United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1990 HQ Rulings > HQ 0084951 - HQ 0085014 > HQ 0084971

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 084971

September 20, 1989

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G: 084971 DPS


TARIFF NO.: 254.5600, 254.8020, TSUS

David Serko, Esq.
Serko & Simon
One World Trade Center
Suite 3371
New York, N.Y. 10048

RE: Classification of Carbonless Copy Paper

Dear Mr. Serko:

This case was previously considered upon your firm's request for internal advice submitted to the District Director of the Port of Baltimore, in July, 1987, on behalf of your client, A.T. Clayton & Co., Inc. In a letter dated August 16, 1988, referenced HQ 081820, this office issued a ruling, which, was subsequently suspended pending a conference with counsel and further submissions from your office. A meeting was conducted and you submitted additional information, consistent with your previous arguments, in support of Clayton's position that the subject paper, described as carbonless copy paper, be classified under item 254.8020, TSUS.

After further review of your submissions concerning the classification of the subject paper under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), this office has determined that the paper at issue remains properly classifiable in item 254.5600, TSUS, not in item 254.8020, TSUS, as you assert on Clayton's behalf. The holding and rationale set forth in HRL 081820 is hereby reinstated, along with the supplementary analysis set forth herein.


The information obtained at the conference, your submissions, and our review of the relevant authorities, indicate that the subject paper, described as carbonless copy paper, squarely falls within the TSUS definition of "writing paper" provided in Headnote 2(d) to Part 4 of Schedule 2, TSUS. Specifically, we consider the subject paper to be a type of "manifold paper," designed primarily for copies of typewritten and handwritten material. The fact that the paper is coated does not distinguish it from writing paper, as its chief use is for writing and the making of instant copies of such writings. The fact that the bottom receptor sheets (all sheets below the top sheet), are not directly written or typed upon, does not remove the subject paper from its designation as manifold paper, which is included in the TSUS definition of writing paper. Headnote 2(d), Part 4, Schedule 2, TSUS, provides:

2. For the purposes of this part--(d) the term "writing paper" includes, but is not limited to, papers such as ledger, letter, manifold, mimeograph, note, onionskin, tablet and typewriter papers.

As the above definition indicates, for tariff purposes, writing paper is not limited to paper that receives ink directly. The term "manifold," with regard to paper, is defined as:

4. (of paper business forms) made up of a number of sheets interleaved with carbon paper.

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged Ed. (1973). The Dictionary of Paper, 4th Ed. (1980), published by the American Paper Institute, defines "manifold paper" as "a lightweight paper designed primarily for carbon copies of typewritten material."

Here, the subject paper's stated use is for business form sets which incorporate multiple copies. These sets include the coated carbonless sheets which are utilized as manifold paper. Because the TSUS definition of writing paper includes manifold paper, which is the precise use of the coated carbonless paper at issue, it has a writing paper use by definition. Accordingly, the subject paper is properly classifiable under the provision for: "Papers, impregnated, coated, surface-coated, embossed, ruled, lined, printed, decorated, or any combination thereof: Writing paper weighing over 18 pounds per ream: Not lithographically printed," item 254.5600, TSUS.


Consistent with the foregoing analysis and HRL 081820, issued August 16, 1988, which is hereby reinstated, the subject paper, described as carbonless copy paper, is properly classifiable under item 254.5600, TSUS. This letter is being
forwarded to the District Director of the Port of Baltimore so that all necessary action in accordance herewith can be undertaken.


Harvey B. Fox, Director
Office of Regulations and Rulings

Previous Ruling Next Ruling