CLA-2: RR: CR:TE 964930 JFS
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
40 South Gay Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Re: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest Number 1303-00-100090.; Inadequate Description of Merchandise; 19 C.F.R. 174.13(a)(5).
Dear Sir:
This letter is a decision on an Application for Further Review (AFR) of protest number 1303-00-100090, timely filed on April 5, 2000, by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman, LLP, on behalf of Continental General Tire, Inc. The AFR concerns the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), of an entry of three styles of conveyor belts, entered in April 1999.
FACTS:
You classified the conveyor belts under subheading 4010.12.5500, HTSUSA, which provides for: Conveyor or transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber: Conveyor belts and belting: Reinforced only with textile materials: With textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other singe textile fiber: Other. The general column one rate of duty is 6.4% ad valorem.
The protestant alleges that the conveyor belts are classified under subheading 4010.12.9000, HTSUSA, which provides for: Conveyor or transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber: Conveyor belts and belting: Reinforced only with textile materials: Other. The general column one rate of duty is 1.9% ad valorem.
The three styles of belting at issue are:
Item No. 2000100191 – Contiflex NA, 3 ply 330 PIW, 72”, 1/4”x1/16“, Grade II;
Item No. 2000100208 – Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 1/8”x1/16“, Grade II; and
Item No. 2000100171 – Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 3/16”x1/16“, Grade II.
In a letter dated June 6, 2000, protestant, through counsel, provided “specification sheets” that were intended to show that the conveyor belts at issue are “rubber belt[s] with textile reinforcement, the textile material consisting solely of man-made fibers (polyester and nylon).” The import specialist states on the Customs Form (CF) 6445A that the specification sheets referenced in the letter were never received by Customs. The file currently contains specification sheets for the styles of belting that are at issue.
ISSUE:
Whether the description of the merchandise and the evidence presented by the protestant creates a sufficient basis upon which relief may be granted? LAW AND ANALYSIS:
According to the CF 6445A, Customs was able to confirm, via the port of Greenville, S.C., that item no. 2000100171 is a rubber belt with textile reinforcement, the textile material consisting solely of man-made fibers, polyester and nylon. Customs concluded that item no. 2000100171, was properly classified as entered.
The specification sheets show that the style of belting that was properly entered, Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 3/16”x1/16“, Grade II (item no. 2000100171), is of the same construction as the other two styles of belting that are the subject of this protest, i.e., Contiflex NA, 3 ply 330 PIW, 72”, 1/4”x1/16“, Grade II (item no. 2000100191) and Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 1/8”x1/16“, Grade II (item no. 2000100208). The only difference between the three styles of belting is the dimensions and the number of plies. The specification sheets demonstrate that the two remaining styles of belting are reinforced with only man-made textile materials.
The three styles of belting were properly classified as entered under subheading 4010.12.9000, HTSUSA, which provides for: Conveyor or transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber: Conveyor belts and belting: reinforced only with textile materials: Other.
HOLDING:
The three styles of belting, Item Nos. 2000100191 – Contiflex NA, 3 ply 330 PIW, 72”, 1/4”x1/16“, Grade II; 2000100208 – Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 1/8”x1/16“, Grade II; and. 2000100171 – Contiflex NA, 2 ply 220 PIW, 72”, 3/16”x1/16“, Grade II, are classified under subheading . 4010.12.9000, HTSUSA, which provides for: Conveyor or transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber: Conveyor belts and belting: Reinforced only with textile materials: Other. The general column one rate of duty is 1.9 percent ad valorem.
The protest should be ALLOWED. In accordance with Section 3A (11) (b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no latter 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 the decision.
Sixty days from the date of this decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make this decision available to Customs personnel, and to the general public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.customs.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act and other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division