United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1990 HQ Rulings > HQ 0085094 - HQ 0085183 > HQ 0085103

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 085103


October 3, 1989

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 085103 DFC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 3920.42.1000; 3920.42.5000

Mr. Jerome J. Weinstein
President
Apex Plastic Industries, Inc.
155 Marcus Boulevard
P.O. Box 11008
Hauppauge, New York 11788-0701

RE: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheeting produced in Taiwan

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

Your letter dated June 12, 1989, addressed to our New York office concerning the tariff classification of certain PVC sheeting, has been referred to this office for a direct reply to you. Samples have been submitted for examination.

FACTS:

You have submitted a description of the manufacturing process. PVC resins, plasticizers, stabilizers, and pigments are blended and mixed while heated. The compound is calendered to sheet form on a master roll. The sheeting is packed in two layers face to face on rolls to protect the glossy finish. The manufacturer states that there is no difference in the manufacturing process for different colors. The only difference is in the pigments.

ISSUE:

Does the PVC sheeting imitate patent leather?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

In ORR Ruling 870-10, dated October 1, 1970, it was stated that "[i]n imitation patent leather, the vinyl is essentially opaque and possesses a high gloss mirrorlike finish. It does
not have any of the transparent or translucent qualities or any novel effects such as the simulated woven background present in the submitted samples." Based on this statement, we look for three criteria in determining whether a plastic imitates patent leather, viz, a high gloss, an opaque character, and a mirrorlike finish.

We have examined each of the samples numerous times. The conclusions reached are necessarily subjective because there are no existing criteria for determining when a sheet is highly glossy, essentially opaque, and especially when it has a mirrorlike finish. In dividing the samples into groups, several features were reviewed. To determine if the sheet was opaque, a single sheet of paper with lettering made by a black marking pen was placed behind each plastic sheet. The sheet was then held up to ordinary office light. In determining whether the sheet had a good mirror image, the sheet was viewed in ordinary light to see if it reflected a reasonably clear image with reflection of colors. A sheet which reflected shadows rather than colors or a very blurred image was considered to reflect a poor mirror image. If it reflected some colors with some blurring, it was judged to reflect a fair mirror image. A sheet which presented a relatively clear image with a true reflection of colors was considered to provide a good mirror image.

Group A consists of the following colors:
black royal purple light navy avocado metallic pewter lamarj grey kelly chocolate metallic gunmetal camel spectre blue

The sheets in Group A possess a high gloss, reflect a good mirror image with a fair amount of depth of perception, and are opaque. Consequently, we consider these sheets to be made in imitation of patent leather.

Group B consists of the following colors:
hunter green red metallic bronze metallic rouge bordeaux concord

The sheets in Group B possess a high gloss and reflect a good mirror image. However, none are opaque because the black lettering can be read through them when held to a light. Consequently, we do not consider these sheets to be made in imitation of patent leather.

Group C consists of the following colors:
azalea fire red lilac lavender iridescent pink ice ben blue baby pink pink elephant parlor pink orange sky new pink party pink gale green slicker yellow buttercup yellow white neon yellow streak pearlized pearl neon tangerine light ginger peach iridescent wisteria iridescent blue moon iridescent zane grey iridescent bimini blue metallic gold metallic brass metallic silver gold lettuce sweet cream pearlized blue cloud pearlized champagne pearlized white oyster pearlized salmon neon blaze iridescent saffron iridescent sunshine iridescent mint

The sheets in Group C have a high gloss, but reflect a poor quality mirror image and are not opaque. It was fairly easy in all of these cases to distinguish black lettering when placed behind the sheet and held up to a light. We would not consider these sheets in these colors as being made in imitation of patent leather.

Group D consists of the following colors:
pearlized lilac bitter beige aqua nude spearmint johnson green neon electric blue apple green

The sheets in Group D have a high gloss. They are not completely opaque, because black lettering is visible when placed behind each sheet and viewed while holding it up to a light. However, it was difficult to view the lettering. The quality of the mirror image, though not as good as those sheets in Group A or B, was better than the quality of the mirror
image of the sheets in Group C. This was probably due to the greater opacity of the sheets. In the previously cited ORR ruling it was stated that the sheeting had to be "essentially opaque" to be considered to be made in imitation of patent leather. Here, it is possible to conclude that these sheets are essentially opaque. However, it would promote greater uniformity to insist that "patent" sheets be completely opaque. Also, we note that the quality of the mirror image is not as good as the sheets in Group A. In view of the foregoing, the sheets in this group are not made in imitation of patent leather.

Group E consists of the following colors:
pearlized palm apricot caramel pearl grey taupe foam green new blue cognac baby blue bari grey sea turquoise madison grey metallic gilt

The sheets in this group are opaque. All have a high gloss. However, it is our opinion that all reflect a poor quality mirror image. Consequently, we do not consider the sheets in this group to be made of patent leather.

HOLDING:

The sheets in group A are classifiable under subheading 3920.42.1000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), as other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics, noncellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials, of polymers of vinyl chloride, flexible, made in imitation of patent leather. The applicable rate of duty for this provision is 3.1 percent ad valorem.

The sheets in the remaining groups are classifiable under subheading 3920.42.5000, HTSUSA, as other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics, noncellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials, of polymers of vinyl chloride, flexible, other. The
applicable rate of duty for this provision is 4.2 percent ad valorem. As products of Taiwan, these sheets are subject to Antidumping Duty Order A-583-081. The antidumping duty amounts fluctuate according to manufacturer.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: