Paper coated or impregnated with plastics, where coating orimpregnation cannot be detected by laboratory analysis, is notcoated or impregnated for tariff purposes.

HQ 089081 August 6, 1991 CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 089081 CRS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 4804.39.6040 District Director U.S. Customs Service Attn: Protest Review Officer 111 West Huron Street Buffalo, NY 14202 RE: Paper coated or impregnated with plastics, where coating or impregnation cannot be detected by laboratory analysis, is not coated or impregnated for tariff purposes. Dear Sir: This is in reply to an application by C.J. Tower, Inc., on behalf of E.B. Eddy, protestant, for further review of Protest No. 0901-0-700938, forwarded to this office under cover of your memorandum of October 17, 1990. FACTS: The merchandise in question is caul stock, a laminating base paper weighing approximately 49 g/m. The paper was liquidated under the provision for other uncoated paper of subheading 4805.60.9040, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Duty was assessed at the rate of 2.4 percent ad valorem. However, protestant claims the paper should be classified free of duty under the provision for paper coated, impregnated or covered with plastics of subheading 4811.39.4040, HTSUSA. ISSUE: Whether the paper in question is coated or impregnated with plastics such that it is classifiable in subheading 4811.39.4040, HTSUSA. If not coated or impregnated for tariff purposes, whether the paper in question is classifiable as kraft paper of heading 4804, HTSUSA. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Protestant contends the paper at issue is treated with plastics and should be therefore classified in heading 4811 which provides for, inter alia, paper, coated, impregnated, covered, surface-colored or printed, in rolls or sheets. Protestant originally furnished specification sheets for the paper in question which indicated that the paper had been treated with styrene maleic anhydride (SMA). However, no SMA was found when the paper was submitted to laboratory analysis. Protestant subsequently claimed that the paper was treated at the size press with diisobutylene baysynthol. Again, laboratory analysis failed to detect the presence of diisobutylene baysynthol or any other plastics coating, impregnation or treatment. Both a multiple internal reflectance test and an extraction test were performed. Since neither diisobutylene baysynthol nor SMA can be detected, the instant paper is not classifiable for tariff purposes as a coated or impregnated paper of heading 4811. Heading 4804, HTSUSA, provides for uncoated kraft paper and paperboard, in rolls or in sheets, other than that of heading 4802 or 4803. Note 5, Chapter 48, HTSUSA, defines the expression "kraft paper and paperboard" as paper of which not less than 80 percent by weight of the total fiber content consists of fibers obtained by the chemical sulfate or soda processes. One hundred percent of the fiber content of the instant paper is derived from the chemical sulfate process. The paper at issue is kraft paper as defined by Note 5, supra, and is not of the class or kind of paper classifiable in headings 4802 or 4803. Accordingly, it is classifiable in heading 4804. Since the paper is manufactured in and imported from Canada the issue of eligibility for tariff preferences under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (CFTA) arises. To be eligible for such preferences, goods must comply with the rule of origin requirements of General Note 3(c)(vii)(B), HTSUSA. Goods wholly obtained or produced in Canada and/or the United States qualify as "goods originating in the territory of Canada" pursuant to General Note 3(c)(vii)(B)(1), HTSUSA. The paper in question is produced in Canada and thus is eligible for tariff preferences under the CFTA. HOLDING: The caul stock paper at issue is classifiable in subheading 4804.39.6040, HTSUSA, under the provision for uncoated kraft paper and paperboard...; other kraft paper and paperboard weighing 150 g/m; other; other; other. As goods originating in the territory of Canada pursuant to General Note 3(c)(vii), HTSUSA, the paper is dutiable at the CFTA rate of 2.4 percent ad valorem. Since the rate of duty under the classification indicated above is the same as the liquidated rate, you are instructed to deny the protest in full. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 Notice of Action. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division