CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 951483 jb
Area Director of Customs
N.Y. Seaport Area
6 World Trade Center, Suite 716
New York, NY 10048-0945
RE: Reconsideration of HQ 086391; clarification of term latex as
an "impregnant"; subheading 4811.90.3000, HTSUSA
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to a request from your office,
file CLA-2-48:S:N1:234, dated January 10, 1992, for
reconsideration of HQ 086391, dated April 10, 1990. That ruling
regarded the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), of other paper,
impregnated with latex, in subheading 4811.90.3000.
You make reference to two Customs rulings which you state
are inconsistent in respect to one another. In HQ 086391, dated
April 10, 1990, Customs determined that for tariff purposes,
"impregnation" occurs when a paper is treated with a substance
which permeates it and gives it special qualities. The air-laid
paper that was the subject of that ruling contained latex as a
binding agent, and did not convey special qualities to the paper.
As such, the paper was not regarded as "impregnated" for
classification purposes.
On the other hand, an earlier decision, HQ 082776, dated
March 13, 1990, classified a product called "Storalene 537",
containing 13 percent by weight, latex binder, as impregnated
paper. Though this case focused on a different issue (whether
Storalene 537 was "paper" or "non-woven textile") the paper was
given a classification of "impregnated paper" despite the fact
that the latex acted solely as a binder.
In view of these decisions, you feel Customs must clarify
its position. In your opinion, the finding in HQ 082776, should
be upheld and that of HQ 086391, modified. Your rationale is
that HQ 086391, which precludes latex binder from causing paper
to be classified in heading 4811, may be too restrictive in
scope. You argue that since latex will always bind to the fibers
of a paper, this interpretation of "impregnated", if followed,
would prevent any product from being classified in subheading
4811.90.3000, HTSUSA.
Customs has submitted the referenced Headquarters rulings
regarding binders and impregnants to the Customs laboratory for a
complete review. Their findings confirm our initial
determinations. The different results obtained in those rulings
were not due to an inconsistency or oversight on the behalf of
Customs. Those determinations were based on the different
methods of manufacture that were controlling in each case.
According to the Customs laboratory report, with which this
office agrees, in order to be considered an impregnant, latex
must be applied after the formation of the sheet. The latex may
also impart "special qualities" to the paper, such as resistance
to water or grease, as is described in the Explanatory Notes to
the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (EN) to
chapter 48, HTSUSA:
Impregnated paper and paperboard
Most of these papers and paperboards are obtained by
treatment with oils, waxes, plastics, etc., in such a manner
as to permeate them and give them special qualities (e.g.,
to render them waterproof, greaseproof, and sometimes
translucent or transparent). They are used largely for
protective wrapping or as insulating materials.
Emphasis added.
When latex is added during the sheet formation, it may be
considered as a binder only.
The Storalene brand paper sheet of HQ 082776 was formed by a
traditional wet-laid papermaking process involving the
application of latex to both sides of the paper after the
formation of the sheet. According to the New York Customs
Laboratory, the latex also imparted the characteristics of
stiffness to the paper, as well as slight water and oil
resistance. Accordingly, the paper was given classification as
impregnated paper, as per the EN to chapter 48, HTSUSA.
On the other hand, HQ 086391, concerned "air-laid" paper.
The term "air-laid" refers to the process of the web or fiber mat
formation. It does not describe any binding or impregnating
process. Binding may be accomplished by a variety of methods,
including the thermal bonding of binder fibers. In this case,
the latex was applied during the formation of the sheet, prior to
the cure drying process. As such, the latex acted only as a
binder for the cellulose fibers. The finished product is an
absorbent paper, upon which, the latex imparts no special
qualities, as discussed in the EN to chapter 48, HTSUSA.
In conclusion, both rulings concerning binders and
impregnants are technically correct, based on distinct
manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the determination in
HQ 086391 is affirmed.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director