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 > 2001 HQ Rulings > HQ 561687 - HQ 562036 > HQ 561770

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 561770

September 19, 2000

CLA-2-05 RR:CR:SM 561770 CW


TARIFF NO.: 9802.00.50

Mr. Douglas Davidson
Joliette Porcelain, Incorporated
516 rue Cartier
Joliette, Quebec J6E 4T7

RE: Revocation of HRL 560168; alteration; decoration of ceramic dinnerware

Dear Mr. Davidson:

This is in reference to Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 560168 dated February 28, 1997, which was issued to you concerning the applicability of subheading 9802.00.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to the foreign decoration of certain ceramic dinnerware. We have reviewed this ruling and have determined that its conclusion that subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, is inapplicable to the returned dinnerware is incorrect. Therefore, HRL 560168 is revoked for the reasons set forth below.


Joliette Porcelain, Incorporated (Joliette), exports blank dinnerware products from the U.S. to Canada where ceramic decals are applied and, in some cases, bands are painted onto the articles. After the decorating process, the dinnerware is kiln fired and then returned to the U.S. Alternatively, the dinnerware may be decorated by an “over-the-glaze” application of decals and/or painted bands. You state that the undecorated dinnerware, which is produced by the Pfaltzgraf Company, is sold in that condition in the U.S. marketplace.

Samples of the dinnerware before and after the decorating process were submitted for our examination.

In HRL 560168, Customs held that subjecting blank dinnerware to the above-described decorating processes in Canada, followed by kiln firing, constitute operations that exceed a repair or alteration under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Customs determined that the foreign processing imparted substantially new and different characteristics to the dinnerware. Customs found that the application of a particular design on the dinnerware items gave them a unique and specialized appeal, and was a prerequisite to marketing and selling the finished decorative dinnerware in the United States. Thus, Customs viewed the exported dinnerware as incomplete for its intended use and the foreign processing as a necessary step in the production of the final articledecorative dinnerware.


Whether the decorating operations described above qualify as a repair or alteration under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.


Subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, provides a partial or complete duty exemption for articles exported from and returned to the United States after having been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad by repairs or alterations, provided the documentary requirements of section 181.64 (for articles returned from Canada or Mexico) or section 10.8 (for articles returned from any other country), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 181.64 and 10.8), are satisfied.

Section 181.64(a), Customs Regulations, states that:

‘repairs or alterations’ means restoration, addition, renovation, redyeing, cleaning, resterilizing, or other treatment which does not destroy the essential characteristics of, or create a new or commercially different good from, the good exported from the United States.

Court cases considering the applicability of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, and its precursor provisions (item 806.20, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), and, before that, paragraph 1615(g), Tariff Act of 1930), have held that this tariff provision is inapplicable where: (1) the exported articles are incomplete for their intended use and the foreign processing operation is a necessary step in the preparation or manufacture of finished articles; or (2) the operations performed abroad destroy the identity of the exported articles or create new or commercially different articles through a process of manufacture.

In Guardian Industries v. United States, 3 CIT 9 (1982), the Court of International Trade stated that, in construing “the tariff provision for repairs and alterations performed abroad, the focus is upon whether the exported article is ‘incomplete’ or ‘unsuitable for its intended use’ prior to the foreign processing.” At issue in Guardian Industries was the question of whether subjecting U.S.-produced annealed glass to a tempering process in Canada to create glass for sliding glass patio doors qualifies as an “alteration” under item 806.20, TSUS. The court noted that glass must be tempered (i.e., strengthened) for practical safety use reasons and to conform to U.S. federal regulations before it may be marketed for use in sliding glass patio doors. In concluding that the tempering process was not an “alteration”, the court stated that “the exported articles of raw annealed glass were not ‘completed articles’ since they were entirely unsuitable for their intended use” as sliding glass patio doors and required a manufacturing process to make them complete. The court further concluded that, because the tempering of the annealed glass transformed the glass in name, use, performance characteristics and tariff classification, the operation created a new and different commercial article.

Similarly, in Dolliff & Company, Inc. v. United States, 81 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 4755, 455 F.Supp. 618 (1978), aff’d, 66 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 1225, 599 F.2d 1015 (1979), the issue presented was whether certain U.S.-origin Dacron polyester fabrics which were exported to Canada as griege goods for heatsetting, chemicalscouring, dyeing, and treating with chemicals, were eligible for the partial duty exemption available under item 806.20, TSUS, when returned to the United States. The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals found that the processing steps performed on the exported greige goods were undertaken to produce finished fabric and could not be considered as alterations. The court stated (66 CCPA at 82) that:

. . . repairs and alterations are made to completed articles and do not include intermediate processing operations which are performed as a matter of course in the preparation or manufacture of finished articles. In the instant situation, the operations performed in Canada comprise further processing steps which are performed on unfinished goods and which lead to completed articles, i.e., the finished fabrics, and, therefore, the processing cannot be considered alterations.

In Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 64, C.D. 2104 (1959), "pumpkin" colored fabrics were exported to Italy to be redyed black since the pumpkin color had gone out of fashion and black was a consistently good seller. The court held that the identity of the goods was not lost or destroyed by the dyeing process, that no new article was created since there was no change in the character, quality, texture, or use of the merchandise; it was merely changed in color. The court found that such
change constituted an alteration for purposes of paragraph 1615(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

In Royal Bead Novelty Co. v. United States, 68 Cust.Ct. 154, C.D. 4353, 342 F. Supp. 1394 (1972), uncoated glass beads were exported so that they could be halfcoated with an Aurora Borealis finish which imparted a rainbowlike luster to the halfcoated beads. The court found that the identity of the beads was not lost or destroyed in the coating process and no new article was created. Moreover, there was no change in the beads' size, shape, or manner of use in making articles of jewelry (evidence was presented which indicated that both uncoated and halfcoated beads were used interchangeably). Accordingly, the court concluded that the application of the Aurora Borealis finish constituted an alteration within the meaning of item 806.20, TSUS.

In HRL 557161, dated June 28, 1993, Customs considered whether wooden interior shutters exported to Mexico for certain operations, including the application of several coats of paint or stain, were eligible for subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment when returned to the U.S. The manufacturer also sold shutters in an “unfinished” condition; that is, without any paint or stain applied. Customs found that the shutters in their condition as exported from the U.S. (unfinished) were complete for their intended use to control light, ventilation, and to provide privacy, and that the painting or staining was not a necessary step in the production of the shutters. Therefore, Customs determined that the returned shutters were eligible for the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. In making that determination, Customs also modified a past ruling, HRL 555093, dated April 26, 1989, to the extent that it disallowed subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment for wooden furniture kits also sold in an unfinished condition and sent abroad for staining and lacquering.

Although Customs issued a notice in the September 6, 1995, Customs Bulletin (Volume 29, Number 36) proposing to modify HRL 557161 to reflect that the painting or staining abroad of unfinished interior shutters, and the staining and lacquering abroad of furniture kits under HRL 555093, would not be considered alterations under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, this proposed action was withdrawn in a notice published on December 17, 1997, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 31, Number 51. Thus, it remains Customs position that the painting or staining of the shutters in HRL 557161 and the staining and lacquering of the wooden furniture kits in HRL 555093 constitute permissible alterations under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.

HRL 560325 dated January 27, 1998, concerned the eligibility for subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS, treatment of U.S.-origin glass stemware which was decorated by a silkscreening process with a pictorial winter scene abroad and returned. The stemware
was offered for sale both in its decorated and undecorated state. In holding that the decorating process constituted an alteration, Customs stated that:

. . . the processing abroad results only in a change to the appearance of the stemware, and does not alter the function, character or identity of the exported articles. The merchandise sent is finished white wine stemware, marketable in the condition exported, and what is returned is the same merchandise, available to the same class of customers, albeit enhanced in appearance by a decorative winter scene.

We believe that the holdings in HRLs 560325 and 557161 are controlling with respect to facts presented in the instant case. Blank dinnerware is exported to Canada where ceramic decals or painted bands are applied, after which the articles are kiln fired and then returned to the U.S. The facts submitted in the case indicate that both the decorated and undecorated dinnerware are marketed to consumers for the same use. We view this as persuasive evidence that the dinnerware in its exported condition is complete for its intended use and, therefore, that the foreign processing is not a necessary step in the production or manufacture of finished articles. While the application of decals or painted bands to the dinnerware in Canada clearly imparts new decorative characteristics to the articles, this enhanced appearance does not result in the loss of the goods’ identity or the creation of new articles with a different commercial use. The foreign processing does not significantly change the quality, character or performance characteristics of the dinnerware. Therefore, we find that the decorative processing operations performed on the dinnerware in Canada qualifies as an alteration within the meaning of subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS.


On the basis of the information presented, we find that the decorating operations described above performed abroad on exported blank dinnerware constitute an alteration under subheading 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Therefore, the returned decorated dinnerware is entitled to the partial duty exemption under this tariff provision, provided the documentation requirements of 19 CFR 181.64 are met.

Consistent with this ruling, HRL 560168 is hereby revoked. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN.


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: