CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 960783 jb
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
300 S. Ferry Street
Terminal Island, CA 90731
RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No.
2704-97-101180; textile fabrics laminated to PVC sheeting
Dear Sir:
This is a decision on application for further review of a
protest timely filed by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman
LLP, on behalf of LG Chemical America, Inc., on March 28, 1997,
against your decision regarding the classification of certain
textile fabrics laminated to PVC sheeting. Customs issued a
notice to redeliver on December 31, 1996. Samples were
submitted to this office for examination.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise consists of a two layer material
referred to as "embossed vinyl with a textile backing". The
Protestant states that the merchandise consists of:
a cellular polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheeting with a 100
percent nylon tricot knit backing.... The PVC sheeting
actually consists of three distinct layers: an inner PVC
foam layer expanded (and given cellular characteristics) by
use of a blowing agent, an outer PVC skin which is printed
and embossed to give the appearance of leather, and the
textile backing. The PVC layers together weigh
approximately 451 g/yd, comprising 78.2 % of the total,
while the fabric component weighs approximately 126 g/yd,
comprising 21.8 % of the total.
Additionally, the Protestant claims that the subject merchandise
is used solely for the construction of imitation leather golf
bags.
Examination by the Customs laboratory reveals that the
merchandise is a knit nylon fabric having an application of
polyvinyl chloride, and that the knit fabric has the
"characteristics of warp knit raised loop pile construction".
At the time of entry, Customs classified the merchandise in
heading 6001, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), as looped pile fabrics of man-made fibers. The
Protestant disagrees with this classification determination and
advocates classification of the subject merchandise in heading
3921, HTSUS, (or in the alternative, heading 5903, HTSUS) for the
following reasons:
1. The textile does not have the construction of "pile
fabric"; that is, the raised effect of the fabric is
not achieved by the inclusion of additional yarns
during the knitting process, but is a result of
"brushing" after the knitting process;
2. The fabric serves no other purpose other than as
reinforcement for the PVC layer.
ISSUE:
What is the appropriate classification for the subject
merchandise?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is in accordance
with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides
that classification shall be determined according to the rules of
the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, taken in
order. Merchandise that cannot be classified in accordance with
GRI 1 is to be classified in accordance with subsequent GRI.
I. Is this merchandise considered a "pile"?
Heading 6001, HTSUS, provides for pile fabrics, including
"long pile" fabrics and terry
fabrics, knitted or crocheted. The EN to that heading state:
Unlike the woven fabrics of heading 58.01, the products of
this heading are obtained by knitting. The following
methods of production are those mainly used:
(1) a circular knitting machine produces a knitted fabric
in which, by means of an additional yarn, protruding
loops are formed; afterwards the loops are cut to form
a pile and thus give a velvet-like surface;
(2) a special warp knitting machine knits two fabrics face
to face with a common pile yarn; the two fabrics are
then separated by cutting to produce two knitted
fabrics with a cut pile;
(3) textile fibres from a carded sliver are inserted into
the loops of a knitted ground fabric as it is formed
("long pile" fabrics);
(4) textile yarn to form loops ("imitation terry fabrics")
(see General Explanatory Note). Such fabrics have rows
of chain stitches on the back of the fabric and they
differ from the pile fabrics of heading 58.02, which
are characterized by rows of stitches having the
appearance of running stitches along the length of the
back of the fabric.
Knitted or crocheted pile fabrics, impregnated, coated,
covered or laminated, remain classified in this heading.
The Protestant is correct in his assertion that the subject
merchandise does not meet the terms of methods 1-3. However,
there seems to be some question as to whether the fourth method
described by the EN, that is, textile yarns to form loops, is an
appropriate description of the knitting method for the subject
merchandise. There appear to be two schools of thought with
reference to the interpretation of the basic construction of this
merchandise. The Customs Laboratory report indicates that the
subject merchandise is of "warp knit raised loop pile"
construction. That is to say, in purely technical terms, the
fundamental construction of this merchandise is evidence of its
future state as a pile fabric. Although technically this
statement is correct, there is another factor to take into
consideration.
Customs has issued a number of rulings discussing a variety
of fabrics which have set forth a precedence that the future
state of the fabric, is not determinative of its classification.
In the analysis portion of these rulings it has been consistently
stated that Customs will examine the process involved in the
production of the fabric and the appearance of that fabric as the
governing factors in ascertaining whether that fabric is
classifiable as a pile fabric. In essence, the knitting process
of the fabric must result in raised loops or floats which
protrude from the surface of the base fabric. In Headquarters
Ruling Letter (HQ) 952921, dated May 7, 1993, addressing how much
a yarn should "protrude" to qualify for classification in heading
6001, HTSUS, it was determined that:
...there remains some question as to whether the loops
created by the laid-in yarn protrude enough to warrant
classification under heading 6001, HTSUSA, as a pile fabric.
It is this office's opinion that they do. The EN to heading
6001, HTSUSA, provides no quantitative guidance as to how
much loops must protrude; it only describes types of
processes which produce pile fabrics. As the fabric at
issue meets the requirements of EN(4), we are unwilling to
create quantitative prerequisites which would mandate that
looped yarn be of a certain length in order to qualify as a
pile fabric. We note, however, that in situations where the
fabric has been knitted so tightly that in effect no loops
have been created, the fabric will not qualify as a pile
fabric classifiable under heading 6001, HTSUSA.
The subject fabric was examined both prior to and subsequent
to the napping process. The "pile-like appearance" of this
merchandise is a result of a subsequent brushing process and not
its initial construction. Accordingly, although we do not
disagree with our Laboratory's findings that as a technical
matter this merchandise is engineered to be pile, it is the
opinion of this office that given the precedential value of our
prior rulings, the fact that at the time of knitting this
merchandise does not exhibit any raised loops or floats, but only
after subsequent brushing, the subject merchandise is precluded
from classification as pile.
II. Is the textile backing purely for reinforcement purposes?
In making an accurate classification determination with
respect to the subject merchandise, pursuant to GRI 1, all
relevant section and chapter notes must be applied. The EN to
chapter 39, HTSUS, under Plastics and textile combinations,
beginning at page 597 state, among other things:
Wall or ceiling coverings which comply with Note 9 to this
Chapter are classified in heading 39.18. Otherwise, the
classification of plastics and textile combinations is
essentially governed by Note 1(h) to Section XI, Note 3 to
Chapter 56 and Note 2 to Chapter 59. The following products
are also covered by this Chapter:
* * *
(d) Plates, sheets and strip of cellular plastics combined
with textile fabrics, felt or nonwovens, where the
textile is present merely for reinforcing purposes.
In this respect, unfigured, unbleached, bleached or
uniformly dyed textile fabrics, when applied to one
face only of these plates, sheets or strip, are
regarded as serving merely for reinforcing purposes.
Figured, printed or more elaborately worked textiles
(e.g., by raising) and special products, such as pile
fabrics, tulle and lace and textile products of heading
58.11, are regarded as having a function beyond that of
mere reinforcement.
Note 1(h) to section XI states that this section does not
cover:
Woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwovens,
impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, or
articles thereof, of chapter 39.
Legal Note 2(a)(5) to chapter 59, HTSUS, states that heading
5903, HTSUS, applies to textile fabrics, impregnated, coated,
covered or laminated with plastics, whatever the weight per
square meter and whatever the nature of the plastic material
(compact or cellular), other than:
Plates, sheets or strip of cellular plastics, combined with
textile fabric, where the textile fabric is present merely
for reinforcing purposes (chapter 39)
Chapter 60, HTSUS, provides for knitted or crocheted
fabrics. Note 1(c) to that chapter states that this chapter does
not cover:
Knitted or crocheted fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered
or laminated, of Chapter 59 . However, knitted or
crocheted pile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or
laminated, remain classified in heading 6001.
In classifying this merchandise a comprehensive analysis
requires more than a simplistic approach. In this instance we
clearly have a plastic which has been combined with a textile
fabric. It is clear that the underlying understanding of these
notes, when read conjunctively, is that if a textile acts merely
for reinforcing purposes when combined with cellular plastic, the
good is NOT to be precluded from classification in chapter 39.
Clearly stated, the presumption in the EN to chapter 39 is that
pile fabrics are regarded as having a function which is beyond
mere reinforcement. If the textile backing acts as more than
"mere enforcement", classification in chapter 39 is not
warranted. The Protestant makes reference to a number of rulings
which, in Protestant's opinion, provide support for a finding
that the textile in the subject merchandise is present only for
reinforcement of the plastic. We do not agree for the reasons
set forth below.
The Protestant refers to HQ 086670, dated March 26, 1990,
which classified certain merchandise composed of a top layer of
compact plastic, a middle layer of foamed plastic and a bottom
layer of textile materials, and HQ 083288, dated March 26, 1989,
which classified similar merchandise. In both rulings the
merchandise was classified in heading 3921, HTSUS. In the
opinion of the Protestant the submitted merchandise is nearly
identical to the merchandise addressed in HQ 086670 and HQ 083288
and thus should be classified accordingly. The analysis in
neither one of those rulings provides any indication of
comparable ratios with respect to the plastics portion and the
textile backing. Additionally, although the rulings do describe
the textile backing as being "very thin", no information is given
with respect to how this merchandise will be used. Given these
variables we cannot say with the same certainty as the Protestant
that the subject merchandise and the merchandise in the rulings
referenced above are identical in nature.
In HQ 081489, dated March 27, 1989, the merchandise at issue
consisted of different samples of combination plastic/textile
materials. The facts indicated that the merchandise was used
commonly in automobile upholstery as well as other applications,
such as luggage and handbags. All of the samples in HQ 081489,
except for sample 5, have a textile backing which serve only to
support the plastic. In the applications noted in the ruling,
particularly for the automobile upholstery, the textile backing
would not be exposed; as such, the textile does not provide a
tactile or visual effect. As such, there is no indication either
from the physical description of the merchandise, nor its
intended use, that the textile will serve any purpose other than
reinforcement.
In HQ 085100, dated September 11, 1989, a boys' imitation
leather jacket featuring a woven man-made fiber lining and an
outer shell consisting of a nontransparent polyvinyl chloride
type cellular plastics coating or covering which completely
obscured the underlying warp knit pile fabric was classified in
heading 3921. In this case no function was attributed to the
textile backing other than reinforcement. The plastics portion
was considered more substantial and critical to the garment than
the textile and thus classification devolved to heading 3921.
Protestant accurately notes several glove rulings (HQ
953768, dated July 23, 1993, HQ 088539, dated June 6, 1991)
wherein a determination was made that the textile backing was
present for more than mere reinforcement purposes. Additionally,
reference is made to NY A81621, dated April 16, 1996, where in
discussing a warp knit polyester man-made fiber fabric that had
been brushed, dyed and printed to simulate natural leather, a
similar conclusion was reached. Protestant tries to discount
these rulings by stating that this is not the case with the
subject merchandise. We however disagree. In the case of the
subject merchandise we are not convinced that the textile backing
will serve only to reinforce the plastic. As a matter of fact,
in the application noted by the Protestant, that is, a golf bag,
we believe that the textile will serve an explicit purpose- it
will provide a soft interior lining for the golf bags into which
the clubs will be positioned. Much of the golf clubs sold in
today's market consist of graphite shafted clubs which are prone
to scratching. Many golf bags are thus designed with a soft
textile interior in order to reduce some of the abrasion which
could be caused by the absence of such a liner. In addition to
this tactile motivation, the textile interiors are tastefully
coordinated to match the exterior color, thus providing a visual
motivation for the purchase of a particular golf bag.
As such , it is our determination that in the case of this
particular merchandise, the fabric has a role which is beyond
"mere reinforcement".
We thus come to two conclusions: the subject merchandise is
not pile (it lacks the construction thereof), and the textile
interior has a purpose which is beyond mere reinforcement. In so
stating, we must devolve to heading 5903, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
The subject merchandise is properly classified in subheading
5903.10.2090, which provides for textile fabrics impregnated,
coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of
heading 5902: with polyvinyl chloride: of man-made fibers: other:
over 70 percent by weight of rubber or plastics: other. The
applicable rate of duty is 2.5 percent ad valorem.
The protest should be granted in full and a copy of this
ruling should be appended to the CF 19 Notice of Action to
satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a) Customs
Regulations.
In accordance with Section 3(A)(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office to the
Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.
Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision
must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty
days
from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to Customs
personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public
via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act
and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division