HQ 081458: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3701-7-000061

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 081458

                                   October 24, 1988

            CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 081458 jlj

            CATEGORY:  Classification

            TARIFF NO.: 256.90

            District Director of Customs
            517 East Wisconsin Avenue
            Room 554
            Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

            Re:  Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest
                 No. 3701-7-000061

            Dear Sir:

                 This protest was filed against your decision in the
            liquidation of certain Milwaukee entries covering shipments of
            two layers of creped paper laminated together by polyvinyl
            chloride plastic material.

                 This ruling concerns the tariff classification of the
            laminated paper product imported from Sweden.

            FACTS:

                 The merchandise at issue, Dunicel Paper Water Repellant,
            is composed of two layers of creped paper laminated together
            by polyvinyl chloride plastic material.  After importation,
            the Dunicel product is cut and folded; sometimes it is also
            printed and embossed.  The final products made from Dunicel
            are table coverings, napkins, place mats and tray mats.

                 In Customs Laboratory Reports 9-82-42300 of June 8, 1982,
            and 9-28-42299 of June 8, 1982, covering white and colored
            Dunicel, the Chicago Customs laboratory said:  "The sample is
            impregnated creped paper.  In our opinion it is not creped as
            a secondary converting process."

                 In Customs Laboratory Report 2-86-12167-001 of
            September 19, 1986, covering "Dunicel paper-water repellant-2
            ply," the New York Customs laboratory said:  "The sample
            consists of 2 sheets of blue creped paper (45 percent by
            weight) which have been joined using a polyvinyl chloride
            plastics material (55 percent by weight).  They are not
            coated, impregnated or surface colored and contain small
            amount of cotton fibers having lengths greater than 4
            millimeters."












                                         - 2 -

                 After Customs Laboratory Report 2-86-12167-001 was
            received, the instant entries were liquidated under the
            provision for articles of paper, not specially provided for,
            other, of papers, coated, or of any of the papers provided for
            in items 253.25, 253.30, 253.35, 253.40, or 253.45, other, in
            item 256.87, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS).

                 Counsel for the protestant claims that the Dunicel paper
            should be classified under the provision for crepe paper,
            including paper creped or partly creped in any manner, other,
            in item 253.20, TSUS.

            ISSUE:

                 Is the instant merchandise classified as a crepe paper in
            item 253.20, TSUS, or as an article of paper in item 256.90,
            TSUS?

            LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                 The Dictionary of Paper, Fourth Edition (1980), published
            by the American Paper Institute, defines "crepe paper" as "a
            general term descriptive of paper made with an effect
            simulating crepe."  The Dictionary defines "laminated paper"
            as "a laminated product made of paper only."  It defines
            "laminated" as "made by superposing two or more layers of the
            same or dissimilar materials, with or without adhesive."  It
            further defines "laminating" as "the operation of combining
            two or more layers of paper or paperboard with an adhesive in
            such a way as to form a multi-ply paper product, the purpose
            generally being to increase thickness and rigidity or to
            impart special  properties, for example, moisture- and grease-
            resistance."  (Emphasis added.)  The last three definitions
            clearly indicate that the instant merchandise is a laminated
            paper product.

                 Counsel for the protestant admits that the Dunicel
            product is a two-ply crepe material.  He does not dispute
            Customs finding that Dunicel is composed of two layers of
            crepe paper laminated together by polyvinyl chloride plastics
            material.  He argues, however, that the correct classification
            for the product is crepe paper in item 253.20, TSUS, pursuant
            to the 1982 laboratory report.  He contends that the Dunicel
            is neither a finished nor an unfinished article.  He cites a
            number of Customs rulings, none of which are on point because
            they do not deal with two layer products.  He argues that the
            provision for crepe paper is more specific than that for
            articles of paper.














                                         - 3 -

                 Previous Customs rulings have classified laminated paper
            products as articles.  Customs Headquarters Ruling Letter
            (HRL) 065398 of November 10, 1980, held that laminated paper
            was outside the scope of the superior heading for items 254.20
            and 254.70, TSUS, which describes eight specific processes,
            and was therefore classified under the provision for articles
            of paper, not specially provided for, other, other, in item
            256.90, TSUS.  In HRL 070024 of October 12, 1982, a product of
            a layer of plastic film laminated to a layer of paper was held
            to be classified as an article of paper in item 256.90, TSUS.
            Finally, in HRL 071475 of September 20, 1983, a product
            composed of plastic film laminated to several thicknesses of
            embossed cellulose paper was held to be a product of cellulose
            wadding classified under the provision for articles of paper,
            not specially provided for, of cellulose wadding, in item
            256.80, TSUS.  These rulings indicate that Customs regards
            paper laminations as articles of paper rather than as paper.

                 The instant Dunicel product is not crepe paper because it
            is more than crepe paper.  It is two layers of crepe paper
            laminated together.  The Dictionary of Paper, supra, defines
            "laminating" as combining two or more layers of paper or
            paperboard in such as way as to form a multi-ply paper
            product.  Customs has classified other paper laminations as
            articles of paper.  For all of these reasons, the Dunicel
            product is classified as an article of paper in item 256.90,
            TSUS.

                 We note that the liquidation of the entries in item
            256.87, TSUS, was incorrect inasmuch as the instant product is
            not made from coated paper nor from any of the papers provided
            for in items 253.25, 253.30, 253.35, 253.40, or 253.45, TSUS.

            HOLDING:

                 The protest should be denied with regard to protestant's
            claimed classification in item 253.20, TSUS.  The instant
            entries should be reliquidated under the provision for
            articles of paper in item 256.90, TSUS, unless such
            reliquidation results in duties in excess of those which were
            due under item 256.87, TSUS.

                  A copy of this ruling should be sent to the protestant
            along with the CF 19 Notice of Action.

                                        Sincerely,




                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division