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 > 2005 NY Rulings > NY L84862 - NY L84915 > NY L84912

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY L84912

June 17, 2005

CLA-2-44:RR:NC:2:230 L84912


TARIFF NO.: 4409.10.0500

Ms. Norma Heffel
J. H. Huscroft Ltd.
922 – 32nd Ave.S.
Creston, BC V0B 1G1

RE: The tariff classification of end-matched tongued and grooved solid wood flooring from Canada

Dear Ms. Heffel:

In your letter dated May 10, 2005 you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The ruling was requested on end-matched tongued and grooved wood flooring. A sample of the product was submitted. The sample is a solid wood board approximately 4-1/4” wide x 11/16” thick x 12” long. The edges and ends are tongued and grooved. The surface is unfinished, not covered with any material. The species of wood is stated to be either SPF (spruce/pine/fir) or Douglas fir/larch.

The subject flooring, as represented by the sample, meets the description of products of heading 4409 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Heading 4409 provides for:

Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed.

The applicable subheading for the end-matched tongued and grooved solid SPF or Douglas fir/larch flooring, not surface covered, will be 4409.10.0500, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provides for coniferous wood continuously shaped along any of its ends, whether or not also continuously shaped along any of its edges or faces, all the foregoing whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed. The general rate of duty will be 3.2 percent ad valorem.

In addition to the classification, you inquired whether or not the merchandise in question may be subject to antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties. A list of AD/CVD proceedings at the Department of Commerce (DOC) and their product coverage can be obtained from the DOC website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov, or you may write to them at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230. Written decisions regarding the scope of AD/CVD orders are issued by the Import Administration in the Department of Commerce and are separate from tariff classification and origin rulings issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect.

This ruling is being issued under the assumption that the subject goods, in their condition as imported into the United States, conform to the facts and the description as set forth both in the ruling request and in this ruling. In the event that the facts or merchandise are modified in any way, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and you should resubmit for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. You should also be aware that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by the CBP.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Paul Garretto at 646-733-3035.


Robert B. Swierupski

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: