Sept. 11 CBP Bulletin Proposes to Modify Rulings on Sauces, Certain Laminated Fabrics
In the Sept. 11 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 58, No. 36), CBP published a proposal to revoke ruling letters concerning sauces, and certain laminated fabrics and polyurethane-coated weft knit fabric materials from China.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Comments on Proposal Due Oct. 11
CBP said consideration will be given to any written comments received by Oct. 11 before taking these actions. In addition, any party that has received a ruling or decision on the merchandise that is subject to the proposed revocations or modifications, or any party involved with a substantially identical transaction, should advise CBP by the date that written comments on the proposed ruling are due. (An importer's failure to advise CBP of such rulings, decisions or substantially identical transactions may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations after the effective date of the final decision in this notice.)
Proposal
CBP is proposing to revoke or modify the rulings below, and any rulings on these products that may exist but have not been specifically identified. CBP also is proposing to revoke any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
Sauces
| Items: N195658: Organic Nabali Olive Tapenade, Sun-dried Tomato Caper Spread; D88850: Sundried Tomato Marinara, Roasted Eggplant Spread; NY 890395: Salsa Base; HQ 088976: Campagnola, Salsa Sorrentina; NY 856914: Mild Jalapeno Red Salsa, Mild Jalapeno Green Salsa; HQ 085838: Mild Salsa, Hot Salsa |
| Current: 2005.70.9100, which provides for other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen...olives... otherwise prepared or preserved...green, in containers each holding less than 13 kg, drained weight...in an aggregate quantity not to exceed 550 metric tons in any calendar year; 2005.99.9700, which provides for other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen...other vegetables and mixtures of vegetables; 2005.90.9700, which provides for other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen...other vegetables and mixtures of vegetables; 2005.90.9500, which provides for other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen...other vegetables and mixtures of vegetables; 2008.99.9090, which provides for fruit...otherwise prepared or preserved; 2005.90.9000, which provides for other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other. |
| Proposed: 2103.20.40, which provides for “Sauces and preparations therefore; mixed condiments and mixed seasonings; mustard flour and meal and prepared mustard: Tomato ketchup and other tomato sauces; 2103.90.90, which provides for “Sauces and preparations therefore; mixed condiments and mixed seasonings; mustard flour and meal and prepared mustard: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Reason: CBP considered whether the products are classifiable as sauces under heading 2103. In accordance with the Mondiv decision, CBP considered whether they are “a mixture of ingredients in liquid or semisolid form that adds flavoring to food.” Like the artichoke antipasto and a green olive tapenade in the Mondiv decision, the two subject products are semisolid in form because they have a loose consistency, but they also have “discernible pieces” of ingredients. Moreover, consistent with the EN to 21.03 and like the sauce products in the Mondiv decision, the subject products contain ingredients that together provide “flavor, moisture, and a contrast in texture and [color]” to food. Accordingly, the subject products are classifiable in heading 2103 as “sauces.” Pursuant to GRI 3(a), under the rule of relative specificity, the two products are classified under heading 2103, as sauces, rather than under headings 2005 or 2008. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY 856914, dated Oct. 24, 1990; and HQ 085838, dated Dec. 21, 1989; Proposed for modification: N195658, dated Jan. 4, 2012; D88850, dated May 12, 1999; NY 890395, dated Oct. 15, 1993; HQ 088976, dated Jan. 6, 1992 |
| Proposed new ruling: H317626 |
Certain Laminated Fabrics
| Items: In Scenario #1, textile fabric (not stated whether knit or woven construction) of unspecified foreign origin and composed of a cotton, cotton blend, polyester, polyester blend, nylon, nylon blend, or any other fabric made up of natural or man-made fibers. In the United States, the foreign material will be laminated with a U.S. foam and another textile fabric of U.S. manufacture; In Scenario #2, foreign textile fabric laminated to the U.S. supplied foam material on one side only, without any fabric on the other side |
| Current: The fabrics of Scenarios # 1 and # 2 would fall under heading 5903. In NY F83624, CBP stated that since the fabrics at issue are not knit to shape, but were wholly assembled in a single country, the United States, the country of origin of these fabrics is determined pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(ii). CBP determined that the country of origin is the United States, the country in which the fabrics at issue were wholly assembled. |
| Proposed: Under 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(5), the country of origin of the fabric at issue in scenario # 1 is the United States. Under 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(4), the country of origin of the fabric at issue in scenario # 2 is the foreign country in which the textile fabric was manufactured. |
| Reason: The fabrics at issue do not undergo the change in classification required because those fabrics were not finished by both dyeing and printing and were not accompanied by any of the various finishing operations. In Scenario #1, the fabric formation occurred in an unspecified foreign country and the United States, the countries in which the textile fabrics were manufactured. With regard to the foam of U.S. origin and the lamination process, CBP noted that those are not “most important processes” for purposes of paragraph (c)(4) of Section 102.21. Because the component fabrics at issue is scenario # 1 were manufactured in two different countries, CBP found that 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(4) also does not apply with regard to scenario # 1. However, with regard to scenario # 2, CBP found that the fabric formation occurred in the unspecified foreign country where the textile fabric was manufactured. Therefore, CBP found that the foreign country in which the textile fabric was manufactured is the country of origin of the fabric at issue in scenario # 2. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY F83624, dated April 6, 2000 |
| Proposed new ruling: H299896 |