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 > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0088644 - HQ 0088770 > HQ 0088674

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 088674


June 5, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088674 DFC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 9902.70.19; 9902.70.20; 9905.70.10

James A. Noone Esq.
Karalekas & McCahill
Attorneys at Law
1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W.,
Suite 318
Washington, D.C. 20036-2603

RE: Yarn, Fiberglass

Dear Mr. Noone:

In a letter dated February 5, 1991, written on behalf of The Gates Rubber Co., Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., and Dayco Products Inc., you asked us to issue a ruling with prospective application clarifying the interpretation of the term resorcinol formaldehyde latex (RFL) under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).

FACTS:

Fiberglass yarn or cord and fabric woven from it are imported for use in the manufacture of automotive and industrial timing belts and certain fiberglass-belted automobile tires. The yarn is used as the skeletal component, providing basic support and reinforcement for the rubber body of the product.

In the manufacturing process, the fiberglass filaments must be given a coating in order to protect them and, more importantly, to enable them to adhere to the rubber end product. These objectives are accomplished by dipping the fiberglass yarn filaments into a solution known as RFL. You
maintain that any of a number of different compounds can form the latex component of RFL and that the presence of those latex compounds indicates that the yarn or fabric has been dipped in RFL.

Yarns and woven fabrics of glass fiber originating in Canada are free of duty under subheading 9905.70.10, HTSUSA, and cord or yarn and tire cord fabric are free of duty from any country entitled to the General Rates of Duty under sub- headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20, HTSUSA, provided the glass filaments have a certain micron diameter and that the yarn or fabric has been impregnated, coated or covered with RFL.

Information before this office is that in one instance at least, Customs refused to release a shipment of merchandise claimed to fall under subheading 9905.70.10, HTSUSA, because the U.S. Customs laboratory found the product to be coated with styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) rather than RFL.

ISSUE:

Is the RFL impregnation of the product confirmed by the presence of certain elastomeric latices such as SBR, vinyl pyridine styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene or chloroprene?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

We agree with you that the terms SBR, vinyl pyridine styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene or chloroprene are not exclusive of RFL. RFL assumes the presence of SBR or some other latex. The presence of the above named latices confirms that the fiberglass yarn has been impregnated with RFL.

In the future we will assume, even if only the latex portion of the RFL can be found, that the latex would not adhere to the glass fiber without the RFL and, therefore, the presence of RFL will be inferred.

HOLDING:

For fiberglass yarn or fabric classifiable under sub- headings 9905.70.10, 9902.70.19 or 9902.70.20, HTSUSA, any presence in the product of styrene butadiene rubber, vinyl pyridine styrene butadiene, isoprene, neoprene, chloroprene and certain other latices should be interpreted as confirming that the product has been impregnated or coated with resorcinol formaldehyde latex and is therefore in conformance with that portion of the product description in the referenced subheadings.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: