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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 957531 - HQ 957667 > HQ 957565

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 957565

March 20, 1995

CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 957565 PR


Mr. Joseph A. Gleicher
Poly-Commodity Corporation
175 Great Neck Road
Great Neck Plaza, New York 11021

RE: Reconsideration and Modification of HQ 953378 Concerning the Country of origin of Sheets

Dear Mr. Gleicher:

This is in reference to Customs Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 953378, issued February 19, 1993, addressed to you, concerning the country of origin of sheets. We have reviewed that ruling and determined that it is partially in error. This modifies that ruling. Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2186 (1993) (hereinafter referred to as section 625), notice of the proposed modification of HQ 953378 was published February 8, 1995, in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN, Volume 29, Number 6.


The goods this ruling is concerned with are described in HQ 953378 as flat bed sheets manufactured as follows: Woven fabric manufactured in Pakistan is shipped to Thailand where it is cut to length and width (we assume that means that each sheet is cut on four sides) and hemmed. On one sample a row of piping was inserted along the top edge while a second sample had capping applied to the top edge.


The issue presented is which country, Pakistan or Thailand, is the country of origin of the subject sheets. -2- LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 12.130, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130) provides, in pertinent part, that a textile or textile product which consists of materials processed in more than one foreign country shall be a product of the country where it last underwent a substantial transformation. A textile or textile product will be considered to have undergone a substantial transformation if it has been transformed by means of substantial manufacturing or processing operations into a new and different article of commerce.

Customs has consistently ruled that the cutting of fabric on all four sides, and hemming, did not, by itself, involve sufficient processing to constitute "substantial manufacturing or processing operations." See the most recent ruling, HQ 956030, of November, 22, 1994. To rise to that level, there must be processing in addition to cutting and hemming. Adding capping or piping to that processing will not suffice. Piping takes little expense and practically no time. Capping usually is used in place of hemming to finish an edge. Both are done for minor decorative purposes which have no relation to the utility or manner of use of the sheet. Capping and piping are distinguishable from adding four inch borders (or extra pieces of fabric) which add length, or from substantial ruffles which create a major visual impact and, to a degree, change the nature (and possibly the use) of the sheet.


The country of origin of the flat sheets that had piping and/or capping added to the fourth side is Pakistan. HQ 953378, dated February 19, 1993, is hereby modified to reflect this holding. In accordance with section 625, this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN. Sections 177.10(b) and 177.10(c), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.10(b) and 177.10(c)) are not applicable to rulings or decisions published pursuant to section 625. Accordingly, the publication of this ruling neither establishes a uniform practice nor constitutes a change of practice or position by the Customs Service.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling