CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086420 STB
District Director of Customs
Suite 1001
300 South Ferry St.
Terminal Island
San Pedro, CA 90731
RE: Internal Advise # 56-89 on industrial conveyor belts of
textiles
Dear Sir:
This is a decision in response to your memorandum of
September 25, 1989 (file: CLA-2-LA:C:TTBIII), in which you
forwarded a request for internal advice. Our decision on
Internal Advice No. 56-89 is as follows:
FACTS:
The belts at issue are industrial conveyor belts. They are
comprised of rubber and one or more plies of woven textile
material. The fabric is of two man-made textile fibers:
polyester (in the warp) and nylon (in the weft). No specific
style is mentioned, but a range is given indicating that the
weight of the rubber represents between 60 and 75 percent of the
total weight of the conveyor belts; the weight of the man-made
fibers represents between 25 and 40 percent of the total weight.
Rubber represents both the "chief value" and the "chief weight"
of the belts, according to the inquirer. Although no samples or
catalogs were submitted with the original request, a sample was
submitted for inspection at a meeting at Headquarters on May 23,
1990.
The counsel for the importer is requesting that the belts be
classified under subheading 4010.91.19, Harmonized Tariff System
of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), as Conveyor or
transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber, other, of a
width exceeding 20 cm, combined with textile materials, other,
dutiable at a rate of 2.4% ad valorem. In your memorandum of
September 25, 1989, you stated that you disagree with that
positon; you believe that these belts should be classified
under subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, which provides for conveyor
-2-
belts of rubber with textile components, in which man-made fibers
predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber,
dutiable at a rate of 8% ad valorem. The National Import
Specialist (NIS) in New York agrees with your position.
ISSUE:
What is the proper classification of the conveyor belts at
issue?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the HTSUSA is governed by the General
Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). According to GRI 1, the primary
consideration in determining whether merchandise should be
classified in a particular heading should be given to the
language of the heading and any relevant chapter or section
notes, and provided such headings or notes do not otherwise
require, according to the remaining GRI's, taken in order. In
this case, the subject merchandise can be classified by reference
to GRI 1. It is our determination that these conveyor belts
should be classified under subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, which
provides for conveyor belts of rubber with textile components, in
which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single
textile fiber.
The relvant lanuguage is in Heading 4010, HTSUSA, which
provides as follows:
Conveyor or transmission belts or belting of vulcanized
rubber:
Other:
Of a width exceeding 20 cm:
4010.91.11 Combined with textile materials:
With textile components in which
vegetable fibers prdominate
by weight over any other single
textile fiber......................5.1%
4010.91.15 With textile components in which
man-made fibers predominate by
weight over any other single
textile fiber......................8%
4010.91.19 Other..............................2.4%
4010.91.50 Other................................4.2%
-3-
It seems clear from the above language that the proper
classification for the subject conveyor belts is subheading
4010.91.15, HTSUSA. Counsel for the importer, however, contends
that the proper classification is subheading 4010.91.19, HTSUSA,
and has advanced several arguments supporting this contention.
The arguments discuss the TSUS, the intent of the drafters of the
HTSUSA, and how these factors, when combined with the current
language of the HTSUSA, demonstrate that the importer's requested
classification is the proper one.
The first argument we will consider concerns the language of
the present Tariff Schedule. We will consider this factor first
because the present language of the relevant headings,
subheadings, chapter notes etc., is the first and most important
factor that Customs examines in rendering its classification
decisions. If classification can be effected from this language,
there is no need to look elsewhere-the text of the tariff is the
best indicator of the intent of the drafters of the HTSUSA.
Counsel for the importer contends that the phrase "of
rubber" in Heading 4010 requires that these belts be classified
in subheading 4010.91.19. He argues that the word "of" in the
HTS should be interpreted as it was in the TSUS, i.e. to mean
"wholly or in chief value of" (or now "in chief weight of").
He notes that the word "of" is not defined in the HTS.
The phrase "of rubber", however, appears in superior heading
4010. The result of counsel's argument, then, is that all belts
that are not predominately rubber would be precluded from
classification in heading 4010. This situation would prevent the
belts that are in chief weight of vegetable fibers or man-made
fibers from being classified in subheadings 4010.91.11 and
4010.91.15: thus the classification scheme advocated by counsel
for the importer would not be possible.
It is also our determination that if man-made fibers are the
only textile fibers present, as is the case with the instant
belts, then these fibers clearly "predominate" over any other
single fiber as is required by subheading 4010.91.15. This is
the only logical interpretation of this language.
Finally, we will consider the intention of the drafters of
the HTS and the comparison of the HTS with the TSUS. According
to Mr. Larry Clayton of the International Trade Commission (ITC),
one of the drafters of the heading at issue, it was not intended
that this heading necessarily mirror the old TSUS provisions;
changes would occur. In a telephone conversation with this
office, Mr. Clayton stated that he agrees with our classification
-4-
of the conveyor belts in this case, and our interpretation of the
present language. He also stated that subheading 4010.91.19 is
merely a "basket provision" that was included in the HTS
primarily because it is a structural requirement; the amount of
items that will actually be classified under subheading
4010.91.19 is irrelevant.
A comparison of the present language of the HTS with the
corresponding TSUS items shows a substantial difference in the
drafting. Under the TSUS, item 358.16, "Other", may be the only
possible classification for belts that are predominately of
rubber. Under HTSUSA, however, there are may subheadings in
which belts that are predominately of rubber may be properly
classified.
In summary, classification under the HTSUSA must, first and
foremost, be based on the language of the Schedule and the
relevant notes and Explanatory Notes. The language of Heading
4010, while not perfect, does seem to be clear on the point that
it does not restrict the classification of conveyor belts that
are in chief weight of rubber to subheading 4010.91.19. Evidence
presented to show that the drafters intended otherwise is not
convincing and is in conflict with other evidence.
HOLDING:
The subject conveyor belts are properly classifiable under
subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, as Conveyor or transmission belts
or belting of vulcanized rubber, other, of a width exceeding 20
cm, combined with textile materials, with textile materials in
which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single
textile fiber dutiable at a rate of 8% ad valorem. You should
notify the internal advice applicant of this decision and furnish
him with a copy.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division