Tariff Status of Certain Woven Glass Fabric

HQ 084167 JULY 31, 1989 CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084167 PR CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 7019.20.5000 Mr. Tony Borowiecki Mohawk Customs and Shipping Corp. P.O. Box 4839 Syracuse, New York 13221-4839 RE: Tariff Status of Certain Woven Glass Fabric Dear Mr. Borowiecki: This ruling is in response to your letter of April 3, 1989, on behalf of T.B.A. Industrial Products Ltd., Lancashire, England, concerning the classification of certain woven glass fiber fabrics. FACTS: The submitted samples are woven fabrics made from glass fiber yarns. Their trade name is Fortaglas and they are used in a variety of applications requiring heat resistance. The natural color of glass fibers is white; however, as imported, the fabrics are varying shades of brown because they have been impregnated with inorganic chemicals to increase their thermal resistance. ISSUE: The issue presented by the instant inquiry is whether the subject fabrics are classifiable as colored glass fiber fabrics, in Subheading 7019.20.5000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), or as glass fiber fabrics, not colored, in Subheading 7019.20.2000, HTSUSA. LAW AND ANALYSIS: It is asserted by the inquirer that the merchandise should not be classified as "colored" because the change in color is an unavoidable end result of the processes necessary to the fabrics' intended functions and that the color confers no benefit to the product. Glass fiber fabrics were, prior to January 1, 1989, under the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA), classifiable as textiles and subject to the definition of "colored" contained in the TSUSA. However, under the HTSUSA, which superceded the TSUSA, glass fiber fabrics are not classifiable as textiles. In addition, the HTSUSA has no specific definition for the word "colored". In Section XI, HTSUSA, where most of the provisions for textiles and textile products are located, Subheading Note 1 contains definitions for "Dyed woven fabrics" and "Woven fabrics of yarns of different colors". However, the fabric here in question does not fall within either of those categories and neither of those definitions is helpful in this circumstance. In T.D. 19423 (1898), it was determined that "colored" includes the imparting of color by methods other than dyeing. Therefore, the cotton fabrics which were the subject of that decision and which, because of the process of mercerization, were noticeably darker than unprocessed fabrics, were ruled to be "colored" for tariff purposes. [C]otton cloth which may be "colored," or its color changed by any process of manufacture from the natural color, tint, or tinge of the gray cloth, becomes subject to the same rate of duty as though the change in color had been effected by the process of dyeing. This is no less the case whether the purpose of the processes [sic] is to change the color or such change is merely an incident or accident of that process. In T.D. 32419 (1912), unbleached mercerized cotton cloth was determined to be not colored because the existing tariff distinguished between colored and mercerized fabrics. In Davison v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 78, T.D. 31631 (1911), the court held that the word colored is a "participial adjective" and that the origin of the color or the method of its production does not enter into the essential meaning of the term. See also T.D. 35747. HOLDING: In view of the above, the subject merchandise is classifiable under the provision for colored woven fabrics of glass fibers, in Subheading 7019.20.5000, HTSUSA, with duty, as a product of England, at the rate of 7.1 percent ad valorem. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division