us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-085073•HQ 085073: Reconsideration of HRL 083577
HQ 085073: Reconsideration of HRL 083577
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-085073HQ 085073: Reconsideration of HRL 083577Guidance
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 085073
March 8, 1990
CLA-2:CO:R:C:G 085073 SR
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 5903.20.10
Mr. Joel K. Simon
Serko & Simon
One World Trade Center
Suite 3371
New York, N.Y. 10048
RE: Reconsideration of HRL 083577
Dear Mr. Simon:
This is in reference to your letter dated July 6, 1989,
requesting reconsideration of HRL 083577 dated April 21, 1989,
concerning the country of origin and classification of a fusible
interlining fabric. Samples were submitted.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is a fusible interlining fabric.
The base cloth is a 100 percent cotton fabric that is woven in
the People's Republic of China. The fabric is then shipped in
the greige to Hong Kong for bleaching, Sanforizing and
polyethylene coating by the engraved roller printing technique.
The fabric is then shipped from Hong Kong to the United States in
rolls of 100 and 150 yards each.
The cotton fabric has been covered on one side with
thermoplastic polyethlene dots and contains a thermoset plastic
finish on the other surface. The material, which has a weight of
153.27 grams per square meter, consists by weight of
approximately 86.4 percent cotton fabric and 13.6 percent of the
plastic dots. Examination of the material indicates that the
plastic dots cover a substantial part of the total surface of the
side to which they have been applied.
-2-
ISSUE:
1. What is the classification of the merchandise at issue?
2. Whether there is substantial transformation of the
merchandise at issue.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
ISSUE 1
Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), taken in order. GRI 1
provides that classification shall be determined according to the
terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.
Heading 5903, HTSUSA, covers textile fabrics impregnated,
coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of
heading 5902. In order for a fabric to be considered coated
within the meaning of heading 5903, Note 2(a)(1), Chapter 59,
HTSUSA, provides that whatever the nature of the plastic
material, the coating must be visible to the naked eye, but that
no account is to be taken of changes in color.
The Explanatory Notes constitute the official interpretation
of the tariff at the international level. The Explanatory Notes
to heading 5903, HTSUSA, state that heading 5903 includes:
textile fabrics which are spattered by spraying with visible
particles of thermoplastic material and are capable of
providing a bond to other fabrics or materials on the
application of heat and pressure.
The fabric at issue is spattered with visible small dots
that are capable of providing a bond to other fabrics or
materials. Therefore, the merchandise at issue is classifiable
under heading 5903, HTSUSA.
ISSUE 2
The country of origin of goods will change if a substantial
transformation of the goods occurs through processes performed on
the goods in another country. 19 CFR 12.130 (e) states that an
-3-
article or material will become the product of a particular
country if a fabric is dyed and printed and has two or more of
the following finishing operations: bleaching, shrinking,
fulling, napping, decating, permanent stiffening, weighting,
permanent embossing, or moireing.
In HRL 083577, we stated that the fabric was dyed because it
was bleached white. Upon further examination of the tariff
schedule we have concluded that this is incorrect. The use of
optical whitening agents or brighteners is a form of bleaching
and not a dyeing process. This is stated in subheading note 1(f)
and (g), to Section XI, HTSUSA, which reads as follows:
(f) Bleached woven fabric
Woven fabric which:
(i) Has been bleached or, unless the context
otherwise requires, dyed white or treated with a white
dressing, in the piece;
(g) Dyed woven fabric
Woven fabric which:
(i) Is dyed a single uniform color other than white
(unless the context otherwise requires) or has been
treated with a colored finish other than white (unless
the context otherwise requires), in the piece.
Therefore, the merchandise at issue is not considered to be dyed.
The inquirer states that the fabric must be considered to be
printed because of Bruce Duncan Co., Inc. v. United States, 80
Cust. Ct. 48, C.D. 4736 (1978). It was held in this case that a
fusible interlining fabric that was coated with polyamide pin
points was considered to be "coated fabric". However, we do not
believe that coating and printing are the same.
The inquirer uses the Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles,
Wingate, to define the roller printing method. Printing, in this
-4-
same dictionary, is defined as follows:
Applying a colored pattern to fabric, yarn or sliver by any
of a large number of printing methods in which color is
deposited in thick paste form and treated with steam or
chemicals to cause it to migrate into or adhere to textile
material.
In Understanding Fabrics: From Fiber to Finished Cloth,
Gioello, page 185, printing is stated as:
the process of transferring color, design, pattern or motif
or decoration of one or more colors in any one of a variety
of methods or techniques to fabric.
It is our opinion that printing is the process of applying
color to a fabric to provide a decorative function. The plastic
coating on the fabric at issue cannot be considered to be
printed. However, even if we did consider the material to be
printed it would not help qualify the material as being
substantially transformed. To be substantially transformed the
material must be dyed, printed, and have two other processes
performed to it. The material at issue is not dyed or printed.
It has been brought to our attention that in an earlier
ruling, HRL 080649 dated February 3, 1988, a similar fabric was
found to be substantially transformed. However, the fabric in
the previous ruling is distinguishable from the fabric currently
at issue because it was dyed and put through further processing
procedures.
HOLDING:
ISSUE 1
The merchandise at issue is classifiable under subheading
5903.20.10, HTSUSA, which provides for textile fabrics coated
with polyurethane, of cotton. The rate of duty is 5.3 percent ad
valorem.
ISSUE 2
The merchandise at issue is not substantially transformed,
-5-
and therefore, it is considered a product of China for country of
origin purposes.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6 cc A.D. New York Seaport
1 cc Durant
1 cc legal reference
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.