CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 950929 LTO
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building
10 Causeway Street, Room 603
Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1052
RE: Protest No. 0401-91-000108; Hot-Rolled Steel Sheets; "tool
steel;" Add. U.S. Note 1(e)(iv) to Chapter 72; Consolidated Cork
Corp. and Milton Snedeker Corp. v. United States; GRI 3(a); GRI 6
Dear Sir:
This protest concerns the tariff classification of hot-
rolled steel sheets under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).
FACTS:
The entry in question consisted of a shipment of hot-rolled
alloyed steel sheets produced from two different heats--heat
#31446 and heat #31737. Both were entered under subheading
7226.91.80, HTSUS, which describes other flat-rolled products of
alloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm, not further worked
than hot-rolled.
A sample from each of the two heats was provided to the New
York Customs Laboratory. The laboratory report for heat #31446
states that this flat metal section of alloyed steel contains
1.09% by weight of chromium, 0.91% by weight of molybdenum and
0.46% by weight of carbon. The laboratory report for heat #31737
states that this flat metal section of alloyed steel contains
1.006% by weight of chromium, 0.86% by weight of molybdenum and
0.41% by weight of carbon.
Based on these laboratory analyses, the sheets were
liquidated as follows: (1) the sheets produced from heat #31737
were classified as entered under subheading 7226.91.80, HTSUS;
- 2 -
and (2) the sheets produced from heat #31446 were classified
under subheading 7226.91.25, HTSUS [the protest forms
inadvertently state that liquidation was made under subheading
7226.91.30], which describes other flat-rolled products of other
alloy steel, not further worked than hot-rolled, of tool steel.
This protest concerns only the classification of the hot-rolled
steel sheets produced at heat #31446.
ISSUE:
Whether the laboratory test performed on one sample of the
hot-rolled steel sheets produced at heat #31446 is sufficient to
determine classification of those sheets under the HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) to the HTSUS
govern the classification of goods in the tariff schedule. GRI 1
states in pertinent part that "for legal purposes, classification
shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and
any relative section or chapter notes . . . ."
Heading 7226, HTSUS, provides for "[f]lat-rolled products of
other alloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm." The sheets
were entered under subheading 7226.91.80, HTSUS, which describes
other flat-rolled products of other alloy steel "[n]ot further
worked than hot-rolled . . . [o]ther . . . [o]f a thickness of
less than 4.75 mm . . . [o]f a width of less than 300 mm." After
laboratory analysis, the sheets were liquidated under subheading
7226.91.25, HTSUS, which describes other flat-rolled products of
other alloy steel "[n]ot further worked than hot-rolled . . .
[o]f tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . [o]ther . . .
[o]f a width of less than 300 mm."
The laboratory report revealed that the sample of hot-rolled
steel sheet produced at heat #31446 contained 1.09% by weight of
chromium and 0.91% by weight of molybdenum. Additional U.S.
Note 1(e)(iv) to Chapter 72 states that, for the purposes of the
tariff schedule, the term "tool steel" has the following meaning:
"[a]lloy steels which contain the following combinations of
elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated . . .
0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent
to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum." Thus, according to the
results of the lab analysis for the sample provided by the
protestant to the New York Customs Laboratory, the hot-rolled
steel sheets produced from heat #31446 are "of tool steel" for
tariff purposes.
The protestant does not dispute the Customs laboratory
findings of a molybdenum content of 0.91%. Rather, he questions
the classification of an entire heat of steel based on laboratory
analysis resulting from one test on one sample. The protestant
- 3 -
also states that the applicable industry specification, ASTM
Spec. A 505, allows certain tolerances over or under the
specified percentage for each alloying element. Finally, he
maintains that the cast analysis (taken from steel in the molten
state) is more representative of the composition of the heat than
the product or check analysis (taken from steel in the solid or
finished product form), which was performed on the sample in
question.
The protestant's claim that a test performed on one sample
cannot represent the entire shipment and that only the amount of
steel represented by the sample (approximately one ounce) should
be classified under subheading 7226.91.25, HTSUS, is without
merit. The United States Customs Court has held that "[i]t is
well settled that the methods of weighing, measuring, and testing
merchandise used by customs officers and the results obtained are
presumed to be correct." Consolidated Cork Corp. and Milton
Snedeker Corp. v. United States, C.D. 2512, pg. 85 (1965). Thus,
the Customs laboratory's test on the single sample presented by
the protestant, as well as its choice of check analysis over cast
analysis, is presumed to be correct for classification purposes.
Finally, the industry specification pertaining to whether
the chemical composition of the steel was within the range of
acceptability has no bearing on how the product is classified for
tariff purposes. For tariff purposes, the sheets produced at
heat #31446 are "of tool steel," and, as such, are classifiable
under subheading 7226.91.25, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
The hot-rolled steel sheets, produced at heat #31446, are
classifiable under subheading 7226.91.25, HTSUS, which provides
for "[f]lat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of
less than 600 mm . . . [o]ther . . . [n]ot further worked than
hot-rolled . . . [o]f tool steel . . . [o]f a width of less than
300 mm." The corresponding rate of duty for articles of this
subheading is 11.6% ad valorem.
Accordingly, the protest should be denied in full. A copy
of this decision should be attached to the 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