CIT Rules on Classification of “Conveyor Belts”
In a test case, Sparks Belting Company, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that certain “conveyor belts” designed and used for the conveyance of food and other products were properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule under 5903.10.20 as plastic coated textile fabrics at 1.7% ad valorem, or as plastic sheets combined with textile materials 3921.90.25 at 5.6% ad valorem.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The conveyor belts, imported between March and September 2000, were classified and liquidated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as either conveyor belts, of plastic coated textile material of man-made fibers, under subheading 5910.00.90 at 5.6% ad valorem or other, under 5910.00.90 at 3.6% ad valorem.
Sparks argued that the proper classification was either 5903.10.15 or 5903.20.15 as plastic coated textile fabrics both dutiable at 1.4% ad valorem, depending on whether they were coated with polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane.
Sparks initially presented claims with respect to 24 entries containing 18 products. For a variety of reasons, the CIT’s ruling pertains to only three products. The government, for instance, sought to exclude entries which lacked representative samples or specific information for determining the proper classification. The CIT excluded the entries, but stated that samples would not have been required if Sparks had provided the very specific information that was necessary to meet the requirements in the relevant HTS tariff provisions and chapter notes.
With respect to two of the belts on which the CIT ruled, it noted that classification under Heading 5910 included only products that were thicker than 3 mm. While the exact thickness was never determined, it was agreed that the subject belts were less than 3mm in thickness and thus, excluded from classification under Heading 5910.
The CIT then looked at the construction of these two belts, determining they were constructed of a visible plastic coated, woven, man-made, textile fabric which could be bent manually around a 7mm cylinder without fracturing. Accordingly, the CIT classified these two belts under 5903.10.20 with a duty rate of 1.7%.
The final belt also measured less than 3mm in width, excluding classification under 5910. However, the only information available indicated that this belt could not manually be bent around a 7mm cylinder without fracturing. Thus classification was also excluded under 5903. The CIT ruled the most appropriate classification was under subheading 3912.90.25 at 5.6%.
All citations in the CIT's ruling are to the 2000 edition of the HTS.
(Sparks Belting Company, v. U.S., Slip Op. 10-63 (dated 06/01/10))