Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 37018000020 of March 22, 1988

HQ 083148 July 20, 1989 CLA2 CO:R:C:G 083148 CMR CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 358.1600 District Director 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Room 554 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 37018000020 of March 22, 1988 Protest 37018000020 was filed against your decision to classify certain machinery belting of manmade fibers coated with plastics under the provision for belting and belts, for machinery, of textile fibers or of such fibers and rubber or plastics, of manmade fibers, item 358.1400, Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA). FACTS: The protested entry was liquidated December 28, 1987, as machinery belting of manmade fibers coated with plastics classified in item 358.1400, TSUSA. This classifi cation was made based on a belief that the belts were in chief value of manmade fibers. The protestant claims that the belts are in chief value plastics, and therefore are classifiable in item 358.1600, TSUSA, which provides for machinery belts which are in chief value of a material other than those in items 358.05 to 358.14. The various belting at issue in the entry are listed on the shipment invoices. They include the following types of Polymax belting: 2EB018, 2LN024B, 1LN012BNP, 1E08WPU, 1E016WPU, 2E016, and 1M12G. A statement is included on each invoice to the effect that the items listed on the invoice are in chief value of plastic and so classifiable under item 358.1600, TSUSA. Polymax submitted a chart with value and weight breakdowns for various types of belting. Of those listed, only one, 2B028, is in chief value of textile materials. However, types 2LN024B and  2 1LN012BNP, which appear on invoices 470 and 472 respectively, are not listed on the breakdown chart. Upon our request, Polymax submitted breakdowns of the values of the individual components for types 2LN024B and 1LN012BNP. Their submission shows both types to be in chief value of plastics. Applying Headnote 4(b), Schedule 3, TSUSA, you determined that the various belts were classifiable as in chief value of manmade fiber under item 358.1400, TSUSA. In reaching this decision, you disregarded the plastics coating applied to the belts. ISSUE: Was Headnote 4(b), Schedule 3, TSUSA, properly applied? Are the subject belts classifiable under the provision for belting and belts, for machinery, of manmade fibers, item 358.1400, TSUSA, or under the same provision, other, item 358.1600, TSUSA? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification of belting such as that at issue is based on the component of chief value. See, C.I.E. 2035/66. Therefore, the values of the components must be ascertained. Headnote 4(b), Schedule 3, TSUSA, provides as follows: 4. For the purposes of the tariff schedules  (b) In determining the component fibers of chief value in coated or filled, or laminated, fabrics and articles wholly or in part thereof, the coating or filling, or the nontextile laminating substances, shall be disregarded in the absence of context to the contrary. Headnote 4(b) is applicable when determining the component fibers of chief value. However, it is not applicable when determining the component of chief value. Elbe Products Corp. v. United States, Appeal No. 871619 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 1988). The plastic coating is a component of the belts at issue here. It was an error to disregard the coating when determining the component in chief value. Headnote 4(b) was improperly applied in this instance.  -3- The chart originally submitted by Polymax indicates that all but two of the invoiced belts, 2LN024B and 1LN012BNP, are in chief value of plastics. The additional information submitted by Polymax, at our request, shows that these two belts, 2LN024B and 1LN012BNP, are also in chief value of plastics. HOLDING: Belt types 2EB018, 1E08WPU, 2E016, 1M12G, 2LN024B and 1LN012BNP, are classifiable under the provision for belting and belts, for machinery, of textile fibers or of such fibers and rubber or plastics, other, item 358.1600, TSUSA, dutiable at 2.4 percent ad valorem. The protest should be allowed in full as provided for above. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 to be returned to the protestant. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division