HQ 079999: Request for Reconsideration of CIE-666/56

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 079999

                                    July 22, 1988


          CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 079999 JLJ

          CATEGORY: Classification

          TARIFF NO.: 256.13

          Chief, Commercial Operations Branch 1
          U.S. Customs Service
          6 World Trade Center
          New York, New York 10048

          RE: Request for Reconsideration of CIE-666/56

          Dear Sir:

               In an undated memorandum (CLA-2-S: COM: N1-234), you request
          a reconsideration of CIE 666/56.  You state that certain paper
          imported by Agfa-Gevaert is being classified under the provisions
          for basic paper to be sensitized for use in photography, in items
          256.13, 252.05 or 254.05, Tariff Schedules of the United States
          (TSUS).  You believe this position is incorrect.

               In St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 87-97
          (September 23, 1987), the court held that the term "photography"
          included electrophotography.  The specific paper involved in St.
          Regis was a different type of paper, but the issue of whether
          papers similar to the paper at issue here are basic papers to be
          sensitized for use in photography is currently before the Court
          of International Trade.  (Beekman Paper Co.v. United States, Ct.
          Nos. 86-03-00345 and 86-03-00347; BDP International v. United
          States, Ct. No. 86-03-00346; Sloan Paper, Inc. v. United States,
          Ct. No. 86-11-01380.)

               As stated in 19 CFR 177.7(b), "No ruling letter will be
          issued with respect to any issue which is pending before the
          United States Court of International Trade...."  Inasmuch as this
          issue is before the court, we cannot issue a ruling concerning
          it.

                                       Sincerely,




                                       John Durant, Director
                                       Commercial Rulings Division













          1cc: Daniel Pincus, Asst. Chief Counsel,
                 International Trade Litigation
          1cc: John Durant
          JLJohnson:tj:typed 06/01/88