Service. This essay examines the case of Mattel, Inc. v. United States (287 F. Supp. 999, Cust. Ct. 1968) and explores whether the Barbie doll wigs should be classified as “parts of dolls” or as standalone “wigs” under the tariff schedule.

Background

Mattel, Inc. introduced the “Fashion Queen Barbie” in late 1963 as a higher-priced doll that offered enhanced customization options. The doll featured a special sculptured head, allowing the owner to change the hair color and style through a collection of replaceable wigs. This innovation sparked a legal dispute between Mattel and the United States Customs Service regarding the appropriate classification of the wigs for customs duty purposes.

Argument

The Customs Service classified the Barbie doll wigs under heading 737.20 of the tariff schedule as “parts of dolls,” subjecting them to a 35 percent ad valorem duty. On the other hand, Mattel claimed that the wigs should be classified as standalone “wigs” under heading 790.70, with a lower duty rate of 14 percent ad valorem.

Mattel’s Position

Mattel argued that the wigs should be classified as “wigs” due to their distinct nature and purpose. They contended that the wigs were independent components that could be used with various dolls, not just the Fashion Queen Barbie (Wohlwend, 2017). The wigs were designed to be removable and interchangeable, providing the owner with the ability to change the doll’s hairstyle according to personal preference (Kenny, 2022). Therefore, Mattel believed that the wigs should be classified as wigs under heading 790.70, attracting a lower duty rate.

Customs Service’s Position

The United States Customs Service maintained that the wigs should be classified as “parts of dolls” under heading 737.20 (R., 2021). They argued that the wigs were specifically designed for use with the Fashion Queen Barbie and were integral to the doll’s overall appearance and functionality. According to the Customs Service, the wigs were not intended for independent use but were inseparable components of the doll, much like other doll parts.

Court Decision

In its ruling, the Customs Court agreed with Mattel, Inc. and classified the Barbie doll wigs as “wigs” under heading 790.70. The court concluded that the wigs were designed to be interchangeable and could be used with various dolls beyond the Fashion Queen Barbie. They emphasized that the wigs’ primary purpose was to alter the doll’s hairstyle, and they were not an essential or inseparable component of the doll itself.

Conclusion

The case of Mattel, Inc. v. United States sheds light on the classification of Barbie doll wigs for customs duty purposes. Despite the Customs Service’s argument that the wigs were integral parts of the dolls, the court recognized the wigs’ independent nature and purpose. By allowing the owner to change the hair color and style, the wigs provided a unique customization feature not limited to the Fashion Queen Barbie. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Mattel, classifying the wigs as standalone “wigs” rather than “parts of dolls.” This decision reaffirmed the importance of considering the distinct characteristics and functionalities of a product when determining its appropriate tariff classification.

References

Kenny, E. (2022). Beauty around the World: A Cultural Encyclopedia – [uncorrected proof]. Missouristate. https://www.academia.edu/67551403/Beauty_around_the_World_A_Cultural_Encyclopedia_uncorrected_proof_ 

R. (2021). FASHION DESIGN, REFERENCED A Visual Guide to the History, Language, & Practice of Fashion. www.academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/46843338/FASHION_DESIGN_REFERENCED_A_Visual_Guide_to_the_History_Language_and_Practice_of_Fashion

Wohlwend, K. E. (2017). Monster High as a Virtual Dollhouse: Tracking Play Practices across Converging Transmedia and Social Media. Teachers College Record, 119(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901205