Further review of protest no. 1704-92-100307; classificationof buffalo leather, tanned, buffed and embossed; GeneralExplanatory Notes, Chapter 41; upholstery leather; full grainleather; grain split leather
Active· CBP ruling HQ 954155· Issued 1993-10-08
Ruling text
HQ 954155
October 8, 1993
CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 954155 BC
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 4104.39.2000
District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
1 East Bay Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401
RE: Further review of protest no. 1704-92-100307; classification
of buffalo leather, tanned, buffed and embossed; General
Explanatory Notes, Chapter 41; upholstery leather; full grain
leather; grain split leather
Dear Sir:
This responds to the referenced protest. We have reviewed
the matter and our decision follows.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is described, generally, as "deeply
buffed and embossed pieces of buffalo leather" and, more
particularly, as "large pieces of upholstery leather" (July 31,
1992, letter from PROTESTANT's counsel, pages 1 and 2,
respectively). The leather is made from grain split leather
which is described in the General Explanatory Notes (EN's) for
Chapter 41 (Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System)
as "the outer layer of a hide or skin that has been split into
two or more layers." PROTESTANT states that the leather has been
buffed to such an extent that the natural grain of the outer
surface is completely, or nearly completely, removed. After
buffing, it is embossed, a process that produces an artificial
grain appearance on the surface of the leather. PROTESTANT
states that any of the original grain that might have remained
after buffing is altered by the embossing.
The samples submitted are marked "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit
B." Exhibit A is a small piece of the kind of leather at issue
here: buffed and embossed grain split buffalo leather. Exhibit
B, as we understand it, is a small piece of grain split leather
that has not been buffed or embossed. The samples were submitted
for comparison purposes.
This protest covers eight entries made in December of 1991.
The entries were liquidated in March and April of 1992 and
reliquidated in May of 1992. The protest was timely filed on
August 21, 1992.
Customs classified the leather under subheading
4104.31.2000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Annotated (HTSUSA). PROTESTANT asserts that it should have been
classified under subheading 4104.39.2000, HTSUSA. The former
subheading covers other bovine leather and equine leather,
parchment-dressed or prepared after tanning, full grains and
grain splits, buffalo. The latter subheading covers the same
bovine and equine leather that is other than full grains or grain
splits, buffalo. The duty rate for each subheading is 3.7% ad
valorem. The difference is that buffalo leather from Thailand
classified under subheading 4104.31.2000, HTSUSA, is not entitled
to duty free treatment under the Generalized System of
Preferences, while the same leather from Thailand is entitled to
such duty free treatment if classified under subheading
4104.39.2000, HTSUSA.
ISSUE:
What is the proper classification for the subject buffed and
embossed buffalo leather?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is
governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) applied,
as appropriate, in sequential order. That is, if the merchandise
at issue cannot be classified by application of GRI 1, then GRI 2
is applied, and so on. General Rule of Interpretation 1 provides
that classification is determined in accordance with the terms of
the headings and any relative section and chapter notes. Aiding
in the classification of merchandise are the Explanatory Notes
(EN's) of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.
The EN's constitute the official interpretation of the tariff at
the international level. While they are not legally binding,
they are consulted for guidance and accorded appropriate weight
in making classification determinations. (See Treasury Decision
(T.D.) 89-80, 23 Cust. Bull. 379 (1989), 54 Fed. Reg. 35,127
(August 23, 1989).)
For the purposes of this protest decision, we note the
following significant facts, upon which this decision is based:
The leather to be imported is made from grain split buffalo
leather, as defined in the EN's, that has been tanned, buffed and
embossed prior to importation, such that the original grain of
the leather has been removed and replaced by the artificial grain
resulting from the embossing procedure.
PROTESTANT contends that the leather should be classified
under subheading 4104.39.2000, HTSUSA. Since the leather at
issue has been tanned and prepared after tanning, it is properly
classified under the third major subpart of heading 4104, HTSUSA,
that covers bovine leather of that description. (The General
EN's indicate that processes that meet the description of
"prepared after tanning" include buffing (or grinding).) The
question is whether the leather falls under 4104.31, HTSUSA,
covering full grains and grain splits, or under 4104.39, HTSUSA,
the "other" provision that is the alternative six-digit
subheading under that subpart of heading 4104, HTSUSA. Both
provisions provide specifically for buffalo leather.
The General EN's for Chapter 41 define "full grain leather"
as "leather which has not been split, bearing the original grain
surface as exposed by removal of the epidermis, with none of the
surface removed by buffing or snuffing." The subject buffalo
leather is not full grain leather because it has been split and
the original grain surface has been removed by buffing.
The EN defines "grain split" as "the outer layer of a hide
or skin that has been split into two or more layers." This
definition shows that, like full grain leather, grain split
leather is characterized by the presence of the original grain
surface.
PROTESTANT contends that if removal of the original grain
surface by buffing (or snuffing) results in full grain leather
losing its status as "full grain leather" under the definition
set forth in the EN, then removal by buffing (or snuffing) of the
original grain surface of a grain split leather should have the
same effect. In other words, in order to qualify as either a
full grain or grain split leather under heading 4104, HTSUSA,
both the full grain and grain split leather must exhibit an
original grain surface; buffing or snuffing that original grain
surface away causes the leather to lose its status, under heading
4104, HTSUSA, as a full grain or grain split leather.
We agree. Therefore, although the leather at issue is
produced from what is initially a grain split leather, the
buffing of that leather to remove the original grain surface, and
the embossing of the leather to give it an artificial grain,
destroys its status - for classification purposes - as a grain
split leather under heading 4104 of the tariff. Of course, if
the buffing and embossing occur after importation, the leather
will qualify as a grain split leather upon importation.
While you raised some questions concerning the definitions
of "full grain" and "grain splits," we reiterate that it is
Customs practice to follow the EN's wherever possible. In the
absence of sufficient information indicating that an EN is
incorrect or inaccurate, and a Customs determination, based on
that information, that the EN should not be applied strictly, we
will remain inclined, if not bound, to follow it.
Again, on the facts of this protest, the leather in question
originates as a "grain split" as defined in the EN. This means
that the leather we classify in this protest decision is from the
outer layer after the leather has been split, the layer which,
before buffing, evidences the original grain surface. The
buffing and embossing take place abroad, prior to importation
into the United States. If you have legitimate doubts about the
veracity of these facts, you are authorized under the regulations
to request verifying information/documentation.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that buffalo leather
that has been subjected to the following processes should be
classified as other than full grain or grain split leather under
subheading 4104.39.2000, HTSUSA: tanning, preparation after
tanning by buffing or snuffing to remove the original grain
surface, and embossing to imprint an artificial surface grain.
HOLDING:
The buffed and embossed buffalo leather at issue is
classifiable under subheading 4104.39.2000, HTSUSA. This protest
is APPROVED. The entries covered by the protest should be
reliquidated, unless you are not satisfied that the merchandise
covered by them is as described in this ruling. Please provide a
copy of this decision to PROTESTANT, along with the CF 19, 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 entries in accordance with the decision
must be accomplished prior to mailing of 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 ACS and the public
via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, Freedom of
Information Act, and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 954155, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:27:54Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.