Yes, that will do nicely.
Ours all end up lightly covered in very fine cat fur, so I guess we were ahead of the trend. It’s horribly irritating to put one on then be in the store and not be able to touch anything to brush away the ones that billow up into the eyes! 
The export question is an interesting one but the answer is fairly boring.
Under the General rules of interpretation (GRI) of the HTSUS one first considers the "essential character " of the item. The best definition would still be a facemask, although a used one. The bigger differentiation would be whether it is considered a clothing item, a personal protective item, or a medical item. In this case one would be hard pressed to call it a medical item, especially given where it has been. Also it is not really being used in a protective sense and is being worn more for personal pleasure. In this case though as of 12 March 2020 the medical vs clothing discrimination is immaterial under the HTSUS
The final classification would thus be determined by the materials of composition. The appropriate classification would likely be under Chapter 62 or Chapter 63. One could make the case that a face covering is headgear which is covered under Chapter 65, but under the GRI one must choose the earliest chapter when more than one chapter applies.
I’d classify under section 6307.90.
Thanks, I hate it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
