yons, UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 1930 Bishop Lane, Suite 200, Louisville, KY 40218, on behalf of Decotex, Pawling, NY. This concerns the position we had taken with respect to the classification of various vacuum filter fabrics from France which was the subject of NY ruling 890023 of September 2, 1993.

CLA-2-59:S:N:N6:350-2101 956128 DATE: TO: Director, Commercial Rulings Division Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service FROM: Chief, Textiles/Plastics Branch New York Seaport SUBJECT: Protest for Further Review 1001-3-100878 concerning the classification of various vacuum filter fabrics, from France. 5911.20.1000 vs 5911.40.0000. This responds to a Headquarters request dated March 25, 1994, on a letter dated January 10, 1994, from Mr. Andre Lyons, UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 1930 Bishop Lane, Suite 200, Louisville, KY 40218, on behalf of Decotex, Pawling, NY. This concerns the position we had taken with respect to the classification of various vacuum filter fabrics from France which was the subject of NY ruling 890023 of September 2, 1993. Several representative samples were submitted. Each of these materials consists of varying amounts of man-made fibers (nylons, polyesters and polypropylenes) and are woven in construction. All of these materials have a rather course texture and the basic difference between them is their varying degrees of permeability, construction, yarns sizes and weights. The attendant correspondence submitted with this inquiry indicates once again, that the materials will be used in vacuum systems equipment in the filtration industry. While it is the protesting party's position that these fabrics are more specifically provided for as bolting cloths in heading 5911.20.1000, HTS, noting the rather course nature of the instant materials, it appears unlikely that heading 5911.20 would be appropriate. That is, heading 5911.20, refers to fabrics which are principally used for stenciling purposes in screen-process printing, etc. Such materials, by their very nature are rather fine in texture and are generally dedicated to this type of process. In determining whether or not a particular fabric is more specifically a straining versus a bolting type cloth, Headquarters, in recent file 089200 of April 15, 1992, indicated that factors such as weight, permeability, yarn size, fiber content, count (warp and weft) weave, special treatments, mix and finish must be taken into account. Having looked at the instant samples as well as the attending literature and correspondence submitted herewith, it appears that the instant samples are more dedicated to use as straining and not bolting cloths within the meaning of the tariff. In conclusion, we deem the instant samples to be properly classifiable as previously indicated in NY ruling 890023 of September 22, 1993 under the provision for ... straining cloth of a kind used in oil presses or the like. The duty rate is currently 12.5 percent ad valorem. If you have any questions on this matter please contact National Import Specialist George Bath at (212) 466-5884. Paul K. Schwartz Attachment