H318221

H318221 July 11, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H318221 TJS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NOs.: 3921.19.00; 5903.20.25 Center Director CEE - Apparel, Footwear and Textiles U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2813 Business Park Drive Memphis, TN 38118 Attn: Susan Coleman, Supervisory Import Specialist Re: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2006-20-105879; Tariff Classification of PU-Coated and Silicone-Coated Textiles Dear Center Director: This letter is in reference to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 2006-20-105879, received on December 31, 2020, filed by Sonnenberg & Cummingham, PA, on behalf of Big Kahuna Fabrics (“Protestant” or “Big Kahuna”), regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) tariff classification of two types of coated textiles under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) and the applicability of Section 301 trade remedies.1 FACTS: The merchandise subject to this protest are performance fabrics designed for and suitable for use in sofas, chairs, and other furniture to be used in hospitals and similar locations. They are commonly and commercially known as “imitation leather.” There are two styles of fabrics subject to this AFR: a polyurethane (“PU”)-coated textile referred to as “KC River CPU” and a silicone- coated textile referred to as “Silex.” 1 According to the protest submission, there are three categories of protested merchandise: textiles coated with polyurethane (PU), textiles coated with polyvinylchloride (PVC), and silicone-coated textiles. A separate AFR decision for Protest No. 2006-20-104540 addresses the tariff classification of the PVC-coated textiles and most styles of the PU-coated textiles. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H314125. KC River CPU (PU-coated) According to the protest submission, this AFR covers one entry of the KC River CPU material, which was entered on February 29, 2020, and liquidated October 16, 2020. The merchandise was liquidated as entered under subheading 5903.20.25, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: With polyurethane: Of man-made fibers: Other: Other.” The Protestant now argues that the merchandise should be classified under subheading 5903.20.15, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: With polyurethane: Of man-made fibers: Fabrics specified in note 9 to section XI: Over 60 percent by weight of plastics.” The Protestant provided photographs of the KC River CPU fabric, but did not provide a sample to CBP. According to the Protestant, the fabric’s composition by weight was 64% PU, 27% polyester, and 9% cotton. Additionally, the fabric is described as having a woven, brushed textile that consists of two layers of parallel textile yarns superimposed on each other at acute angles and these yarn layers are bonded at intersections of yarns. Silex (silicone-coated) This AFR covers one entry of the Silex material, which was entered on September 19, 2019, and liquidated on August 7, 2020.2 The merchandise liquidated as entered under subheading 5903.90.25, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: Other.” The Protestant now argues that the Silex material should be classified under subheading 5903.90.20, HTSUS, which provides for “Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: Other: Of man-made fibers: Other: Over 70 percent by weight of rubber or plastics,” but in the alternative remain classified under subheading 5903.90.25, HTSUS. The Protestant also claims that the Silex fabric should receive a refund of additional Section 301 duties under U.S. Note 20(qq)(38) to subchapter III of Chapter 99, HTSUS. In Attachment E to its submission, the Protestant describes the product as a textile fabric coated with silicone on one side. According to the Protestant, the product’s content is 36% silicone and 64% polyester. Protestant claims that the “textile enables the product to be manufactured easily and offers physical strength and a soft hand and luxurious look.” Furthermore, the Silex collection is said to contain many fabrics with different colors and possible decorations, but the construction of the fabrics in each of these collections is identical. CBP Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate (“CBP Laboratory”) analyzed a sample of the Silex fabric, which Protestant provided. CBP Laboratory Report NY20211088, dated October 8, 2021, determined that the Silex sample was composed of a dyed knitted polyester fabric that was coated, covered, impregnated, or laminated with a cellular polydimethylsiloxane (silicone) type plastic material on one of its surfaces. The textile component was of non-pile weft 2 In its submission, the Protestant indicates there are three entries of Silex under protest. However, one entry is untimely with respect to this protest and another entry is not subject to this protest. 2 knit construction and had not been brushed or napped. The sample was composed of 54.8% polyester and 45.2% plastic material. ISSUE: What is the tariff classification of the coated textiles under the HTSUS? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Initially, we note that the matter is protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely filed within 180 days of liquidation. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) (2006)). However, two entries were liquidated more than 180 days prior to the protest filing and are therefore untimely. Further Review of Protest No. 2006- 20-105879 is properly accorded to Protestant for the remaining entries pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of CBP or his designee or by the Customs courts. Classification under the HTSUS is determined in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. If the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. GRI 6 requires that the classification of goods in the subheadings of headings shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings, any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to GRIs 1 through 5. The 2019 and 2020 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 3921: Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics: Cellular: 3921.19.00: Of other plastics… * * * * * 5903: Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: 5903.20: With polyurethane: Of man-made fibers: Fabrics specified in note 9 to section XI: 5903.20.15: Over 60 percent by weight of plastics… Other: 5903.20.25: Other… 5903.90: Other: 3 Of man-made fibers: Other: 5903.90.20: Over 70 percent by weight of rubber or plastics… 5903.90.25: Other… * * * * * Note 9 to Section XI (Textiles and Textile Articles) states: 9. The woven fabrics of chapters 50 to 55 include fabrics consisting of layers of parallel textile yarns superimposed on each other at acute or right angles. These layers are bonded at the intersections of the yarns by an adhesive or by thermal bonding. Note 2 to Chapter 59, HTSUS, provides in relevant part: 2. Heading 5903 applies to: (a) Textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, whatever the weight per square meter and whatever the nature of 

Initially, we note that the matter is protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely filed within 180 days of liquidation. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) (2006)). However, two entries were liquidated more than 180 days prior to the protest filing and are therefore untimely. Further Review of Protest No. 2006- 20-105879 is properly accorded to Protestant for the remaining entries pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of CBP or his designee or by the Customs courts. Classification under the HTSUS is determined in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. If the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. GRI 6 requires that the classification of goods in the subheadings of headings shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings, any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to GRIs 1 through 5. The 2019 and 2020 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 3921: Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics: Cellular: 3921.19.00: Of other plastics… * * * * * 5903: Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of heading 5902: 5903.20: With polyurethane: Of man-made fibers: Fabrics specified in note 9 to section XI: 5903.20.15: Over 60 percent by weight of plastics… Other: 5903.20.25: Other… 5903.90: Other: 3 

 Of man-made fibers: Other: 5903.90.20: Over 70 percent by wei