HQ 951880: Request for Further Review of Protest 0101-92-100011, datedFebruary 4, 1992, Concerning Various Refractory Materials

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 951880

                        November 30, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:F  951880  ALS

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6806.90.0050

District Director of Customs 
P. O. Box 4688
312 Fore Street
Portland, ME 04112

RE:  Request for Further Review of Protest 0101-92-100011, dated
February 4, 1992, Concerning Various Refractory Materials

Dear Mr. Ingalls:

     This ruling is on a protest that was filed against your
decision of November 8, 1991, in the liquidation of an entry
covering various refractory materials.

FACTS:

     The products under consideration are refractory materials
known as Ultracast SIC 30, Kaoram SR, Phlox 1500 D SR, Phlox 1400
D SR, Kergun C 28 HR SR, Kerlite 110 MP and Gibram SR.  The
materials are, according to Customs laboratory analysis, largely
oxides of silicon and aluminum.  Some of the products also contain
titanium and one of the products is also largely silicon carbide. 
The laboratory analysis indicated that they had very poor cementing
properties.

ISSUE:

     Are the subject refractory materials classifiable as
refractory cement?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is governed by
the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) taken in order.
GRI 1 provides that the classification is determined first in  - 2 -

accordance with the terms of the headings and any relative section
and chapter notes.  If GRI 1 fails to classify the goods and if the
heading and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining
GRI's are applied, taken in order. 

     In considering the subheadings of the HTSUSA which might cover
the subject products we noted that they were entered under
subheading 3816.00.0050, HTSUSA, the provision for refractory
cements, and were liquidated under subheading 6806.90.0050, HTSUSA,
the provision for heat insulating materials.  

     A Customs laboratory analysis of the products showed that they
were largely oxides of silicon and aluminum, with titanium in some
cases.  Their cementing properties were noted to be very poor. 
Since the products are lacking in cementitious qualities we do not
believe they can be considered refractory cements.

     It appears that these products, while not refractory cements,
are refractory materials.  The mineral materials apparently perform
a heat-insulating function.  Accordingly, classification in heading
6806 would be appropriate.

HOLDING:

     Refractory materials which lack sufficient cementitious
qualities to be considered refractory cements are classifiable in
subheading 6806.90.0050, HTSUSA, which provides for articles of
heat-insulating...mineral materials, other than those of heading
6811 or 6812, or of Chapter 69: Other: Other.  They are subject to
a general rate of duty of 4.9 percent ad valorem.

     Since the classification indicated above is the same as the
classification under which the entry was liquidated, you are
instructed to deny the protest in full.

     A copy of this ruling should be attached to Customs Form 19
and provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on
the protest.

                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division