Plastic-Coated Textile Conveyor Belt Classifiable as Plastic Belt, Not Coated Textile, Says CBP
A conveyor belt consisting of 100% polyester fabric completely coated with polyurethane is classifiable in the tariff schedule as a plastic sheet, not a plastic coated textile, said CBP in a recent ruling. Asked to further review the denial of Universal Belting Resource’s protest by the Port of Baltimore, CBP in HQ H260262 (here) found the lack of visible fiber on the belt means it is not classifiable in the relevant heading for textiles, and that polyester fiber “predominates” over any other fiber in the belt.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
As entered, Universal Belting’s conveyor belting consists of two inner layers of polyester fabric, separated by a layer of polyurethane, completely coated on both sides with white polyurethane. The polyurethane is visible to the naked eye, and the textile fibers are only visible on the sides as a cross-section. CBP testing determined the belting’s weight comes 67.9% from the polyurethane, and 32.1% from the textile layers.
Upon liquidation in November 2013, CBP classified the belting under subheading 3921.90.25, “Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics: Other: Combined with textile materials and weighing more than 1.492 kg/m²: Products with textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber,” dutiable at 6.5%. Universal Belting protested, arguing the belting was instead classifiable under subheading 5903.20.20 as “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: With polyurethane: Of man-made fibers: Other: Over 70 percent by weight of rubber or plastics,” which is duty-free. The company said private testing showed the material was actually 75.2% polyurethane.
Alternatively, Universal Belting said the product was classifiable in subheading 3921.90.29, HTSUS, which provides for “Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics: Other: Combined with textile materials and weighing more than 1.492 kg/m²: Other” (i.e., man-made fibers to not predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber), dutiable at 4.4%.
CBP headquarters found the port was correct in classifying the merchandise in heading 3921. Note 2 to chapter 59 provides that heading 5903 does not apply to products “in which the textile fabric is either completely embedded in plastics or entirely coated or covered on both sides with such material, provided that such coating can be seen with the naked eye,” as is the case with Universal Belting’s product, said CBP. Nor should CBP take into account Universal Belting’s private testing, because the company did not demonstrate that CBP’s testing was in error.
And though Universal Belting argued that, because the polyester is the only fiber in the conveyer belts, there is no “single textile fiber” over which the polyester may “predominate,” CBP ruled that subheading 3921.90.25 applies where only one type of fiber is present. Though CBP did in 1996 rule that, where a conveyor belt had only a single type of fiber, that single fiber could not predominate over others, classifying the belt in the “other” category, a more recent Federal Circuit decision held the “predominate” language applies to single-fiber goods in heading 3921, said CBP. The port classified the merchandise correctly as plastic belts with textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber, said the agency.