CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 966012 mbg
TARIFF NO: 5602.10.9090
Ms. Faith Currier
GPMI Company
1224 North Hobson St.
Gilbert, AZ 85233
RE: Reconsideration of HQ 964986; reusable textile wipe
Dear Ms. Currier:
This is in response to your letter dated October 15, 2002, on behalf of GPMI Company, requesting reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 964986, dated August 23, 2002, regarding the classification of a product commercially known as “Spot 180” which is a reusable wipe textile material under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (“HTSUSA”).
As stated in HQ 964986, the subject merchandise is commercially known as Spot 180 and is a reusable wipe material imported in rolls that will be cut to a desired size. The material is a blend of rayon and polyester fibers which weighs 180 grams per meter squared (“g/m2”) and measures 1.2 millimeters in thickness. The subject merchandise contains a blue diamond pattern printed design.
You disagree with Customs classification of the subject merchandise and have requested reconsideration of HQ 964986; however, you have presented no new evidence to Customs regarding the properties of this merchandise which would warrant the revocation or modification of HQ 964986.
As Customs stated in HQ 964986:
When the subject Spot 180 merchandise was analyzed by the Customs Office of Laboratory and Scientific Services, the results yielded a classification supporting the holding in NY F86008. The Customs lab examined the original sample submitted in NY F86008 as well as the sample provided by GPMI for the subject reconsideration. The lab found that there were no adhesives present in either sample and that no temperature bonding technique was used in either of the fabrics’ construction. The sample did show evidence of needle holes on the surfaces. The photomicrographs depict composites of the original sample and the resubmission at stereo magnification of 18X for the planar view, 12X for the cross section, and at the polarizing 10X objective for the fibers. Each microscopic observation showed that the fibers were free of any cohesion associated with either thermal or adhesive bonding.
This description allows us to understand the physical properties of this merchandise and understand that the needling operation was the prime method of manufacture of the material. The additional light application of a latex or resin on both surfaces was a treatment after the web had been formed to furnish a smoother surface and ease in the printing of the diamond pattern.
As such, it is Customs position that once the web of fibers has been needled and compressed, it has become a felt and that the subsequent processing amounts only to a coating, covering or impregnation. As there has been no thermal bonding of the fibers, the classification of the subject merchandise is not proper in heading 5603, HTSUSA. Additionally, we emphasize that as felts are recognized as a subgroup of products known as nonwovens, as between competing provisions, heading 5602, HTSUS, is more specific than heading 5603, HTSUS. Accordingly, when we compare the headings which merit consideration in the classification of this merchandise, GRI 1 provides that the subject merchandise is accurately described by the wording of heading 5602, HTSUS.
There is no evidence or independent laboratory reports submitted which would contradict the findings of the Customs laboratory. The needling operation performed on the subject non-woven merchandise serves as the primary means of bonding.
Congress granted Customs the statutory authority to verify the nature of imports using, among other methods, laboratory testing. 19 U.S.C. 1499 (1994). Additionally, it is well established that the methods of weighing, measuring, and testing merchandise used by Customs officers and the results obtained are presumed to be correct. See Exxon v. United States, 462 F. Supp 378 (1978), 81 Cust. Ct. 87, Cust. Dec. 4772. The burden of proof rests with the importer to overcome the presumption that Customs has the expertise and knowledge to use standard methods and analysis techniques to obtain accurate results. See HQ 959871, dated May 10, 1999, citing HQ 950794, dated March 25, 1992. Additionally, Customs has ruled previously that the presumption of correctness attached to a Customs laboratory analysis was not overcome by conflicting results from independent laboratory analyses. See HQ 959871, dated May 10, 1999, citing HQ 070173, dated December 27, 1982.
Therefore, as explained in HQ 964986, pursuant to the terms of the HTSUSA and the Explanatory Notes to the HTSUSA, the subject merchandise is properly classified in heading 5602 as a needleloom felt. We affirm the classification and analysis rendered in HQ 964986, dated August 23, 2002, and originally in NY F86008, dated April 25, 2000.
The subject merchandise is classified in subheading 5602.10.9090, HTSUSA, which specifically provides for “Felt, whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated: Needleloom felt and stitch-bonded fiber fabrics: Other: Other.” The applicable general column one rate of duty is 11 percent ad valorem and the quota category is 223.
Sincerely,
Myles Harmon, Acting Director
Commercial Rulings Division