Multi-function products.
Multi-function products have more than one function or use. In such cases, it is important to determine: (1) how the product is described; (2) how the product is used; and (3) how the marketer intends the product to be used.
Example
The product is primarily a shower gel or body wash which may also be used on the hair, as a substitute for shampoo. In the CITT case cited in paragraph 1, above, the Tribunal accepted the notion that the product may be used on the hair; however, it determined that the product is used for much more than simply washing the hair, and most notably for washing the body. Accordingly, it is much more than a hair shampoo and, therefore, excluded from heading 33.05. This is further supported by the terms of heading 33.05, which provide for “Preparations for use on the hair.†Thus, the reference to “shampoos†in subheading 3305.10 covers hair shampoos (i.e., those applied to the hair on the scalp) and not body shampoos.
Toilet sets
5. Toilet sets, comprising a number of components (e.g., perfume, foaming bath powder and body wash), are generally classified in accordance with General Interpretative Rule 3(b), which provides that mixtures, composite goods consisting of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, shall be classified according to the component, or components taken together, which gives them their essential character.
6. Regarding the classification of toilet sets, further reference can be made to CITT Appeal No. AP-97-117, Sanofi Canada Inc. versus The Deputy Minister of National Revenue, dated December 18, 1998. In this case, two toilet sets were at issue – one set consisting of perfume, eau de toilette, body lotion, body bath, foaming bath powder, and perfumed dusting powder; the other set consisting of eau de toilette, body lotion, and body bath. In its decision, the Tribunal noted two factors: (1) the value of the various components, and (2) that most components contained an ingredient identified as a fragrance. Based on these two factors, the Tribunal determined that both sets were a fragrance collection. Furthermore, it decided that the perfume in one set, and the eau de toilette in the other set, gave each of these sets their respective essential character. Accordingly, the goods at issue were both classified under heading 33.03.