HQ 084167: Tariff Status of Certain Woven Glass Fabric

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 084167

                          JULY 31, 1989



CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  084167  PR

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  7019.20.5000

Mr. Tony Borowiecki
Mohawk Customs and Shipping Corp.
P.O. Box 4839
Syracuse, New York 13221-4839

RE:  Tariff Status of Certain Woven Glass Fabric

Dear Mr. Borowiecki:

     This ruling is in response to your letter of April 3, 1989,
on behalf of T.B.A. Industrial Products Ltd., Lancashire,
England, concerning the classification of certain woven glass
fiber fabrics.

FACTS:

     The submitted samples are woven fabrics made from glass
fiber yarns.  Their trade name is Fortaglas and they are used in
a variety of applications requiring heat resistance.  The natural
color of glass fibers is white; however, as imported, the fabrics
are varying shades of brown because they have been impregnated
with inorganic chemicals to increase their thermal resistance.

ISSUE:

     The issue presented by the instant inquiry is whether the
subject fabrics are classifiable as colored glass fiber fabrics,
in Subheading 7019.20.5000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States Annotated (HTSUSA), or as glass fiber fabrics, not
colored, in Subheading 7019.20.2000, HTSUSA.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     It is asserted by the inquirer that the merchandise should
not be classified as "colored" because the change in color is an
unavoidable end result of the processes necessary to the fabrics'
intended functions and that the color confers no benefit to the
product.

     Glass fiber fabrics were, prior to January 1, 1989, under
the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA),
classifiable as textiles and subject to the definition of
"colored" contained in the TSUSA.  However, under the HTSUSA,
which superceded the TSUSA, glass fiber fabrics are not
classifiable as textiles.  In addition, the HTSUSA has no
specific definition for the word "colored".  In Section XI,
HTSUSA, where most of the provisions for textiles and textile
products are located, Subheading Note 1 contains definitions for
"Dyed woven fabrics" and "Woven fabrics of yarns of different
colors".  However, the fabric here in question does not fall
within either of those categories and neither of those
definitions is helpful in this circumstance.

     In T.D. 19423 (1898), it was determined that "colored"
includes the imparting of color by methods other than dyeing.
Therefore, the cotton fabrics which were the subject of that
decision and which, because of the process of mercerization,
were noticeably darker than unprocessed fabrics, were ruled to be
"colored" for tariff purposes.

     [C]otton cloth which may be "colored," or its color changed
     by any process of manufacture from the natural color, tint,
     or tinge of the gray cloth, becomes subject to the same rate
     of duty as though the change in color had been effected by
     the process of dyeing.  This is no less the case whether the
     purpose of the processes [sic] is to change the color or
     such change is merely an incident or accident of that
     process.

     In T.D. 32419 (1912), unbleached mercerized cotton cloth was
determined to be not colored because the existing tariff
distinguished between colored and mercerized fabrics.  In
Davison v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 78, T.D. 31631
(1911), the court held that the word colored is a "participial
adjective" and that the origin of the color or the method of its
production does not enter into the essential meaning of the term.
See also T.D. 35747.

HOLDING:

     In view of the above, the subject merchandise is
classifiable under the provision for colored woven fabrics of
glass fibers, in Subheading 7019.20.5000, HTSUSA, with duty, as a
product of England, at the rate of 7.1 percent ad valorem.

                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division