Internal Advice 45/90; application of thermoplastic coatingto fabric does not constitute "printing" for the purposes of 19CFR 12.130(e)(i); country of origin; Note 2(a)(1), Chapter 59,HTSUSA; thermoplastic microdot coating visible to the naked eye.
Active· CBP ruling HQ 088293· Issued 1991-03-05
Ruling text
HQ 088293
March 5, 1991
CLA-2 CO:R:C:T: 088293 CRS
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 5903.90.1000
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
111 West Huron Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
RE: Internal Advice 45/90; application of thermoplastic coating
to fabric does not constitute "printing" for the purposes of 19
CFR 12.130(e)(i); country of origin; Note 2(a)(1), Chapter 59,
HTSUSA; thermoplastic microdot coating visible to the naked eye.
Dear Sir:
This is in reply to an Internal Advice request dated May 31,
1990, filed through the port of Buffalo by C.J. Tower, Inc., on
behalf of Canada Hair Cloth Co., Ltd. Sample merchandise was
provided.
FACTS:
The merchandise in question is fusible interlining fabric,
style F6, manufactured in Canada from 100 percent cotton greige
material imported from the People's Republic of China. Style F6
is available in a number of colors of which the following were
submitted with the request: Pd2, white; Pd3, white, napped; Pd2,
natural; Pd2, beige; Pd2, tan; Pd2, brown; Pd2, grey; and Pd2,
black.
In Canada, the imported greige material is submitted to an
eight step process to produce the finished interlining fabric.
The operations performed include: inspection; desizing; rinsing
and drying (after drying); beam dyeing (after dyeing); napping;
resin finishing and partial curing; and dot coating and final
curing. C.F. Tower and Canada Hair Cloth contend that the dot
coating process constitutes printing, and that in combination
with the other operations undertaken in Canada, results in a
substantial transformation, such that the country of origin of
the fabric would be considered to be Canada rather than the
People's Republic of China.
You have also asked for internal guidance concerning the
applicability of Note 2(a), Chapter 59, HTSUSA, to the various
colors of the style F6 fabric, i.e., whether the style F6 fabric
is classifiable in heading 5903, HTSUSA.
ISSUE:
Whether coating a 100 percent cotton greige material with
thermoplastic resin constitutes "printing" pursuant to section
12.130, Customs Regulations.
Whether the manufacturing and processing operations to which
the fabric in question has been subjected are sufficient to
constitute a substantial transformation.
Whether the thermoplastic coating applied to the fusible
interlining fabric at issue is visible to the naked eye pursuant
to Note 2(a), Chapter 59, HTSUSA.
Whether the fusible interlining fabric in question are goods
originating in the territory of Canada pursuant to General Note
3(c)(vii)(B), HTSUSA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to section 12.130, Customs Regulations (19 CFR
12.130), a textile or textile product which consists of materials
produced or derived from, or processed in, more than one foreign
territory or country shall be a product of that foreign territory
or country where it last underwent a substantial transformation.
A textile or textile product will be considered to have undergone
a substantial transformation if it has been transformed by means
of substantial manufacturing or processing operations into a new
and different article of commerce.
Section 12.130(e), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130(e))
provides further guidance as to what constitutes substantial
manufacturing or processing. Specifically, 19 CFR 12.130(e)(i)
states that an article will usually be a product of a particular
foreign territory or country when it has undergone:
[d]yeing of fabric and printing when accompanied by two or
more of the following finishing operations: bleaching,
shrinking, fulling, napping, decating, permanent stiffening,
weighting, permanent embossing, or moireing ....
The issue of whether a coating of thermoplastic microdots
constituted "printing" for the purposes of the country of origin
regulations was the subject of Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL)
dated March 8, 1990. There we stated in pertinent part that
"printing is the process of applying color to a fabric to provide
a decorative function. The plastic coating on the fabric at
issue cannot be considered to be printed."
The fabric in question is coated with thermoplastic dots.
However, while the application of these adhesive dots is achieved
by means of a process similar to printing, it remains the view of
this Office that a thermoplastic coating is not "printing" since
it imparts neither color nor ornamental value. Consequently, as
it has not been both dyed and printed, the interlining fabric at
issue has not undergone a substantial manufacturing or processing
operation pursuant to 19 CFR 12.130(e)(i). As a result, the
coating operation in Canada does not result in a substantial
transformation of the interlining fabric which remains a product
of China.
Note 2(a), Chapter 59, HTSUSA, provides that heading 5903
applies to plastic coated textile fabrics, whatever the nature of
the plastic material, other than those fabrics in which the
coating cannot be seen with the naked eye. The Explanatory Notes
(EN), constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized
System at the international level state at EN 59.03, 816, that
heading 5903 covers:
textile fabrics which are spattered with visible particles
of thermoplastic material and are capable of providing a
bond to other fabrics on the application of heat and
pressure.
The thermoplastic dot coating applied to the fabric in question
is visible to the naked eye and is not the result of a change in
color. Consequently, all of the sample of F6 fabric is
classifiable in heading 5903, HTSUSA.
General Note 3(c)(vii)(B)(2)(I), HTSUSA, provides in
relevant part that goods imported into the customs territory of
the United States are eligible for treatment as goods originating
in the territory of Canada only if they have been transformed in
Canada or the United States so as to be subject to a change in
tariff classification as described in the rules of subdivision
(c)(vii)(R) of the Note. General Note 3(c)(vii)(R)(11)(ll)
provides that goods will be considered to be goods originating in
the territory of Canada when they undergo:
A change to any heading of chapter 59 from any heading
outside that chapter other than headings 5111 through 5113,
5208 through 5212, 5309 through 5311, 5407, 5408, or 5512
through 5516.
The cotton fabrics at issue are coated with plastics and are
classifiable in heading 5903, HTSUSA. Were they not coated, the
fabrics would be classifiable within headings 5208 to 5212,
HTSUSA, which provide for woven fabrics of cotton of various
weights. Consequently, the fabrics are not eligible for
treatment as goods originating in the territory of Canada since
as a result of the coating process, the classification of the
fabrics changes from one within headings 5208 to 5212, to one in
Chapter 59.
HOLDING:
The coating of cotton fabric with thermoplastic microdots
does not constitute "printing" for the purposes of 19 CFR 12.130.
The country of origin of the style F6 fabric in question is
the People's Republic of China.
The fabric in question, style F6 (varieties Pd2, white; Pd3,
white, napped; Pd2, natural; Pd2, beige; Pd2, tan; Pd2, brown;
Pd2, grey, medium; Pd2, black), is classifiable in subheading
5903.90.1000, under the provision for textile fabrics ... coated
... with plastics ..., other, of cotton, and is dutiable at the
rate of 5.3 percent ad valorem.
The interlining fabrics are not eligible for treatment as
goods originating in the territory of Canada.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 088293, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:20:31Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.