Aug. 1 CBP Bulletin Proposes to Revoke Rulings on Polyethylene, Insulating Materials
In the Aug. 1 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 46, No. 32), CBP published two notices that propose to revoke two rulings and similar treatment regarding the tariff classification of a polyethylene and insulating mineral materials.
Comments on Proposed Revocations Due Aug. 31
CBP said that before taking this action, consideration will be given to any written comments received by Aug. 31. In addition, any party who has received a ruling or decision on the merchandise that is subject to the proposed revocations, or any party involved with a substantially identical transaction, should advise CBP by the date that written comments on the proposed ruling are due. (An importer's failure to advise CBP of such rulings, decisions, or substantially identical transactions may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations subsequent to the effective date of the final decision in this notice.)
Proposed Revocations
CBP is proposing to revoke the rulings below, and any rulings on these products that may exist but have not been specifically identified. CBP is also proposing to revoke any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
Ultralube D-806
| Item: Ultralube D-806. A linear low density polyethylene, consisting of a mixture of 50% linear low density Polyethylene, 40% Water, 6% Oxidized Polyethylene, 4% Ethoxylated alcohols. It's described by the manufacturer as being used as a polish, straight out of the container, by Chinese leather manufacturers who use the material for the Bianchini effect of toning (a whitening effect) the look of the leather and for soft feel properties. |
| Current: 3901.10.5010, 6.5% (Polymers of ethylene, in primary forms: Polyethylene having a specific gravity of less than 0.94: Other.) |
| Proposed: 3901.20.10, 6.5% (Polymers of ethylene, in primary forms: Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or greater: Having a relative viscosity of 1.44 or more.) |
| Reason: CBP previously described the product as a wax additive used in aqueous coatings such as water based printing inks to improve the surface qualities of the coating, ink and lacquers. Keim-Additec Surface challenged the description saying it was better described as a "polish." CBP disagreed, saying "the product is sold in large volumes (120 kg drums and1000 kg intermediate bulk containers), which, along with statements in the product data sheets, show that the product is added directly to the formulation of other products during a manufacturing process, rather than used straight out of the container as a leather polish, as you suggest." CBP did change the classification based on viscosity calculations using a Material Safety Data Sheet submitted by Keim-Additec, finding a relative viscosity over 1.44, it said. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY N063739 (2009) |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H080820 |
Insulating Mineral Materials
| Item: Insulating Mineral Materials. An article of insulating mineral materials used in a gas turbine engine to protect the rear turbine support hub from excessive heat produced by the turbine. Ceramic fiber (mineral wool) pads encapsulated in one-inch woven textile squares covered with an outer cladding of stainless steel. |
| Current: 6806.10.10, 3.9% (Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools (including intermixtures thereof) in bulk, sheets or rolls.) |
| Proposed: 6806.90.00, Free (Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools …: Other.) |
| Reason: CBP found laboratory analysis of the article reveals that the mineral insulating fibers (mineral wool) predominate in the article, and the mineral insulating fibers are indispensable to the primary use and purpose of the article, which is to protect a rear turbine support hub from excessive heat produced by the turbine. The previous classification requires that the mineral wool be imported in bulk, sheets, or rolls. CBP now finds article is in the shape of a ring with a large hole in its middle and thus can't be described as a "sheet." |
| Proposed for revocation: NY N125656 (2010) |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H146056 |