CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 954287 ch
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
200 E. Bay Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29401-2611
RE: Application for further review of Protest No. 1601-93-100048 under 19 U.S.C., section 1514(c)(2);
classification of scoured wool subjected to bleaching
and insect-proofing operations; degreased wool; not
processed in any manner beyond the degreased condition.
Dear Sir:
This is a decision on application for further review of a
protest timely filed by Standard Wool, Incorporated. We have
considered the protest and our decision follows. Please be
advised that the protestant has filed a claim for detrimental
reliance in conjunction with the protest. As detrimental
reliance is not a matter subject to protest, we will deal with
the protest in this document and will respond directly to the
importer as to the issue of detrimental reliance.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise are bales of wool imported from New
Zealand. Prior to importation, the wool has been subjected to an
aqueous scouring process known as a "scouring train." The
primary chemicals used in the scouring process are detergent,
alkali (sodium carbonate), and water. The detergent acts to
emulsify grease (fat) present in the wool and holds the dirt in
suspension. The alkali enhances this process by hydrolyzing the
fat to form a soap and glycerol in a process known as
saponification. The water serves as a medium for the solution of
the detergent and alkali and the dispersal of the grease and
impurities. The wool is also subjected to bleaching and insect-proofing steps and is finally dried.
The wool was entered under subheading 5101.21.1500,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
(HTSUSA), which provides for certain course wool, not processed
in any manner beyond the degreased condition. Wool classified in
this subheading was eligible for duty-free treatment, pursuant to
subheading 9902.51.01, HTSUSA. However, the wool was classified
in subheading 5101.21.6000, HTSUSA, which includes such wool
processed beyond the degreased condition and is dutiable at 7.7
cents/kilogram + 6.25 percent ad valorem.
ISSUE:
What is the proper tariff classification for the instant
wool?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Subheading 5101.21, HTSUSA, provides for wool, not carded or
combed: degreased, not carbonized: shorn wool. By agreement,
the subject merchandise meets this description. At the eight
digit national classification level, subheading 5101.21.15,
HTSUSA, encompasses such wool, unimproved or not finer than 40s,
"not processed in any manner beyond the degreased condition."
Subheading 5101.21.60, HTSUSA, which is a residual provision,
includes by implication such wool which has been processed beyond
the degreased condition. Hence, the protest turns on an
understanding of the degreasing process.
The Explanatory Notes (EN) to the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System constitute the official
interpretation of the nomenclature at the international level.
While not legally binding, they do represent the considered views
of classification experts of the Harmonized System Committee. It
has therefore been the practice of the Customs Service to follow,
whenever possible, the terms of the EN when interpreting the
HTSUSA.
The EN to heading 5101, HTSUSA, state in pertinent part, at
pages 721 through 722, that:
This heading covers sheep's or lambs' wool, not carded
or combed, whether obtained by shearing the animal or
the pelt of the dead animal (shorn wool), or by pulling
from the pelt after fermentation or appropriate
chemical treatment (e.g., pulled wool, slipe wool or
skin wool).
Uncarded and uncombed wool is generally in the form of:
(A) Greasy, including fleece-washed wool.
Greasy wool is wool not yet washed or
otherwise cleaned; it is therefore still
impregnated with wool grease and fatty matter
derived from the animal itself and may
contain an appreciable quantity of impurities
(burrs, seeds, earth, etc.). Greasy shorn
wool is often in the form of "fleeces" having
more or less the contours of the pelt.
* * *
Greasy wool is normally yellowish.
Some, however, is grey, black, brown or
russet in colour.
(B) Degreased wool, not carbonised.
This category includes:
(1) Hot-washed wool - washed with hot
water only and relieved of the
majority of wool grease and earthy
matter.
(2) Scoured wool - wool from which the
grease has been removed almost
entirely by washing with hot water
and soap or other detergents or
with alkaline solutions.
(3) Wool treated with volatile solvents
(such as benzene and carbon
tetrachloride) to remove grease.
(4) Frosted wool - this has been
subjected to a sufficiently low
temperature to freeze the grease.
The grease is then in a very
brittle state and is easily broken
up and removed as dust together
with a large part of the natural
impurities which are held in the
wool by the grease.
Most washed and degreased wools still
contain small amounts of grease and vegetable
matter (burrs, seeds, etc.); this vegetable
matter is removed mechanically at a later
stage (see Explanatory Note to heading 51.05)
or by carbonisation.
(Emphasis added).
The EN to heading 5101 define "greasy wool" as wool that is
not yet washed or otherwise cleaned. Degreased wool includes
wool that has been scoured. The EN state that scoured wool is
"wool from which the grease has been removed almost entirely by
washing with hot water and soap or other detergents or with
alkaline solutions." It is important to note that degreased or
scoured wool may be further cleaned by other processes (e.g.
carbonized wool, which is classifiable in subheading 5101.20,
HTSUSA). The instant product is comprised of wool that has been
degreased by means of a scouring process. Accordingly, we shall
use the terms "degreased" and "scoured" interchangeably for the
purposes of this protest.
This matter was referred to the Office of Laboratories and
Scientific Services. The laboratory advises that the term
"degrease" refers to the removal of grease, suint, and extraneous
matter from wool by an aqueous or solvent process. Thus,
degreasing includes the removal of oils and fats secreted from
the animal's skin, dried perspiration or suint, and acquired
impurities such as sand, dirt, burrs, pollen and other vegetable
matter from the animal's environment.
The series of processes described in this instance includes
an example of an aqueous scouring process. Consistent with the
EN to heading 5101, the primary chemicals used in the scouring
process are detergent, alkali (sodium carbonate) and water.
These chemicals function to remove the grease and impurities. On
the other hand, the purpose of the application of bleaching
agents to any textile material is to lighten or whiten the
fibers. Insect-proofing is performed to protect wool from attack
by larvae. As bleaching and insect-proofing do not function to
remove grease or impurities from the wool, these processes are
not part of the degreasing process.
Protestant argues that bleaching and insect-proofing are
part of the "scouring train" and should be regarded as part of
the scouring process. It is contended that there are many
different methods by which wool may be scoured and that they each
result in what is commercially referred to as scoured wool. In
the interests of simplifying the administration of the applicable
provisions, protestant suggests that processes which are
incorporated as part of the scouring train and which occur prior
to drying should be regarded as not advancing wool beyond the
degreased condition.
While we agree that the administration of heading 5101,
HTSUSA, would be simplified by distinguishing between operations
occurring before and after drying, we do not believe that this
result is consistent with the terms of the applicable provisions.
It should be noted that the duty free provision is applicable for
certain wool "not processed in any manner beyond the degreased
condition." The underlined language suggests that any processes
unrelated to degreasing are beyond the scope of the subheading.
The laboratory has concluded the wool has been degreased at the
time the bleaching and/or insect-proofing agents are applied.
Consequently, these are processes which advance the wool beyond
the degreased condition.
Protestant also observes that bleaching may be regarded as a
cleaning process. As scouring is a cleaning process, protestant
claims that bleaching may be regarded as an extension thereof.
Protestant notes that the EN to heading 5101 specify that
scouring may include the use of alkaline solutions and states
that bleach may be regarded as such a solution.
Although bleaching is primarily applied to textile materials
to whiten the fibers, the laboratory recognizes that it may be
regarded as a cleaning operation to the extent that it also
deodorizes or disinfects the wool. However, we are advised that
hydrogen peroxide bleaching, an oxidation process, involves a
separate and distinct chemical process from degreasing or
scouring. Furthermore, carbonized wool is classified in a
separate provision than degreased wool, despite the fact that
carbonizing is also a cleaning operation. Hence, although
bleaching may in some respects clean wool, this fact does not
render it part of the scouring process.
Protestant directs our attention to the EN to heading 5101,
at page 722, which states in part that "bleaching, dyeing or
other processes applied prior to carding or combing do not affect
the classification of wool in this heading." From this language,
the importer infers that processes such as bleaching or insect-proofing have no bearing on the classification of wool within
heading 5101, at the eight digit subheading level. Therefore, it
is contended that these processes should have no bearing on the
classification of the wool.
However, the quoted language refers to processes which
affect the classification of wool in the "heading." The word
"heading" is a term of art which refers to the four digit
classification level. In this instance, the language merely
indicates that "bleaching, dyeing or other processes applied
prior to carding or combing" do not remove the wool from heading
5101. By its terms, the passage does not apply to the
classification of wool at the subheading level (i.e. within
heading 5101).
We have considered applying this language at the subheading
level as the protestant suggests. However, as alluded to above,
the pertinent subheading indicates that wool processed in any
manner beyond the degreased condition is excluded from the duty
free provision. Thus, the plain wording of the statute appears
to draw a distinction between degreased wool and other minor
processing operations.
Furthermore, as the provisions at issue occur at the eight
digit national level, we have consulted with the International
Trade Commission (ITC) to determine their intended scope. We
have been advised that the relevant subheadings were intended to
carry over the tariff treatment accorded to similar merchandise
under the prior tariff, the Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUS). Item 307.52, TSUS, provided for "fibers of wool or hair
processed in any manner beyond the washed, scoured, or carbonized
condition (including tops), but not spun," carrying the same rate
of duty as subheading 5101.21.6000, HTSUSA. We have been
informed that item 307.52, TSUS, encompassed scoured wool which
had been bleached and/or mothproofed. Therefore, we conclude
that processing operations such as bleaching and mothproofing
were intended to affect the classification of wool within heading
5101, HTSUSA.
Finally, the protestant states that it is impracticable to
require the importer to verify whether importations of wool have
been subjected to processes such as bleaching and/or insect-proofing. While conceding that it is possible to direct a
processor to withhold certain processes, protestant notes that
wool often passes through many hands prior to importation. In
these circumstances, the protestant argues that an undue burden
would be placed on the importing community if it is held
responsible for monitoring whether wool has been subjected to
processes regarded as unrelated to scouring.
We agree that monitoring the condition of wool places a
burden on the importing community. Indeed, the relevant tariff
provisions impose a significant administrative burden on Customs
which would also be avoided if we disregarded processing
operations such as bleaching. However, the Customs Service is
charged with administering the tariff schedule as it has been
enacted. Consequently, we conclude that bleaching and/or
mothproofing scoured wool advances it beyond the degreased
condition.
HOLDING:
Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, this protest
should be denied in full. The subject merchandise is properly
classifiable in subheading 5101.21.6000, HTSUSA, which provides
for wool, not carded or combed: degreased, not carbonized:
shorn wool: other. The applicable rate of duty is 7.7
cents/kilogram + 6.25 percent ad valorem. A copy of this
decision should be attached to the CF 19 Notice of Action to
satisfy the notice requirement of section 174.30(a), Customs
Regulations. Please be advised that the attorney of record no
longer represents the protestant. This decision should be
forwarded instead to: Boston Wool Trade Association, Attention:
Barry J. Savage, 425 Front Street, Weymouth, Massachusetts 02188-2801.
The claim for detrimental reliance will be the subject of a
separate letter to the importer. Entries relating to this
protest should be liquidated in accordance with the detrimental
reliance letter.
In accordance with Section 3A(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 A. Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division