Comment on the proposed amendment of the wording for qualifying fabrics under rebate item 320.01 for the manufacture of upholstered furniture is due by 13 March 2015.
Rebate Item 320.01/5407.61/01.06 reads “Woven fabrics surface treated to resemble suede containing 85% or more by mass of non-textured micro-fibre polyester filament yarns, of a mass exceeding 150g/m2 and of a width not exceeding 150 cm, in such quantities, at such times and subject to such conditions as the International Trade Administration Commission may allow by specific permit, for use in the manufacture of upholstered furniture classifiable in tariff heading 94.01.”;
Rebate Item 320.01/5903.20.90/01.08 reads “Other textile fabrics commonly known as imitation leather, laminated with polyurethane, in such quantities, at such times and subject to such conditions as the International Trade Administration Commission may allow by specific permit, for use in the manufacture of upholstered furniture classifiable in tariff heading 94.01”, and
Rebate Item 320.01/5907.00.90/01.08 reads “Textile fabrics commonly known as imitation leather backed with bonded leather, in such quantities, at such times and subject to such conditions as the International Trade Administration Commission may allow by specific permit, for use in the manufacture of upholstered furniture classifiable in tariff heading 94.01.”
The application was lodged by the Textile Federation of South Africa (TEXFED) who reasoned that it had major difficulties with the wording, scope and coverage of the three qualifying fabrics under the rebate provision in the form that they were introduced as there were fabrics that were manufactured locally that met the description of the qualifying fabrics in the rebate provision. The issue is that the description under these tariff subheadings currently is so broad that it covers at least 80% of what is made in South Africa, or should it be the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu)?