MAR-02 RR:CR:SM 560766 RSD
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
Rulings Division