CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 961657 RH
Mr. Dirk Vandeplancke
Vice President
Bekaert Textiles U.S.A., Inc.
4500 Green Point Drive
Greensboro, NC 27410
RE: Classification of a weaving beam with yarn; heading 5609, HTSUSA; article of yarn;
Chapters 52, 54 and 55, HTSUSA; Instruments of International Traffic
Dear Mr. Vandeplancke:
This is in reply to your letters of March 13, 1998, and November 5, 1998, in which you seek reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 958674, dated December 12, 1996, concerning the tariff classification of a weaver’s beam.
The grounds for reconsideration are based on a Belgian (European) classification decision of a weaver’s beam and on additional facts that were not considered in the original ruling.
We note that two members of my staff met with you on October 28 of this year to discuss the issues raised in your request for reconsideration.
FACTS:
A description of the merchandise as stated in HQ 958674 reads as follows:
The subject merchandise is various types of yarn put up on beams. A beam is a large cylinder on which a number of yarns are wound in preparation for weaving. You describe the merchandise at issue as a blank weaving beam which consists of metal tubes approximately 8.6 feet long and each beam weighs approximately 100 kg. Yarns that are wound on a beam (also known as a “warp beam” or a “weaving beam”) are parallel to each other, and are aligned so that they are ready to feed into a weaving machine where they will become the warp yarns, (yarns that run lengthwise) in a woven fabric. You state that the weaving beams are used exclusively in the Bekaert production process and are
- 2 -
bought and sold and are known in the textile industry as “weaving beams.” You also state that the subject merchandise is not suitable for any other use except as a Bekaert weaving beam which is used to make mattress ticking. Finally, you state that the weaving beam is a holder which contains yarns of either man made fibers or cotton and is repeatedly used in international traffic.
Additional information in your letter of March 13, 1998, relates that the axis of the blank beam has loop-holes at regular intervals through which yarns looped together are pushed to secure the yarn layer to the blank beam. At the end of the beam, the yarn layer is secured by looping the layer to maintain constant tension on the yarns.
You state that Customs classified the weaver’s beam in HQ 958674 under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) as yarn. However, that is not correct. In that ruling, Customs classified the yarns, which were wound on the beam, in those chapters, but determined that the weaver’s beam was an instrument of international traffic (IIT) withing the meaning of 19 U.S.C. §1322(a) and 19 CFR §10.41(a). Customs decision reads, in part, that:
Customs is of the opinion that the subject weaving beam has the dual purpose of acting as a vessel or holder utilized in the transport of yarn and as a weaving beam designed to be used with certain textile weaving looms. However, with or without the beam, the yarns wound on it do not lose their identity as “yarn”. In essence, you have a beam repeatedly used as a holder or container and yarn. As the yarn has not lost its identity as yarn, it warrants a separate classification.
In the request for reconsideration, you argue that the weaver’s beam with the wound yarns is a distinct article of commerce, dedicated to one restricted end-use , i.e., warp yarn for Bekaert fabrics. Thus, you argue that Customs should have classified the weaver’s beam under heading 5609, HTSUSA, as articles of yarn.
ISSUES
Is the weaving beam classifiable as an article of yarn under Heading 5609, HTSUSA, or are the beam and the yarn considered separately for tariff classification purposes?
If classified separately, is the weaving beam an IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. §1322(a) and 19 CFR §10.41(a), and are the yarns classifiable in Chapters 50 through 55, depending on the types of fibers or filaments comprising those yarns?
- 3 -
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. Additionally, the Explanatory Notes (EN) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level, facilitate classification under the HTSUSA by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRIs.
Chapters 52, 54 and 55, HTSUSA, provide for, among other things, yarns of cotton, man-made filaments and man-made staple fibers, respectively. Heading 5609, HTSUSA, encompasses “Articles of yarn, strip or the like of heading 5404 or 5405, twine, cordage, rope or cables, not elsewhere specified or included.”
In your opinion, the weaver’s beam is prima facie classifiable as both “yarn” under Chapters 52, 54 or 55 and as an “article of yarn” under heading 5609. Furthermore, you argue that since neither heading more specifically describes the weaver’s beam, it is classifiable under heading 5609, in accordance with GRI 3(c).
In support of your claim that the weaver’s beam is classifiable as an “article of yarn” under heading 5609, you contend that it satisfies the requirements listed in the EN to that heading. The EN to Heading 5609, HTSUSA, provide the following:
This heading covers articles of the yarns of Chapters 50 to 55, articles of strip or the like of heading 54.04 or 54.05, and also articles of twine, cordage, rope or cables of heading 56.07, other than those covered by a more specific heading in the Nomenclature.
It includes yarns, cordage, rope, etc., cut to length and looped at one or both ends, or fitted with tags, rings, hooks, etc., (e.g., shoe laces, clothes lines, towing ropes), ships’ fenders, unloading cushions, rope ladders, lading slings, dish “cloths” made of a bundle of yarns folded in two and bound together at the folded end, etc.
You argue that all ends of the “beam” are cut to exactly the same length. However, it is actually the yarns that are cut to length. Moreover, you state that the yarns are looped at one or both ends and that before the yarn layer can be wound onto the “carrier,” the layer must be properly attached to the beam axis. To do this, the yarn layer is split into bundles of approximately 900 to 1000 ends which are looped (knotted) and pushed through the holes in the beam and secured by
- 4 -
the operator. This serves a dual purpose - to assemble the various ends of the yarn layer together and to provide an appropriate means of fastening the yarn layer to the metal axis of the blank beam. This allows for proper and even winding with a constant tension over the length and width of the beam. The yarn is looped at the outside of the beam to maintain constant tension on the yarns.
In further support of your claim that the weaver’s beam is classifiable as an “article of yarn” under heading 5609, you argue that it has been advanced in such a degree that it is a distinct article of commerce, with a very specific, limited and dedicated end-use, as yarn. In an attempt to show that the weaver’s beam has lost its identity as yarn and has become a distinct article of commerce you state that, unlike spools of yarn, the production process of a weaver’s beam is not a simple winding and unwinding process, as discussed above. Rather, the yarns must be perfectly wound on the beam with the appropriate tension or it cannot be used to weave fabric and must be “trashed.” You state that the “beam assembly process really advances the yarn to a new and significantly different product.” Moreover, the weaver’s beam is traded as an individual product and requires no further processing to fulfill its intended use as “warp yarn” for Bekaert weaving.
Another claim you present to establish that the weaver’s beam is a distinct article of commerce, is that it is analogous to a pintlepin. In HQ 956099, dated March 25, 1994, Customs classified a pintlepin assembly under the provision for articles of yarn, strip or the like of heading 5404 or 5405, in subheading 5609.00.3000, HTSUSA. The pintlepin assembly consisted of a length of monofilament of polyetheretherketone (“peek”) which is connected by a small piece of steel tubing to a length of stainless steel wire which comes to a point like a needle. These goods are used to close seams on “dry screens.” The metal leader and tubing is cut off and discarded after leading the monofilament through the seam of the felt or belt. The assembly is made by soldering the three components together. It is wrapped on a plastic spool and packaged in a blister pack.
In HQ 956099, we found that the pintlepin assembly which consisted of three components combined into a single unit constituted a “made up” article within Section XI, Note 7, HTSUSA. Moreover, we stated that it could not be classified in Chapter 54 because Section XI, Note 8, HTSUSA, states, in part, that “Chapters 50 to 55 . . . do not apply to goods made up within the meaning of note 7 above.” Under a GRI 3(b) analysis, Customs classified the pintlepin in heading 5609, as an article of yarn. We reasoned as follows:
In this case, the wire and tubing are cut off and discarded after leading the monofilament through the seam of the felt or belt. Hence, it is our view that the wire and tubing are present in the assembly merely to facilitate that installation of the monofilament, which is the only portion of the pintelpin assembly that performs the intended function. As a result, it is the monofilament that imparts the essential character to the pintlepin assemblies and determines their classification.
- 5 -
In the pintlepin case, the monofilament was incorporated into and became part of the finished article, i.e., the seam of dry screens. The other components (metal leader and tubing) were destroyed during the process and lost their individual identity as part of the assembly. The weaver’s beam, on the other hand, never loses its identity as a beam. It is not incorporated into or transformed into another product. After the weaving operation, it is in the same condition as it was prior to that process. It is ready to be reused/rewound with yarns in preparation for weaving the fabric for mattress ticking. The pintlepin assembly was a recognized article of commerce (a composite good). The beam and yarn do not form a composite good.
Moreover, we find that the weaver’s beam does not satisfy the requirements of the EN to heading 5609. As stated previously, the yarns are cut to length, not the beam. Additionally, the loops (knots) are not a permanent part of a finished article but are made so that the yarns may be properly wound into fabric for mattress ticking. For these reasons, as well as those stated in HQ 958674, which are incorporated herein by reference, we find that the weaver’s beam is not an “article of yarn.”
Reference is made in your letter to a statement in HQ 958674 that “heading 5609 only applies to finished made up articles.” You state that the weaver’s beam is a made up article under Section XI, Note 7, HTSUSA, because it is cut to length and assembled at both ends by loops. Thus, you raise the same argument addressed in HQ 966099, i.e., that Section XI, Note 8, precludes classification in Chapters 50 to 55 of goods made up within the meaning of Note 7 to Section XI. As stated above, the weaver’s beam is not cut to length, the yarn is cut to length. Moreover, loops in the yarn are temporary and are present in order that the yarn may be properly woven into fabric. We agree with the holding in HQ 958674 that the “weaver’s beam” is not a made up article.
Finally, we note the English version of the European decision classifying the weaver’s beam in subheading 5609.00.00, HTSUSA. That opinion reads as follows:
Articles of yarns, being a warp beam fitted with yarns. De [sic] warp beam consists of a hollow axle of metal, fitted with holes and has a length of 2,86 m. On both sides the axle is fitted with metal disks with a diameter of 80 or 100 cm in such a way that the metalic [sic] axle protrudes in order to attach it on the weaving loom by means of attachments. Around the axle are wound 7740 yarns with a length of 2100 or 3100 m in a parallel way with an equally devided [sic] tension. In order to be wound up the yarns are brought together in bundles of a few hundred yarns and knotted (13 knots in total) so that they can be attached to the holes in the axle. After being wound up the yarns are knotted to maintain their equally devided [sic] tension.
Based on the reasoning set forth in this letter and in HQ 958674, we disagree with the European decision. We find that the weaver’s beam is an IIT for the reasons set forth in HQ 958674, and incorporated herein by reference.
- 6 -
HOLDING:
The weaving beam, with or without the yarn, qualifies for treatment as an IIT and may be released under the procedures set forth in 19 CFR §10.41(a).
The various types of yarn imported on the beam are classifiable, depending of the types of fibers or filaments comprising those yarns, in Chapters 50 through 55, HTSUSA. The exact subheadings cannot be determined in this ruling as you did not provide Customs with samples or specific descriptions. It is important to note that if the weaving beam is imported with yarn wound around it, the yarn is subject to duty and any applicable quota/visa restraints.
HQ 958674 is affirmed.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division