HQ 0086420 - Internal Advise # 56-89 on industrial conveyor belts of textiles - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

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 0086383 - HQ 0086452 > HQ 0086420

HQ 086420

June 12, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086420 STB

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 4010.91.15

District Director of Customs
Suite 1001
300 South Ferry St.
Terminal Island
San Pedro, CA 90731

RE: Internal Advise # 56-89 on industrial conveyor belts of textiles

Dear Sir:

This is a decision in response to your memorandum of September 25, 1989 (file: CLA-2-LA:C:TTBIII), in which you forwarded a request for internal advice. Our decision on Internal Advice No. 56-89 is as follows:

FACTS:

The belts at issue are industrial conveyor belts. They are comprised of rubber and one or more plies of woven textile material. The fabric is of two man-made textile fibers: polyester (in the warp) and nylon (in the weft). No specific style is mentioned, but a range is given indicating that the weight of the rubber represents between 60 and 75 percent of the total weight of the conveyor belts; the weight of the man-made fibers represents between 25 and 40 percent of the total weight. Rubber represents both the "chief value" and the "chief weight" of the belts, according to the inquirer. Although no samples or catalogs were submitted with the original request, a sample was submitted for inspection at a meeting at Headquarters on May 23, 1990.

The counsel for the importer is requesting that the belts be classified under subheading 4010.91.19, Harmonized Tariff System of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), as Conveyor or transmission belts or belting, of vulcanized rubber, other, of a width exceeding 20 cm, combined with textile materials, other, dutiable at a rate of 2.4% ad valorem. In your memorandum of September 25, 1989, you stated that you disagree with that positon; you believe that these belts should be classified under subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, which provides for conveyor
belts of rubber with textile components, in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber, dutiable at a rate of 8% ad valorem. The National Import Specialist (NIS) in New York agrees with your position.

ISSUE:

What is the proper classification of the conveyor belts at issue?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). According to GRI 1, the primary consideration in determining whether merchandise should be classified in a particular heading should be given to the language of the heading and any relevant chapter or section notes, and provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the remaining GRI's, taken in order. In this case, the subject merchandise can be classified by reference to GRI 1. It is our determination that these conveyor belts should be classified under subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, which provides for conveyor belts of rubber with textile components, in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber.

The relvant lanuguage is in Heading 4010, HTSUSA, which provides as follows:

Conveyor or transmission belts or belting of vulcanized rubber:

Other:
Of a width exceeding 20 cm:

4010.91.11 Combined with textile materials:

With textile components in which vegetable fibers prdominate by weight over any other single textile fiber......................5.1%

4010.91.15 With textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber......................8%

4010.91.19 Other..............................2.4%

4010.91.50 Other................................4.2%

It seems clear from the above language that the proper classification for the subject conveyor belts is subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA. Counsel for the importer, however, contends that the proper classification is subheading 4010.91.19, HTSUSA, and has advanced several arguments supporting this contention. The arguments discuss the TSUS, the intent of the drafters of the HTSUSA, and how these factors, when combined with the current language of the HTSUSA, demonstrate that the importer's requested classification is the proper one.

The first argument we will consider concerns the language of the present Tariff Schedule. We will consider this factor first because the present language of the relevant headings, subheadings, chapter notes etc., is the first and most important factor that Customs examines in rendering its classification decisions. If classification can be effected from this language, there is no need to look elsewhere-the text of the tariff is the best indicator of the intent of the drafters of the HTSUSA.

Counsel for the importer contends that the phrase "of rubber" in Heading 4010 requires that these belts be classified in subheading 4010.91.19. He argues that the word "of" in the HTS should be interpreted as it was in the TSUS, i.e. to mean "wholly or in chief value of" (or now "in chief weight of"). He notes that the word "of" is not defined in the HTS.

The phrase "of rubber", however, appears in superior heading 4010. The result of counsel's argument, then, is that all belts that are not predominately rubber would be precluded from classification in heading 4010. This situation would prevent the belts that are in chief weight of vegetable fibers or man-made fibers from being classified in subheadings 4010.91.11 and 4010.91.15: thus the classification scheme advocated by counsel for the importer would not be possible.

It is also our determination that if man-made fibers are the only textile fibers present, as is the case with the instant belts, then these fibers clearly "predominate" over any other single fiber as is required by subheading 4010.91.15. This is the only logical interpretation of this language.

Finally, we will consider the intention of the drafters of the HTS and the comparison of the HTS with the TSUS. According to Mr. Larry Clayton of the International Trade Commission (ITC), one of the drafters of the heading at issue, it was not intended that this heading necessarily mirror the old TSUS provisions; changes would occur. In a telephone conversation with this office, Mr. Clayton stated that he agrees with our classification
of the conveyor belts in this case, and our interpretation of the present language. He also stated that subheading 4010.91.19 is merely a "basket provision" that was included in the HTS primarily because it is a structural requirement; the amount of items that will actually be classified under subheading 4010.91.19 is irrelevant.

A comparison of the present language of the HTS with the corresponding TSUS items shows a substantial difference in the drafting. Under the TSUS, item 358.16, "Other", may be the only possible classification for belts that are predominately of rubber. Under HTSUSA, however, there are may subheadings in which belts that are predominately of rubber may be properly classified.

In summary, classification under the HTSUSA must, first and foremost, be based on the language of the Schedule and the relevant notes and Explanatory Notes. The language of Heading 4010, while not perfect, does seem to be clear on the point that it does not restrict the classification of conveyor belts that are in chief weight of rubber to subheading 4010.91.19. Evidence presented to show that the drafters intended otherwise is not convincing and is in conflict with other evidence.

HOLDING:

The subject conveyor belts are properly classifiable under subheading 4010.91.15, HTSUSA, as Conveyor or transmission belts or belting of vulcanized rubber, other, of a width exceeding 20 cm, combined with textile materials, with textile materials in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber dutiable at a rate of 8% ad valorem. You should notify the internal advice applicant of this decision and furnish him with a copy.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling