HQ 958133

December 7, 1995

CLA-2 RR:TC:TE 958133 NLP

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 5101.29.4060

Port Director

United States Customs Service

10 Causeway Street

Boston MA 02222-1059

RE: Protest No. 0401-95-100203; boiled wool; subheadings 5101.30.4000,
5103.20.0000; Explanatory Notes to heading 5103; Items 307.18 and
307.30, TSUS

Dear Sir:

This is a decision on application for further review of protest no.
0401-95-100203, filed on March 16, 1995, by Elco Freight Int\'l, on
behalf of Calvin B, Geary, Inc., against the \[former\] District
Director\'s decision concerning the classification of boiled wool under
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

FACTS:

The merchandise at issue is boiled wool and a sample was sent to the
Customs laboratory for analysis. The lab report issued indicated the
following:

The sample is a bag of degreased, carbonized wool fibers which have

not been carded or combed. The wool fibers have been removed from

the hides of slaughtered sheep by either a lime, depilatory or sweating
process

(skin wool or pulled wool).

Based on this report, the Boston District classified the subject article
as carbonized wool in subheading 5101.30.4000, HTSUS, which provides for
\"Wool, not carded or combed: Carbonized: Not processed in any manner
beyond the carbonized condition: Other.\"

-2-

During the course of the liquidation and protest process, the supplier
and the protestant continued to insist that the wool had not been
carbonized, that it had not been subject to any lime or depilatory
process, and that sulphuric acid was used only to

remove the skin, not to \"carbonize\" or remove vegetable matter.
Therefore, it is the importer\'s position that the boiled wool should be
classified as waste in subheading 5103.20.0000, HTSUS, which provides
for \"Waste of wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, including yarn
waste but excluding garnetted stock: Other waste of wool or of fine
animal hair.\"

The importer provided additional details of the wool production process
in order to support this claim, which is as follows:

The process uses Australian sheepskins which come from sheep killed
either at abattoir or butcher. They are then either air dried or salted,
broken up through an opening machine and fed through a 3 inch scour for
initial washing or shrinking. The

skins are then placed in pits for aerating. They are kept at a constant
temperature for

a period of between seven and ten days. During this time, bacteria, and
some sulphuric acid, eliminate the skin, leaving the wool intact. The
product is then taken from the pits, washed again, dried and packed for
export.

At no stage is any line or depilatory product used in this process.

Moreover, the importer provided both a Declaration and Certificate from
the Commonwealth of Australia and a sales contract that describe the
wool as Australian boiled wool, type CF21.

In view of this, the Customs laboratory re-tested the material which
they had originally tested. In the second report, dated July 19, 1995,
the laboratory indicated:

The sample is a bag of degreased, wool fibers which have not been

carded or combed. The wool fibers have been removed from the hides

of slaughtered sheep by either a lime, depilatory or sweating process
(skin wool or pulled wool). in our opinion, the wool has not been
carbonized and is not waste of wool.

ISSUES:

Is the boiled wool at issue carbonized?

Is the boiled wool at issue classifiable as waste under the HTSUS?

-3-

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

ISSUE #1

In view of the revised laboratory report, as discussed in the fact
section above, it is our position that the wool has not been carbonized
and classification of this item in subheading 5101.30.4000, HTSUS, is
incorrect. Therefore, the next issue to be discussed is the proper
classification of the boiled wool.

ISSUE #2

Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is in accordance with the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), taken in order. GRI 1 requires
that classification be determined according to the terms of the headings
and any relative section or chapter

notes, taken in order. Where goods cannot be classified solely on the
basis of GRI 1, the remaining GRI will be applied, in the order of their
appearance.

In support of their claim that this boiled wool should be classified as
\"waste\", the protestant stated that in the 1960\'s a ruling was made
to classify boiled wool as a wool waste under Tariff Schedules of the
United States (TSUS) item 307.30. They were unable to provide a copy of,
or a reference to, this ruling. However, we believe the protestant is
referring to Treasury Decision (T.D.) 69-196, dated August 21, 1969.

T.D. 69-196 ruled that fibers recovered from tanned-skin scrap by
utilizing a sulfuric acid boil which dissolved the skin, if one inch or
under, were classifiable under item 307.30, TSUS, which provided for
\"Flock, fibers recovered from tanned-skin scrap, and fibers cut to
length, all the foregoing, of wool or hair, not spinnable.\" Such fibers
which were over one inch in length were classifiable under item 307.18,
TSUS, which provided for \"Waste of wool or hair and advanced waste of
wool or hair: Other.\" Fibers recovered from raw skin scrap by means of
a sulfuric acid boil which dissolved the skin were also classifiable in
item 307.18, TSUS. This type of fiber was considered \"advanced waste\"
under the TSUS. See Schedule 3, Part 1, Headnote 1(a) and (b), TSUS,
which define the terms \"waste\" and \"advanced waste\".

We do not believe the above T.D. should be extended in any way to the
classification of the subject boiled wool under the HTSUS. First, TSUS
item 307.30 has no counterpart in the HTS as there is no separate
provision for wool that is recovered from tanned-skin scrap. Moreover,
the waste provision in heading 5103, HTSUS, is more limited than that of
item 307.18, TSUS, in that it does not include \"advanced waste\". In
fact, there is no provision for \"advanced waste\" in the HTSUS.

-4-

The HTS waste provision is also different in that, with the
corresponding Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
Explanatory Notes (ENs), the concept of waste is much more fully defined
than under the TSUS.System. Customs believes the notes should always be
consulted. See T.D. 89-80. According to the EN for heading 5103: The ENs
constitute the Customs Cooperation Council\'s official interpretation of
the Harmonized System. While not legally binding on the contracting
parties, and therefore not dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on
the scope of each heading of the Harmonized System and are thus useful
in ascertaining the classification of merchandise under the

In general this heading covers all waste (other than garnetted stock) of
wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, i.e., the waste recovered during
the successive treatments converting the raw wool or hair into washed,
carded, combed, spun,

woven, knitted, etc., products.

The principal wastes included here are:

\(1\) Wastes from combing, carding or other processes preparatory to
spinning, such as: noils, the most important waste, composed of short
fibres removed during combing; lap and sliver ends, small waste pieces
of the combed lap; burr waste and carded shoddy, wastes collected during
carding; fibres recovered on cleaning the rollers of carding machines
and known as strippings.

\(2\) Yarn waste such as broken, knotted or tangled yarns collected as
waste during spinning, doubling, reeling, weaving, knitting, etc.
operations.

\(3\) Wastes such as sorting wastes and washing wastes collected from
the bottom of the vat or from the gratings of washers.

\(4\) Waste, such as old mattress hair and wool.

Under the HTS, then, waste can be a byproduct of any one of a number of
textile processes, but it clearly does not include waste materials that
have been recovered from other waste materials (such as from scrap
pieces of sheepskin). We also note that the fact that the product was
recovered from scrap does not mean that it is scrap or waste material.
See, Headquarters Ruling Letter 951835, dated August 19, 1992, wherein
Customs classified rope that was made of scrap magnetic tape as rope
rather than as waste or scrap.

Therefore, as the subject item would have been classifiable as advanced
waste under TSUS item 307.18 and there is no counterpart provision for
this in the HTSUS and the wool does not appear to be within the
definition of waste as discussed in the above ENs, it must be classified
in the most appropriate provision of heading 5101, HTSUS, as wool, not

-5-

carded or combed. Accordingly, the boiled wool is classifiable in
subheading 5101.29.4060, HTSUS, which provides for \" Wool, not carded
or combed: Degreased, not carbonized: Other: Not processed in any manner
beyond the degreased condition: Other: Finer than 58s.\"

HOLDING:

The boiled wool is classifiable in subheading 5101.29.4060, HTSUS, which
provides for \"Wool, not carded or combed: Degreased, not carbonized:
Other: Not processed in any manner beyond the degreased condition:
Other: Finer than 58s.\" The rate of duty is 23.7 cents/ clean kg. As
the rate of duty for the classifcation we find applicable is less than
the rate for the liquidated classification, but more than the rate for
the claimed classification, you are instructed to deny the protest,
except to the extent reclassification of the merchandise as indicated
above results in a partial allowance. A copy of this ruling should be
attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part
of the notice of action.

In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065,
dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, this decision
should be mailed by your office to the protestant no later than 60 days
from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in
accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the

decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of
Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision available
to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in the ACS and the
public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, Freedom of
Information Act and other public access channels.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Tariff Classification Appeals Division