CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 557659 WAS

Melvin E. Lazar, Esq.
Soller, Shayne & Horn
46 Trinity Place
New York, N.Y. 10006

RE: Applicability of the partial duty exemption available under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, to Jacquard curtain fabric

Dear Mr. Lazar:

This is in reference to your letter dated October 27, 1993, on behalf of Bayeux Fabrics, Inc., concerning the applicability of the partial duty exemption available under subheading 9802.00.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to Jacquard curtain fabric of U.S. origin. Samples of the merchandise were also provided for our review.

FACTS:

The subject knit Jacquard fabric (Style A and B) is manufactured in the U.S. by Bayeux at its factory in North Carolina. It is intended to be used for sale to curtain manufacturers, for production into completed curtains. You state that, in its condition as exported, the subject fabric is ready to be made into curtains. You have provided a letter from Mr. Richard Glass, Vice President of Bayeux, which states that approximately 95 percent of Bayeux's sales to the U.S. market consists of fabric in "solid" form; that is, fabric which has not undergone air brushing or hot wiring.

The U.S.-origin fabric will be sent to Mexico for air brushing and hot wired cutting. According to Mr. Glass' letter, air-brushing highlights decorative motifs existing in the patterns of the fabric. During this operation, specific flowers, leaves or other motifs already knitted in the designs are isolated by a stencil and paint is applied to them. The purpose of this operation is to enhance the design which is inherent in the fabric. Hot-wire cutting traces the contours of already existing decorative lines in the fabric to make the effect of the lines more dramatic. You claim that both of these processes are minor operations which are performed to enhance the fabric's marketability upon return to the U.S.

ISSUE:

Whether fabric which is sent to Mexico for air-brushing and/or hot-wire cutting operations qualifies for the partial duty exemption available under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, when returned to the U.S.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Articles returned to the U.S. after having been exported to be advanced in value or improved in condition by repairs or alterations may qualify for the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, provided the foreign operation does not destroy the identity of the exported articles or create new or different articles through a process of manufacture. However, entitlement to this tariff treatment is precluded where the exported articles are incomplete for their intended use prior to the foreign processing, Guardian Industries Corp. v. United States, 3 CIT 9 (1982), or where the foreign operation constitutes an intermediate processing operation, which is performed as a matter of course in the preparation or the manufacture of finished articles. Dolliff & Company, Inc. v. United States, C.D. 4755, 81 Cust. Ct. 1, 455 F. Supp. 618 (1978), aff'd, C.A.D. 1225, 66 CCPA 77, 599 F.2d 1015 (1979). Articles entitled to this partial duty exemption are dutiable only upon the cost or value of the foreign repairs or alterations when returned to the U.S., provided the documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.8 are satisfied. In the above-referenced Dolliff case, certain dacron polyester fabrics -- greige goods -- were exported and subjected to multiple processing operations abroad, including dyeing. The finished fabric that was returned to the U.S. was denied the partial duty exemption for alterations abroad because it was determined that the dyeing and numerous other processing steps were all necessarily undertaken to produce the finished fabric.

In another alterations case, C.J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. v. United States, C.D. 2208, 45 Cust. Ct. 111 (1960), cotton drills -- also greige goods -- were exported and subjected to multiple operations, including dyeing. The cotton cloth that was returned to the U.S. was similarly denied the partial duty exemption for alterations abroad because it was determined that the merchandise exported was changed in color, width, length, porosity, in the distribution of the threads in the weave, in weight, tensile strength, texture, and suppleness as a result of the foreign processing. In holding that the foreign processing constituted more than an alteration, the court found that the returned merchandise was a new and different article, having materially different characteristics and a more limited and specialized use.

In another alterations case which dealt with the redyeing of fabric, the court held that the foreign processing constituted an acceptable alteration. See Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. United States, C.D. 2104, 43 Cust. Ct. 64, 305 F. Supp. 4 (1959). In Amity Fabrics, unmarketable, pumpkin-colored cotton twill-back velveteen was exported to be redyed a black color. The court determined that the dyeing operation was a change which rendered the fabric marketable and that this improved its condition commercially, and that such change constituted an alteration under the statute and Customs Regulations. As the parties had stipulated that the redyeing in no way changed the quality, texture, or character of the material, the court concluded that the identity of the goods was not lost or destroyed by the dyeing process; no new articles was created; there was no change in the character, quality, texture, or use of the merchandise; the fabric was merely changed in color.

In Royal Bead Novelty Co. v. United States, C.D. 4353, 68 Cust. Ct. 154, 342 F. Supp. 1394 (1972), uncoated glass beads were exported so that they could be half-coated with an Aurora Borealis finish which imparted a rainbow-like luster to the half-coated beads. The court found that the identity of the beads was not lost or destroyed in the coating process and that no new article was created. Moreover, the court noted that there was no change in the beads' size, shape, or manner of use in the making of jewelry (as the plaintiff testified that both uncoated and half-coated beads were used interchangeably). The sole change was in the finish, which did not change the quality, texture, or character of the exported beads. Accordingly, the court concluded that application of the Aurora Borealis finish constituted an alteration within the intendment of item 806.20, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) (the precursor tariff provision to subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS).

In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 555124 dated November 11, 1988, a finished fabric for use in making women's raincoats was sent to Canada for an additional process which consisted of running the fabric through a wire brush. In that case, we stated that the fact that the fabric in its exported condition was currently marketed as material for women's raincoats, and would be marketed for the same use after the brushing operation, attested to the fabric's suitability for its intended use and, therefore, its completion prior to foreign processing. Moreover, we found that, while the brushing process imparted a slightly different appearance to the fabric, it did not appear to significantly change the quality, texture, or character of the fabric. Accordingly, we held that the brushing operation constituted an "alteration" within the meaning of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.

Additionally, in HRL 554945 dated June 14, 1988, we held that the process of "crushing" fabric abroad constituted an "alteration" within the meaning of item 806.20, TSUS. In HRL 554945, fabric was exported to France where it was subjected to a processing operation designed to impart a permanent "crushed" or wrinkled look to the fabric, before being returned to the U.S. for use in producing women's swimsuits. We held that the identity of the fabric was not lost or destroyed by the "crushing" operation and that this process did not result in the creation of a new and different commercial article. The "crushing" process also did not appear to result in any significant change in the quality, texture, or character of the fabric. See also HRL 557144 dated May 19, 1993 (holding that embossing fabric abroad to enhance its marketability is an acceptable alteration for purposes of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS).

We have previously held that cutting an article to shorter material lengths constitutes an acceptable alteration within the meaning of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. See HRL 553843 dated October 1, 1985 (holding that cutting bow ribbon material to length constitutes an alteration within the meaning of item 806.20, TSUS; HRL 554534 dated September 24, 1985 (holding that the foreign cutting of exported random length steel rebars to shorter lengths constitutes an "alteration" within the meaning of item 806.20, TSUS.

However, in a case involving the application of TSUS item 806.20, (HRL 071475 dated September 20, 1983), we held that:

. . . where rolls of material are exported and finished goods are returned merely by cutting to length, this cutting constitutes a finishing step in the manufacture of the goods, converting large rolls of raw material to finished, usable sheets. The conversion from material lengths to finished products exceeds the meaning of the term "alterations" under this tariff provision.

In the present case, we believe that the air-brushing and hot-wire cutting the fabric abroad, like the dyeing in Amity Fabric, the application of the coating material in Royal Bead, the brushing in HRL 555124, and the crushing operation in HRL 554945, constitute acceptable alterations of the fabric for purposes of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Unlike the rolls of material exported in HRL 071475, the record before us indicates that the curtain fabric in this case is suitable for its intended use before the processing in Mexico. The fact that the fabric in its exported condition is currently marketed as fabric for curtains, and is marketed for the same use after the air brushing and hot-wire cutting operations, show that the fabric is suitable for its intended use, and that it is exported in its completed condition. In fact, you state that approximately 95 percent of your sales to the U.S. market consist of fabric in its exported condition. The air-brushing and hot-wire cutting operations are not intermediate operations which are performed as a matter of course in the manufacture of the finished article. The foreign processing is neither essential to the fabric's intended use after return to the U.S., nor does it change the identity of the fabric.

Moreover, although the air-brushing and hot-wire cutting slightly change the appearance of the fabric, these operations do not significantly change the quality, character or performance characteristics of the fabric. As in Amity, we believe that these operations simply render the fabric more marketable; they do not change the durability or strength of the fabric. The information and samples submitted indicate that, as was the case with respect to the beads in Royal Bead, the air-brushing and hot-wire cutting operations do not destroy the identity of the exported article or create a new or different article of commerce. Accordingly, we find that the air-brushing and hot-wire cutting operations constitute acceptable "alterations" within the meaning of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.

HOLDING:

Based on the information and samples provided, we are of the opinion that air-brushing and hot-wire cutting the curtain fabric (Style A and B) in Mexico constitute an "alteration," as that term is used in subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, and, therefore, the returned fabric should be subject to duty only upon the value of the foreign alterations, assuming compliance with the documentation requirements of 19 CFR 10.8.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division