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 > 1998 HQ Rulings > HQ 560667 - HQ 560810 > HQ 560766

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 560766




April 17, 1998

MAR-02 RR:CR:SM 560766 RSD

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO. 9802.00.80

Mr. Max Solomon III, President
Explan International Trade, Inc.
1055 Shotgun Road
Sunrise, Florida 33326

RE: Applicability of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule United States, to textile products designed for use as offset printing blankets

Dear Mr. Solomon:

This is in response to your letter dated November 26, 1997, concerning the eligibility for a partial duty exemption of textile products used to make printing blankets in Brazil for offset printing under subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). We received supplemental submissions dated February 19, 1998, and March 20, 1998, in which you provided a further description of the manufacturing process used in making the printing blankets. Swatches of a printing blanket and the textile product used to make the blankets were enclosed with your submissions.

FACTS:

The merchandise in question is known as a printing blanket, and it is used in offset printing. The printing blankets are produced using two components that are made in the United States--the fabric and curing paper -- as well as rubber compounds of foreign origin. The fabric used to make the printing blanket is manufactured in the U.S. using cotton, tencel , rayon, nylon, and polyester fibers. The fabric is custom designed to width, gauge, density, strength, absorbency, residual elongation, etc. depending on the customer's requirements.

According to your submissions, the printing blankets are manufactured abroad in the following manner:

A rubber compound is mixed on an open mill with a proper solvent to form the "ply-up cement." The ply-up cement is then spread on the fabric. The rubber coated fabrics are put on top of each other to form the printing blanket carcass which may come in 2,3,4, or 5 plies (or layers). A different rubber compound is mixed with a proper solvent to form the "face cement" which is spread over the blanket carcass. The printing blanket is then talced and hung for festooning. Next, the printing blanket is packed for curing with special interleaving paper, and it is vulcanized (cured).

With respect to the vulcanization and curing process, you indicate that these are different names for the same process. During a procedure called "packed for cure", the printing blankets are rewound on a steel drum that has a diameter of 72.6 inches with proper tension and are interleaved with a special paper. The paper, called curing paper, has a glossy surface which is in contact with the blanket. The printing blanket surface (rubber) is molded by the glossy surface of the paper. After the printing blankets are packed for cure, they are vulcanized by being loaded on a hot air heated oven for 7.5 hours at 289.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The oven has an automatic temperature control, and the temperature is recorded automatically every 30 minutes during the process. At the end of the vulcanization process, the printing blankets are unloaded from the oven and the curing paper is removed and discarded. You state that the only chemical changes that occur during this process are to the rubber compounds on the surface of the printing blanket which change from plastic to elastic due to chemicals like sulfur and zinc oxide. No changes occur to the fabric or the paper during the process.

After the above processing, an inspection is made for defects, and gauge, width and length control. The printing blanket jumbo roll is cut to length by being sliced into two parts. The printing blankets are then shipped to customers in the U.S.

ISSUE:

Whether the imported printing blankets are eligible for a partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, provides a partial duty exemption for articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the product of the U.S., which (a) were exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication, (b) have not lost their physical identity in such articles by change in form, shape or otherwise, and (c) have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process, such as cleaning, lubricating and painting.

All three requirements of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, must be satisfied before a component may receive a duty allowance. An article entered under this tariff provision is subject to duty upon the full cost or value of the imported assembled articles, less the cost or value of the U.S. component assembled therein, upon compliance with the documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.24.

Section 10.14(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.14(a)), states in part that; [t]he components must be in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication at the time of their exportation from the U.S. to qualify for the exemption. Components will not lose their entitlement to the exemption by being subject to operations incidental to the assembly either before, during, or after their assembly with other components.

Section 10.16(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(a)), provides that the assembly operation performed abroad may consist of any method used to join or fit together solid components, such as welding, soldering, riveting, force fitting, gluing, laminating, sewing, or the use of fasteners.

Operations incidental to the assembly process are not considered further fabrication operations as they are of a minor nature and cannot always be provided for in advance of the assembly operations. However, any significant process, operation or treatment whose primary purpose is the fabrication, completion, physical or chemical improvement of a component precludes the application of the exemption under HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80 to that component. See 19 CFR 10.16(c).

You claim that the process used to make the printing blankets is very similar to the process described in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 555361, August 3, 1989, which also concerned the application of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, to printing blankets. In HRL 555361, rolls of U.S. fabric were laminated together by application of a polymer adhesive to form three and four-ply material. A further layer of the same adhesive was applied to the top of the base material and the foreign synthetic rubber was applied in molten form. The resultant product was vulcanized by passing it through an oven. It then was trimmed to ensure that the sides were even. We noted that an examination of the sample product submitted showed that there was no intermixing of the sheets in the involved process and that the adhesive promoter did not produce a change in the fabric's physical identity, form, or shape. On the basis of the information presented, we concluded that the foreign operation constituted an assembly of solids within the ambit of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS.

Our decision in HRL 555361 was based in large part on a court case, C.J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 643, C.D. 3840, 304 F. Supp. 1187 (1969). In that case, plastic film composed of two plastic sheets -- one Canadian polyethylene, the other U.S. polyester mylar -- was produced in Canada by an extrusion process in which the foreign polyethylene, in molten form, was joined with the U.S. mylar sheets through the use of an adhesive or adhesive promotor. The court found that the processing was nothing more or less than a combination of manufacturing (the foreign material) and assembling operations, that there was no intermixing of the sheets in the involved process, that the adhesive or adhesion promoter did not produce a change in the mylar's physical identity, form or shape, and that the process was a controlled operation which anticipated the transformation of the foreign liquid into a solid before completion of the process. The court concluded that the foreign operation involved the
assembly of two solids and that the U.S. mylar component was entitled to the duty exemption under item 807.00, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (the precursor to subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS).

In the present case, ply-up cement is spread on the fabric. The rubber coated fabrics are placed on top of each other to form the printing blanket carcass, which may consist of several different layers or plies. As in HRL 555361, the process used in this case basically consists of the adhesion of solids together to form the article. There is no intermixing of the fabric sheets, and the adhesive process does not change the physical identity, form, or shape of the fabric. Therefore, the joining of the layers of fabric to each other through the use of the rubber ply-up cement is an acceptable assembly.

Similarly, because there is no change to the fabric when the molten face cement is applied, we believe that this operation is analogous to the process described in Carter Footwear v. United States 11 CIT 554, 669 F.Supp. 439 (1987). In Carter Footwear, a cotton textile vamp portion of a footwear upper, pre-cut to exact shape and size in the U.S., was reinforced with a thermoplastic applied to the toe area in a molten state to form a box toe. As the thermoplastic solidified in a matter of seconds (the plastic did not remain in its incipient form) and displayed the salient features of a solid, i.e., elasticity, high viscosity, tensile strength, crystallinity and differential adhesion, the court was persuaded that upon completion of the process there was a permanent union of two solids. Further evidence indicated that due to the higher viscosity and elasticity of the thermoplastic, it did not penetrate or intermix with individual fibers of yarn, but because of the thermoplastics weight it sagged into the fabric and adhered to a portion of the surface. Moreover, the court distinguished the thermoplastic from a liquid which would penetrate the interstices between fiber, thoroughly wetting the entire fabric and create a wicking effect. Therefore, the court held that the molten plastic toe reinforcement joined to the shoe vamp qualified as a "solid," joinder of which did not prevent the vamp from qualifying for the partial duty exemption under item 807.00, TSUS. We believe in this case that applying the rubber face cement in a temporary molten state to the print blanket carcass is a joining of two solids,-- the carcass and the rubber face cement--which also constitutes an acceptable assembly operation under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS.

In the final processing step abroad before shipping to a customer in the United States, the printing blanket jumbo roll is cut to length by being sliced into two parts. Section 10.16(b)(6), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(b)(6)) specifically allows cutting to length as an operation incidental to the assembly process. Accordingly, we find that the cutting of the printing blanket roll to length is incidental to the assembly process, and will not disqualify the article from eligibility under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS.

Consistent with C.J. Tower, Carter Footwear, HRL 555361, and 19 CFR 10.16(a), we find that the foreign operations which result in securely joining the pieces of the fabric material together by means of applying the adhesive, ply-up cement and the subsequent joinder of the blanket carcass with the face cement, which solidifies during the curing process, are acceptable assembly operations which qualify the U.S. fabric for the duty allowance under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. In the instant case, the U.S. fabric has been exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication. The fabric has not lost its identity by change in shape, form, or otherwise, and has not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled. Although you indicate that some chemical changes occur to the rubber compounds on the surface of the printing blankets during the curing process, you are not seeking a duty allowance under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, for the cost of rubber compounds in either the ply-up cement or the face cement. The only components for which a duty allowance under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, is being sought are the U.S.-origin fabric sheets, which you indicate are unchanged by the curing process.

Therefore, a duty allowance under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, may be allowed for the cost or value of the U.S.-origin fabric assembled into the printing blankets when the articles are returned to the U.S., upon compliance with the documentation requirements of 19 CFR 10.24.

HOLDING:

On the basis of the information and the samples submitted, we conclude that the
U.S.-origin textile materials used to make offset printing blankets abroad, will be eligible for a duty allowance under HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80, when they are returned to the United States as part of the printing blankets, upon compliance with the documentary requirements set forth in 19 CFR 10.24.

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

John Durant,
Director
Commercial

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: