CLA-2 CO:R:C:F 956405 EAB
R. Brian Burke, Esquire
Rode & Qualey, Attorneys at Law
295 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Re: Composite diagnostic and laboratory reagents; test strips or
pads; HRL 953405 modified, clerical error
Dear Mr. Burke:
This is in reply to your letter dated May 10, 1994, concerning
our classification decision in HQ 953405 (May 3, 1994).
Upon review of the matter, we have determined that the first
paragraph of the "HOLDING" section contained a clerical error.
Rather than providing "Merchandise represented by Sample II . . .
such as forms one and three . . .," the decision should have
referred to Samples I and III and read as follows:
HOLDING:
Merchandise represented by Samples I and III is
diagnostic or laboratory composite reagents containing an
antigen, whether or not on a backing, such as forms one and
three described in the FACTS hereinabove, are classifiable
under subheading 3822.00.1090, HTSUSA, a provision for
composite diagnostic or laboratory reagents, other than those
of heading 3002 or 3006; containing antigens or antisera;
other, and are to be entered free of duty.
Thus, the composite reagent test paper used in the manufacture
of urinalysis test strips, and the fully manufactured urinalysis
test strip consisting of a group of pads of treated papers are
classifiable under subheading 3822.00.1090, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), to be entered
free of duty; whereas, the composite reagent test foil used in the
manufacture of blood glucose test strips is classifiable under
subheading 3822.00.5090, HTSUSA, dutiable at the column one general
rate of 5 percent ad valorem.
Headquarters Ruling Letter 953405 is modified as set forth
above. Along with an appropriate number of copies of HRL 953405,
supra, please submit copies of this correspondence with each entry
of the subject merchandise to ensure that the classification and
assessment of duties are correct.
Because this modification corrects a clerical error,
publication under section 625, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is
not required.
We regret the error and thank you for bringing it to our
attention.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division