Request for Reconsideration of NY N348053; Cream of Tartar; 9802.00.50

H356252 July 15, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H356252 ACH CATEGORY: Classification Gino Cerulo GC Chemicals Corp. 1639 Rt. 10 E. Ste. 202 Parsippany, NJ 07054 RE: Request for Reconsideration of NY N348053; Cream of Tartar; 9802.00.50 Dear Mr. Cerulo: This is in response to your December 11, 2025, request for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N348053, dated November 17, 2025, regarding the eligibility of cream of tartar for a partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). NY N348053 found that, based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP’s”) laboratory review, the crude potassium bitartrate (also known as “argol”) was not complete for its intended use when exported to Spain and that, because the purification process was a necessary step in the manufacturing of cream of tartar, the cream of tartar was not eligible for subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment. We reviewed your request for reconsideration and have determined that N354142 is correct for the reasons set forth herein. NY N348053 was decided based on the following fact pattern: You indicated that crude potassium bitartrate is a naturally occurring crystalline byproduct of winemaking and grape juice processing. It is not food-grade and is sold for industrial use, primarily as a source for tartaric acid or related products. The U.S. crude potassium bitartrate will consist of approximately 28% to 73.5% potassium hydrogen tartrate, approximately 20% to 60% water, and approximately 6.5% to 12% other impurities. It will be shipped to Spain where it will undergo a purification process consisting of various steps including dissolution, filtration, crystallization and recrystallization, drying, milling, and packaging. The resulting product will be food-grade cream of tartar with a minimum purity level of 99.5 percent. The technical sheet you submitted indicates that the cream of tartar will be used as an acidifier and buffer in the food industry. 2 GC Chemicals argues that, according to Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 561918, dated July 30, 2001, the tariff shift of the argol from heading 2307, HTSUS, to cream of tartar classified under heading 2918, HTSUS, does not preclude a finding that the cream of tartar is eligible for subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment. GC Chemicals also argues that the argol sent to Spain is not an unfinished article with no use, but rather that crude potassium bitartrate is a recognized global commodity with a commercial value that is sold and traded for industrial applications distinct from the food-grade market. GC Chemicals argues that no chemical reaction occurs during the Spanish processing and that the molecular identity remains unchanged from export to import. Finally, GC Chemicals argues that the facts of this case are chemically and commercially indistinguishable from HQ 562175, dated October 29, 2001. GC Chemicals argues that, if purifying a product from 5% to 90% purity is a permissible alteration, then purifying argol from approximately 64% purity to 99.5% purity must also be an alteration as the degree of manufacturing is lessened. Subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, provides a partial duty exemption for articles returned to the United States after having been exported to be advanced in value or improved in condition by means of repairs or alterations. Duty is assessed only on the cost or value of the repair or alteration abroad, provided that the documentary requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 10.8 are met. Tariff treatment under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, is precluded where: (1) the exported articles are not complete for their intended use and the foreign processing operation is a necessary step in the preparation or manufacture of finished articles; or (2) the operations performed abroad destroy the identity of the exported articles or create new or commercially different articles through a process of manufacture. Guardian Indus. Corp. v. United States, 3 Ct. Int’l Trade 9 (1982); Doliff & Co., Inc., v. United States, 81 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 4755, 455 F. Supp. 618 (1978), aff’d, 66 C.C.P.A. 77, C.A.D. 1225, 599 F.2d 1015 (1979). In Guardian Industries v. United States, 3 Ct. Int’l Trade 9, the Court of International Trade stated that, in construing “the tariff provision for repairs and alterations performed abroad, the focus is upon whether the exported article is ‘incomplete’ or ‘unsuitable for its intended use’ prior to the foreign processing.” At issue in Guardian Industries was whether subjecting U.S.-produced annealed glass to a tempering process in Canada to create glass for sliding glass patio doors qualified as an “alteration” under item 806.20, Tariff Schedules of the United States (the precursor provision to subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS). The court noted that glass must be tempered (i.e., strengthened) for practical safety use reasons and to conform to U.S. federal regulations before it may be marketed for use in sliding glass patio doors. In concluding that the tempering process was not an “alteration,” the court stated that “the exported articles of raw annealed glass were not ‘completed articles’ since they were entirely unsuitable for their intended use” as sliding glass patio doors and required a manufacturing process to make them complete. The court further concluded that, because the tempering of the annealed glass transformed the glass in name, use, performance characteristics, and tariff classification, the operation created a new and different commercial article. 3 Similarly, in Dolliff & Company, Inc. v. United States, 66 C.C.P.A. 77, the issue presented was whether certain U.S.-origin Dacron polyester fabrics which were exported to Canada as griege goods for heat-setting, chemical-scouring, dyeing, and treating with chemicals, were eligible for the partial duty exemption available under item 806.20, TSUS, when returned to the United States. The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals found that the processing steps performed on the exported greige goods were undertaken to produce finished fabric and could not be considered as alterations. The court stated, …repairs and alterations are made to completed articles and do not include intermediate processing operations, which are performed as a matter of course in the preparation or manufacture of finished articles. In the instant situation, the operations performed in Canada comprise further processing steps which are performed on unfinished goods and which lead to completed articles, i.e., the finished fabrics, and, therefore, the processing cannot be considered alterations. 66 C.C.P.A. at 82. In this case, the cream of tartar at issue is not complete for its intended use at the time of export, and the foreign processing is a necessary step in the manufacture of the finished article. The crude potassium bitartrate exported is not food-grade and is sold for industrial uses, primarily as a source for tartaric acid. Since the cream of tartar at issue will be used as an acidifier and buffer in the food industry, it is not complete for its intended use when it is exported to Spain. Further, the operations performed abroad destroy the identity of the exported article and create a commercially different article through the manufacturing process. The name of the article shifts from crude potassium bitartrate (also known as argol or wine lees) to cream of tartar, the use of the cream of tartar changes from industrial to food grade, and the tariff classification shifts from subheading 2307.00.00, HTSUS, to subheading 2918.13.20, HTSUS. GC Chemicals argues that the tariff shift of the product from heading 2307, HTSUS, to heading 2918, HTSUS, does not preclude a finding that the article is eligible for subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment citing to HQ 561918, dated July 30, 2001. Although CBP has found that a change in the form of an article does not preclude a finding that an article is eligible for entry under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, a change in HTSUS subheading can be evidence that a commercially different article was created abroad. See Guardian Industries v. United States, 3 Ct. Int’l Trade 9. Ultimately, CBP’s decision in this case is based on the fact that the crude potassium bitartrate is unfinished at the time of export, not on the fact that the crude potassium bitartrate changes HTSUS subheadings or forms when it is further manufactured into cream of tartar. In addition, although the article at issue in HQ 561918 changed in form from a liquid to an aerosol, both forms of the paint were classified under the same HTSUS subheading. GC Chemicals also argues that the argol sent to Spain is not an unfinished article with no use, but rather that crude potassium bitartrate is a recognized global commodity with a 4 commercial value that is sold and traded for industrial applications distinct from the food-grade market. GC Chemicals argues that no chemical reaction occurs during the Spanish processing and that the molecular identity remains unchanged from export to import. Although crude potassium bitartrate is a commodity with commercial value, it is not complete for its intended use as food-grade cream of tartar at the time of exportation. The fact that it is complete for other uses is not relevant to the analysis of whether turning crude potassium bitartrate into food-grade cream of tartar is a repair or alteration. Finally, GC Chemicals argues that the facts of this case are chemically and commercially indistinguishable from HQ 562175, dated October 29, 2001. GC Chemicals argues that, if purifying a product from 5% to 90% purity is a permissible alteration, then purifying argol from approximately 64% purity to 99.5% purity must also be an alteration as the degree of manufacturing is lessened. In HQ 562175, CBP held that chondroitin sulfate, a supplement taken for the treatment of arthritis, was eligible for entry under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, because the supplement was simply converted from a powder to a liquid. However, HQ 562175 differs from the case at issue because both the powder and the liquid were used as health supplements, both the powder and the liquid were classified under the same HTSUS subheading, and both the powder and the liquid were sold to the final consumers for the same treatment purposes. Unlike the chondroitin sulfate in HQ 562175, the cream of tartar at issue here is not complete for its intended use as an acidifier and buffer in the food industry prior to the Spanish manufacturing process. For these reasons, the cream of tartar is not eligible for entry under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Accordingly, NY N348053 is hereby affirmed on this issue. Sincerely, Monika R. Brenner, Chief Valuation and Special Programs Branch