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 > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0089202 - HQ 0089336 > HQ 0089336

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 089336

July 30,1991

CLA-2 CO: R:C:F 089336 JGH


TARIFF NO.: 2401.30.30

Mr. Thomas H. Mitchell
Lancaster Leaf
Tobacco Co. of Pa. Inc.
198 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 897
Lancaster, Pa 17603

RE: Classification of Tobacco Stems...Tobacco Refuse

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

Your letter of March 28, 1991, to the national import specialist at New York, concerning the classification of tobacco stems, has been referred to this office for reply.


You state that your firm is purchasing dark-aircured tobacco stems from various sources - Italy, Philippines, and Indonesia. The stems are said to result from the threshing of the leaf, having been inadvertently cut in the processing. A sample was submitted and was described as consisting of broken tobacco stems (with some lamina attached) ranging in length from one-half inch to three inches.


Classification of tobacco stems under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).


Merchandise imported into the United States is classified in the HTSUS in accordance with the principles set forth in the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 requires that merchandise will be classifiable under the tariff provision which most specifically describes it.

Heading 2401.30 covers Tobacco refuse, with the following subheadings:

2401.30.30 - Tobacco stems:
Not cut,not ground and not pulverized

2401.30.60 - cut, ground or pulverized

2401.30.90 - Other tobacco refuse

It is Customs position that tobacco stems which have been broken as a result of a threshing operation are not considered to be cut.


The tobacco stems in question are classifiable under the provision for tobacco stems, not cut, not ground and not pulverized in subheading 2401.30.30, HTSUS. Merchandise classifiable in this provision is free of duty.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling