CLA-2  CO:R:C:V  555093 DBI
Mr. Mark D. Alcorn
          One Marlton Court
          Sacramento, California 95831
          RE:   Applicability of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, to wooden
                parts of furniture kits shipped to Mexico to be stained and
                lacquered
          Dear Mr. Alcorn:
                This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1988, in
          which you request a ruling concerning the applicability of item
          806.20, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), to certain
          wooden parts of furniture kits which will be shipped to Mexico to
          be stained, lacquered and packaged.
          FACTS:
                You advise that U.S. origin woods will be cut, shaped and
          sanded in the U.S. in preparation for the application of a wood
          finish.  The wooden parts along with stains, lacquers, and
          prelabelled retail kit boxes will be shipped to Mexico.
                In Mexico, the wooden parts will be stained, lacquered and
          put into kits, and then returned to the U.S. for retail sale.
          You note that some articles are sold "unfinished" (without stain
          and lacquer) to some of the same retailers who purchase the
          finished kits.
          ISSUE:
                Whether the described wooden furniture parts, when returned
          to the U.S., will be eligible for the partial exemption from duty
          provided for in subheading 9802.00.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
          of the United States (HTSUS) (806.20, TSUS).
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
                As you are probably aware, the HTSUS replaced the TSUS, on
          January 1, 1989.  Item 806.20, TSUS, was carried over into the
          HTSUS as subheadings 9802.00.40 (repairs or alterations made
          pursuant to warranty) and 9802.00.50 (other repairs or
          alterations).  A copy of the pertinent provisions is enclosed for
          your information.  These provisions provide for the assessment of
          duty on the value of repairs or alterations performed on articles
          returned to the U.S. after having been exported for that purpose.
          However, the application of these tariff provisions is precluded
          in circumstances where the operations performed abroad destroy
          the identity of the articles or create new or commercially
          different articles.  See A.F. Burstrom v. United States, 44 CCPA
          27, C.A.D. 631 (1957);  Guardian Industries Corporation v. United
          States, 3 CIT 9, Slip-Op 82-4 (Jan. 5, 1982).  Treatment under
          subheadings 9802.00.40 and 9802.00.50, HTSUS, also is precluded
          where the exported articles are incomplete for their intended use
          and the foreign processing operation is a necessary step in the
          preparation or manufacture of finished articles.  Dolliff and
          Company, Inc. v. United States, 66 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 1225,  599
          F.2d 1015 (1979).
                We have previously held in a ruling dated June 28, 1988 (HQ
          555002), that item 806.20, TSUS, was precluded where door knobs
          and rosettes were sent to Mexico for electroplating through a
          liquid bath process and spray lacquering.  As you will note from
          the enclosed copy, we reasoned that the exported articles were
          incomplete for their intended use and the electroplating and
          lacquering were a necessary step in the preparation of the
          finished product.
                In the present case, the wooden furniture parts will be
          incomplete when they are sent to Mexico for finishing operations,
          namely the staining and lacquering.  That some of the same
          retailers who purchase the stained and lacquered furniture parts
          also buy furniture kits containing parts that have not been
          stained or lacquered, does not change the fact that these foreign
          processing operations are necessary to the preparation of the
          finished articles.  Therefore, the staining and lacquering
          processes constitute operations that exceed an alteration based
          on the Dolliff decision.
-3-
HOLDING:
                On the basis of the information submitted, it is our
          opinion that the foreign staining and lacquering may not be
          considered an alteration as that term is used in subheading
          9802.00.50, HTSUS, thereby precluding the returned wooden
          furniture parts from receiving the benefits of this tariff
          provision.
                                     Sincerely,
John Durant
                                     Director, Commercial
                                     Rulings Division
          Enclosures