CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 088901 PR
Brenda A. Jacobs, Esquire
Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C.
1707 L Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
RE: Country of Origin of Fabric
Dear Ms. Jacobs:
This is in reply to your submission of March 11, 1991, on
behalf of Crown Crafts, Inc., concerning the country of origin of
certain fabric. Our ruling on the matter follows.
FACTS:
You state that fabric is woven in Korea and shipped as
greige goods in bales to Israel. There it is first cut and sewn
into 3000 foot lengths. After that it is singed and desized,
washed, dried, subjected to thermofixation (heating the fabric to
fix the final elasticity), bleached, printed, placed on a stentor
frame, dyed (a light shading), washed, calendered, washed, and
pressed.
It is our observation that if a dye was applied to the
fabric, it is not readily visible.
ISSUE:
The issue presented is whether the fabric is a product of
Korea or a product of Israel.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Section 12.130, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130)
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(b) Country of origin. For the purpose of this section
* * * a textile or textile product, subject to section
204, which consists of materials produced or derived
from, or processed in, more than one foreign territory
or country, or insular possession of the U.S., shall be
a product of that foreign territory or country, or
insular possession where it last underwent a substantial transformation. A textile or textile
product will be considered to have undergone a
substantial transformation if it has been transformed
by means of substantial manufacturing or processing
operations into a new and different article of
commerce.
Section 12.130(e)(1)(i), Customs Regulations, states that
"Dyeing of fabric and printing when accompanied by two or more"
of certain named major processing operations will usually change
the country of origin of that fabric. In Mast Industries v.
United States, 11 CIT 30 (1987), the Court of International Trade
specifically upheld Customs determination that a fabric must be
both dyed and printed in order to have been substantially
transformed into a product of the second processing country.
The Customs Service is very much aware that the textile
industry is continually adapting to advancements in technology.
For that reason, Customs attempts to maintain an open mind to new
types of processing and the effects that they may have on the
tariff treatment of imported merchandise. Accordingly, while
Customs has no prior experience with fabrics that are dyed after
having been printed, we have not taken lightly the claim of such
processing. However, since this order of processing is somewhat
novel, and because a visual examination of the merchandise failed
to indicate that the fabric had been dyed, the submitted two
samples (one printed and dyed and the other merely printed) were
examined by a Customs laboratory. The laboratory report
contained the following statement:
WE ARE UNABLE TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF A SUBSEQUENT
DYEING OPERATION ON THE SAMPLE MARKED PRINTED AND DYED.
HOLDING:
In view of the laboratory report, and our own visual
examination of the samples, it appears that if the fabric was, in
fact, dyed, that process has no meaningful function in relation
to the value or identity of the fabric. Accordingly, the fabric
is not considered by the Customs Service to be printed and dyed.
Therefore, it remains a product of Korea because it has not
undergone a substantial transformation in Israel.
Sincerely,
1 John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division