10 newer rulings cite the same tariff codes.

Classification can shift over time. Review the more recent rulings below before relying on this one.

962524 96 Ruling Active

Modification of NY D85928, dated January 15, 1999

Issued February 25, 1999 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Cite this ruling

Copies to clipboard

96 962524 (February 25, 1999)

Tariff classification

HTS codes: 1999

Headings: 1999

Product description

The manufacturing operations for “Laura” consist of the following: United Kingdom base fabric is produced base fabric is printed, dyed, coated, trimmed and/or slit

CBP rationale

NY D85928 correctly stated that section 102.21(c)(1) and (c)(2) were not applicable to this merchandise, for the reasons stated therein. However, in the analysis addressing 102.21(c)(3), NY D85928 incorrectly stated that the process of combining the warp and weft yarns was akin to an “assembly” process as required by 102.21(c)(3)(ii). This is incorrect. Customs does not view this manufacturing process as an assembly process and thus, (c)(3) is also inapplicable to this merchandise. Section 102.21(c)(4) states that “Where the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1), (2) or (3) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which the most important assembly or manufacturing process occurred. In the case of the subject merchandise, similar to the other fabrics addressed in NY D85928, the most important manufacturing process occurs at the time of the fabric making, that is, in the United Kingdom.

Full text

HQ 962524 February 25, 1999 CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 962524 jb CATEGORY: Classification Mr. Thomas Penksa PBB Global Logistics 434 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 RE: Modification of NY D85928, dated January 15, 1999 Dear Mr. Penksa: This is in regard to New York Ruling Letter (NY) D85928, issued to you from our New York office on January 15, 1999. In NY D85928 Customs determined the country of origin for three textile fabrics pursuant to Section 102.21, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 102.21). Although the ultimate country of origin determinations for all of the textile fabrics are correct, this is to inform you that the analysis for one of the fabrics, “Laura SPC”, is incorrect. As such, this letter will set out the proper analysis and country of origin determination for that one style of fabric. FACTS: The manufacturing operations for “Laura” consist of the following: United Kingdom base fabric is produced base fabric is printed, dyed, coated, trimmed and/or slit ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the subject merchandise? LAW AND ANALYSIS: NY D85928 correctly stated that section 102.21(c)(1) and (c)(2) were not applicable to this merchandise, for the reasons stated therein. However, in the analysis addressing 102.21(c)(3), NY D85928 incorrectly stated that the process of combining the warp and weft yarns was akin to an “assembly” process as required by 102.21(c)(3)(ii). This is incorrect. Customs does not view this manufacturing process as an assembly process and thus, (c)(3) is also inapplicable to this merchandise. Section 102.21(c)(4) states that “Where the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1), (2) or (3) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which the most important assembly or manufacturing process occurred. In the case of the subject merchandise, similar to the other fabrics addressed in NY D85928, the most important manufacturing process occurs at the time of the fabric making, that is, in the United Kingdom. HOLDING: Accordingly, the country of origin of the fabric referenced as “Laura SPC”, pursuant to a 102.21(c)(4), most important manufacturing process analysis, is the United Kingdom. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division

View original on CBP CROSS →

Ruling history

More rulings on the same tariff codes

H364275 October 2, 2026

RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

H349010 September 24, 2026

RE: Kitchen and household cleaning and maintenance products imported under consignment; Valuation under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a; Computed Value

H354593 August 26, 2026

RE: Used, Damaged, or Defective Transaxle Cores; Valuation under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(f); Fallback Method

H361933 August 14, 2026

RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

H350728 July 1, 2026

Affirmation of NY N348411; Country of Origin of a Cosmetic Brush; Substantial Transformation

H360688 June 17, 2026

Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

N361517 June 4, 2026

The country of origin of an automotive alternator.

H354212 May 28, 2026

Appraisement of Zircon from Australia; Computed Value Method

H359213 May 15, 2026

Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

H350905 May 13, 2026

Transaction Value; Transaction Value of Identical or Similar Merchandise; Imported Aircraft Engine Parts; No Sale

Follow 962524

Get an email if this ruling is revoked or modified, or a newer ruling supersedes it.

One email per day at most. Confirm your address once, unsubscribe anytime.

Searching CBP rulings the smart way

Rulings are precedent. See which ones apply to your product: TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.