CUSTOMS2020 REPORT CLEN Action 2 Proficiency test on Textile Preparatory meeting

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Customs Policy, Legislation, Tariff Combined Nomenclature, Tariff Classification, TARIC and integration of trade measures CUSTOMS2020 REPORT CLEN Action 2 Proficiency test on Textile Preparatory meeting 29 January 2015 Brussels, Belgium Minutes reported by CLEN TAS, under contract TAXUD/2014/DE/318. Final version, approved on 27 February First version submitted on 2 February Approved by the coordinator, the Action leader and the meeting participants. Approved by the representative of DG TAXUD Unit A4. Approved by the Head of DG TAXUD Unit A4. TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 1/16

2 AGENDA 1. Welcome and adoption of the agenda. 2. Discussion and definition of the proficiency test: agreement on the objectives of the test, wishes in terms of samples, choice of parameters, choice of methods or recommendation, call for participation, test design and tentative time schedule. 3. Allotment of tasks for the proficiency test organisation. 4. Conclusions of this meeting of the preparatory group for definition of the proficiency test on textile. 5. Any other question. Annexes Annex I List of participants Annex II Possible topics for the proficiency test (document sent by the coordinator prior to the meeting) Annex III Method MAD 02:2014 rev. 0 of the Italian Customs Agency for the analysis of Binary textile fibre mixture: protein fibres and certain other fibres TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 2/16

3 I. Welcome and adoption of the agenda The representative of DG TAXUD and the coordinator of this proficiency test welcomed all the participants to this meeting. The agenda was presented and adopted without any modification. II. Discussion and definition of the proficiency test Prior to the meeting, a document was sent by the coordinator to all the participants. This document present the three topics identified by the coordinator as relevant for the test (see Annex II). A. Part I: mixture of textile materials The coordinator explained that this was a key topic. Indeed, if there are some proficiency tests commercially available for the chemical analysis, there is no test regarding manual separation. She added that very recently a test included this aspect, but that it was the only one. The coordinator therefore suggested dealing with this topic in the proficiency test and all participants agreed. One expert (NL) added that he would like to add microscopy and infra-red measurement in the scope of the test. This proposal was supported by everyone. Different methods used for the quantitative analysis of textile mixtures, indicated in the coordinator s document, were then discussed. These methods were selected by the coordinator as the most widely used. They are provided in the EN ISO 1833 standard and apply to different type of textile mixtures. One participant (DE) wondered why the EN ISO 1833 is necessary, given that methods are already provided in Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011. The coordinator explained that the methods are identical and added that the participating laboratories will be free to use the method they prefer and will therefore be asked to specify whether they applied the ISO method or the method of the Regulation. The participant added that the German group for normalisation was actively working on this ISO standard. 1. EN ISO ANNEX B : quantitative analysis by manual separation The coordinator asked the participants their wishes in terms of samples, i.e. type of fibres. One participant (CZ) suggested having a mixture of wool and polypropylene, but this type of sample was seen as too specific by the other participants. Another expert (HU) proposed a more common sample, such as a mixture of polyester and cotton. The coordinator agreed and declared that it would be easier for the sample sourcing. She added that for this sample, it was required to have fibres that can be separated by hand. However, there are no requirements in terms of quantitative composition (percentage of each fibre). The coordinator added that it would also be better to have a textile containing no elastane, as elastane can dissolve in the light petroleum during pre-treatment. She added that when elastane is present, it is better to use acetone instead of light petroleum. 2. EN ISO : mixtures of cellulose and polyester fibres (method using sulphuric acid) This method is used for mixture of polyester and natural or regenerated cellulose fibres which form an intimate mixture and cannot be separated by hand. All experts agreed to say the identification of cellulose fibres was sometimes very complicated, not for natural fibres, but for artificial ones because their microscopic view or infra-red spectrum look very similar. One participant (LT) declared it would be interesting to have different artificial fibres in the samples. The coordinator however suggested having a simple sample, i.e. another mixture of cotton and polyester, which was agreed by the others. For this sample as well the quantitative TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 3/16

4 composition is no important and it should not contain any elastane, but in this case the fibres should not be separable by hand. The contractor in charge of the samples provision (Bipea) asked whether such mixture of fibres which cannot be separated by hand were easy to identify. The coordinator answered that it could be difficult for a non-expert but added that this type of textile is the most frequent one. She offered to have some candidate samples sent to her laboratory for validation. An expert (Action leader) declared that there was another possible method for this type of textile: method EN ISO , which uses trichloroacetic acid and chloroform. Another participant (FR) added that this method was used in her laboratory for the analysis of mixtures of polyester and cotton. Only textiles containing polyamide were not analysed by this method because the solvent would dissolve the polyamide fibres. However, most of the Customs laboratories seem to use EN ISO and it was therefore agreed to use this method in the test. 3. EN ISO : mixtures of certain proteins and certain other fibres (method using hypochlorite) The proposal of the coordinator to include this method in the field of the proficiency test was strongly seconded by Italy. Indeed, an alternative in-house method was developed by the Italian Customs Agency, which uses potassium hydroxide solution at 8.5 % m/v. instead of hypochlorite and is therefore faster and easier. In particular, there is no need to check every day the concentration of the solution, as potassium hydroxide is far more stable than hypochlorite. The method is presented in a document provided by the Italian representative (see Annex III). This method is already used on many textile samples in two Italian Customs Laboratories, although the official method is of course used in case of legal dispute. They would therefore like to get a comparative study involving many Customs Laboratories and be able to suggest this method as an official one. All participants agreed to have this topic included in the scope of the proficiency test. An expert (DE) explained that his laboratory uses nearly the same method, but with a 2 % potassium hydroxide solution. This method is provided in the standard DIN For the sample, the participants first agreed on a mixture of wool and acrylic, as it is the most common type of sample encountered by the laboratories. However, an expert (IT) explained that the Italian method is not used on mixture containing acrylic as the error is higher with this fibre. He therefore recommended having another sample. A participant (BE) declared that it would be a good opportunity to test the Italian method and suggested having two samples: wool and acrylic, as it is a very common mixture and it is included in the scope of the ISO standard/regulation, and another mixture with wool. Her suggestion was supported by another expert (DE), who declared that there was a great interest in wool and acrylic mixtures as many samples containing acrylic are declared as pure wool. The participants finally agreed on two samples: wool/acrylic and wool/polyester. For these samples, the fibres should also not be separable by hand. One expert (Action leader) suggested having a knitted fabric, which could be even more interesting. This suggestion was supported by the coordinator. In order to make a comparison, the participating laboratories will be asked to perform both the official method, using sodium hypochlorite, and the Italian method, using potassium hydroxide. An expert (Action leader) pointed out that the official method already suggested two different solvents: lithium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite. However, the other participants declared lithium hypochlorite was too difficult to find and should therefore not be included in the test. A TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 4/16

5 discussion was then carried out on the concentration of the potassium hydroxide solution. The coordinator suggested leaving the choice to the laboratories, but one expert (IT) declared that the risk would be to have many different concentrations in the end, which would not make it possible to draw any conclusions from the comparison. It was therefore decided to use the concentration of the Italian method: 8.5 % m/v. An expert (EL) explained that the advantage of such a high concentration was that the duration of the boiling stage would be reduced. Another expert (DE) however added that high concentrations could lead to the dissolving of polyamide fibres. The coordinator highlighted the fact that this method only gives the total amount of protein fibres and not their individual quantities. One participant (Action leader) asked whether the correction factors should be indicated by the laboratories. The coordinator agreed but added that this will surely be a difficult point which will lead to many debates during the discussion meeting. One expert (EL) specified that these factors were defined by the JRC in Ispra for each new fabric. 4. Other methods Microscopic identification : Following the request of one participant to include identification of fibres by microscope, the coordinator asked whether a dedicated sample should be included in the test for this purpose (pure fibres, unknown sample, etc.). This expert (NL) explained that including microscopic determination in the proficiency test was very interesting for his laboratory for accreditation purposes. However, he declared that the samples already chosen would be sufficient. A participant (Action leader) pointed out that there was a standard for the identification by microscope and IR: ISO/TR 11827:2012. Method EN ISO : One expert (DE) said he would be interested in a sample containing about 5 % elastane. Indeed, this level of 5 % leads to different classifications and he frequently encounters samples at 5.1 or 4.9 % elastane. He added that the method uses dimethylformamide (DMF), which dissolves elastane. According to his opinion, the method is not very precise, but it would be good to test it in the frame of this proficiency test. Other participants were interested in this topic and it was therefore decided to include a sample of polyester with about 5 % elastane (such composition is typically found in socks, tights, swimming suits, etc.). One participant (EL) suggested having polyamide, but it was concluded that this would lead to dissolving problems. A participant (FR) explained that there were several methods for this type of sample, which use different solvents. The first expert (DE) declared he only had experience with DMF and it was therefore decided to apply method EN ISO which uses DMF. The expert added that it was not easy to evaluate whether a sample was elastic, as there was no universal method which could be used for all kinds of fibres. However, he added that this method works quite well with polyurethane. The coordinator therefore suggested finding a sample with polyurethane as elastane. For all the samples previously defined, the coordinator declared that pre-treatment was absolutely necessary and added that in the commercial proficiency test her laboratory took part in, no pretreatment was performed on the samples, leading to bad results. For the sample containing elastane, special care should be taken in order to avoid the dissolving of the elastane. TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 5/16

6 Regarding the parameters, it was decided to have for all the samples the identification of the fibres (including IR or microscope determination) and composition in %. The coordinator wondered whether pictures should be asked for microscopy and IR analysis, but the participants concluded that it was not necessary for such simple samples, especially given the fact that many different apparatus could be used with various characteristics. For the expression of the results, one expert (IT) suggested to report the composition in the two possible ways: on the clean dry mass basis on one side and by taking into account the agreed allowances and corrections factors on the other side. It was decided to have duplicate determinations, as requested in the standard: the participants will provide two results and the mean, and this for both ways of reporting. In the standard and official method, the results are to be provided with one decimal. However, as it is a proficiency test, it was decided to ask for two decimals. As for the quantity of sample, the coordinator explained that only a few grams were necessary for each sample (pieces of 20 cm x 20 cm are usually enough). One participant (IT) however proposed to have a higher amount in order to keep some of it as reference material. Another expert (DE) explained that his laboratory uses pure fibres as reference and mixes them 50/50 to perform the analysis. The idea of keeping reference material was supported by everyone and it was thus decided to have 1 m² per sample and per laboratory. B. Part II: classification of textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics Textiles are often impregnated/coated/covered/laminated in order to be protected from water (sport textiles for example), from fire, for colour reasons, etc. The coordinator reminded that such textile fabrics have different classification codes depending whether the impregnation/coating/covering can or cannot be seen with the naked eye. She explained that this topic was an important issue, as it was discussed at the WCO level, and added that there were some court cases on this topic in her country. The coordinator declared that this determination was very subjective and that some samples could be included in the proficiency test in order to get an idea on how the Customs Laboratories understand this criterion of distinction. An expert (NL) declared that it would be interesting but will lead to strong debates. For the coordinator, this will show that the criterion is not good and that Note 2 to Chapter 59 of the Combined Nomenclature should be amended. Another expert (BE) declared that asking for a yes/no answer regarding the classification is not enough: the participants should also provide their reasons (e.g. the sample is stiffer, it is shiny, etc.) in order to see on which criteria exactly their decision is based. A participant (DE) suggested adding some specific questions in the result sheet before asking for the classification, such as Can you see the structure of the fabric? and Can you see the fibres?. He added that the two questions were similar, but that the second one meant that you could really see fibres coming out. This participant explained that he also determines whether a textile is coated by touching it and wondered whether a question could be asked about criteria other than those related to the observation with the naked eye. He added that background information on the sample were also very useful (i.e. reasons why the textile was treated). Another expert declared that it was indeed how it was done in practice, although such criteria could not be used in the report. The first expert answered that the problem was that there were not many criteria, given that the laboratories are not allowed to take into account the colour, the brightness, etc. The coordinator TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 6/16

7 acknowledged this was an issue, as said before, but that the questions asked in the result sheet should follow the legal note. A participant (Action leader) suggested asking these questions for both sides of the sample, which was agreed by all as the two sides of a textile can have different characteristics. The sides will therefore be identified on the sample (e.g. A/B). Discussions were then carried out by the participants on the definition of the different terms. Indeed, there is no standard to define them and, according to the language, there are different understandings of the words impregnated/coated/covered/laminated. An expert (Action leader) explained that this issue was discussed at the WCO level. Another expert (BE) added that during the WCO meeting, definitions (coming from previous meetings) were provided: impregnated means soaked in a polymer solution, coated means that the polymer is directly pasted, covered means that a film layer is glued on the fabric, and laminated was not clearly defined (it was asked to each country to see if they had national definitions). This expert added that in case a layer of glue can be seen, it is clear that the sample is coated, but that it was difficult to conclude when the plastic is pasted through thermal treatment. Finally, no agreement was reached at this WCO meeting and the decision on the definitions was postponed. The expert therefore suggested including in the questions: What do you understand by the word impregnated/coated/covered/laminated?, in order to get the various understandings of the laboratories. In conclusion, the following questions will be asked to the laboratories in the result sheet: First, a general question, not related to the sample: What do you understand by the word impregnated/coated/covered/laminated? Then, for each side of the sample, the following questions: o Can you see the structure of the fabric? o Can you see the fibres? o Is it coated? o Is it impregnated? And finally, a conclusion on the classification: o Does the sample belong to Chapter 59? o On which grounds is based your classification? Regarding the samples, the participants declared that it would be good to have 2 different samples, which would be impregnated/coated/covered/laminated. Preferably, the samples should have two different sides. As these samples would be more expensive, it was decided to reduce the required quantities to 400 cm² per sample and laboratory. C. Part III: classification of woven fabrics (textured and nontextured filaments) Classification in Heading 5407 depends on whether filaments are textured or not. The coordinator explained that this distinction was very important before, as there were differences in the antidumping duties. Antidumping duties are currently not applied to textiles anymore, but this can change. She therefore suggested including this topic in the proficiency test. This suggestion was supported by many participants. One expert (DE) explained he had a lot of samples when the antidumping duties were effective and that he usually looked whether the TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 7/16

8 filaments were disordered or not: if there was some disorder, they were considered as textured. He declared that he would be interested in seeing how the other Customs Laboratories do this distinction. Another participant (NL) added it was a very grey area and that it was not possible to argue on a given conclusion. An expert (DE) added that another question was the colour of woven fabrics. He talked about a case for which a laboratory in his country had to buy specific equipment to distinguish filaments which were of different shades of grey. Regarding the textured/non-textured problematic, one participant (DE) feared it would be difficult to find good samples. The coordinator said that ideally it should be one textured sample and one nontextured. However, it was pointed out (CLEN-TAS) that already 7 samples were defined for this proficiency test. In terms of budget, it could already be complicated to get all these samples and it would therefore be wiser not to add any. Beside budget reasons, having more samples will increase the number of analysis for the Customs Laboratories, which will be more complicated for them in terms of organisation and will slow down the proficiency test. An expert (BE) declared that if the number of samples is limited, the previous topics were more important than this one and should be prioritized. This was agreed by all and the coordinator suggested assigning some priorities to the previous samples in case there is any budget issue. The priorities were defined as follows: Priority n 1: polyester/cotton mixtures related to methods EN ISO and Priority n 2: wool/polyester mixture for method EN ISO Priority n 3: polyester with 5 % elastane for method EN ISO Priority n 4: wool/acrylic mixture for method EN ISO Priority n 5: impregnated/coated/covered/laminated samples However, as most of these samples should not be very expensive and given that no homogeneity test is required by the preparatory group, it is most likely it will be possible to include all these samples in the proficiency test. III. Summary, schedule of the test and conclusion of the meeting The main characteristics of the proficiency test, as defined by the preparatory group, are provided in the table below. As previously said, no homogeneity test is required for this proficiency test. The test will be called: Proficiency test on Textile. The schedule of the ring test was defined as follows: 9-10 February : call for participation launched in the e-clen community under Sinapse; End-February: list of participants available; February-March: samples sourcing and sending of candidate samples to the coordinator for validation / preparation of the result sheet; End-March: final choice of samples and purchase; April: sending of the samples to the participating Customs Laboratories, with two months to analyse them; June-July: compilation of the results and preparation of the draft report; September-October: discussion meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania. TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 8/16

9 Theme Samples Methods (the method used has to be indicated by the participant) Quantity Pretreatment Parameters Number of replicates Expression of the results Polyester/cotton mixture - separable by hand - no requirements for the quantitative composition - no elastane EN ISO (or method of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011) For each combination sample/method: Mixture of textile materials Polyester/cotton mixture - not separable by hand - no requirements for the quantitative composition - no elastane Wool/acrylic mixture EN ISO (or method of Regulation) EN ISO with sodium hypochlorite (or method of Regulation) Italian method with potassium hydroxide at 8.5 % m/v. 1 m² per sample and per participant Yes Identification of the fibres Composition expressed on the clean dry mass - 2 replicates and the mean Names of fibres % 2 decimals Wool/polyester mixture Polyester with about 5% elastane (preferably polyurethane) EN ISO with sodium hypochlorite (or method of Regulation) Italian method with potassium hydroxide at 8.5 % m/v. EN ISO with DMF (or method of Regulation) Composition expressed with the agreed allowances (as provided in Annex IX of the Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011) 2 replicates and the mean % 2 decimals TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 9/16

10 Theme Samples Methods (the method used has to be indicated by the participant) Quantity Pretreatment Parameters Number of replicates Expression of the results Qualitative answers Analysis by visual examination, with questions to be answered: - Classification in Chapter 59 (impregnated, coated, covered or laminated samples) Impregnated/coated/ covered/laminated samples - with preferably 2 different sides - preferably 2 samples (with treatments that can and cannot be seen with the naked eye) Routine method 400 cm² per sample and per participant No Definition: What do you understand by: - impregnated? - coated? - covered? - laminated? Analysis of the samples: - Can you see the structure of the fabric? - Can you see the fibres? - Is it coated? - Is it impregnated? - Free text - Yes/no answers for each side of the sample (A/B) Classification: - Does the sample belong to Chapter 59? - On which grounds is based your classification? - Yes/no and free text Before closing the meeting, some last questions were raised by the participants. One expert (NL) asked whether the methods will be sent with the samples. The contractor answered that for intellectual property reasons, the ISO standards could not be sent but the Italian method will be provided to all the participants to the proficiency test. Regarding method EN ISO using DMF, one expert (DE) recommended that the participants take special care during the analysis to avoid the dissolving of the fibres. A participant recommended to specify on the result sheet the fact that pretreatment of the samples is necessary, in order to help less experienced laboratories. Finally, a participant suggested that participants come with samples at the discussion meeting: this way, difficult or interesting samples could be seen and discussed by everyone and it will be interesting to compare the different opinions that can be raised. In conclusion, the coordinator summarized the main outcome of the meeting and thanked all the members of this preparatory group for their active participation. The representative of DG TAXUD also thanked the participants and closed this preparatory meeting. TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 10/16

11 Annex I - List of participants Commission: Mr P. Brunerie EC-TAXUD Member States Ms R. Neniškienė Ms N. Varra Ms I. Vinckier Ms R. Zrckova Ms L. Fock Hiou Loye Mr L. Heiss Ms M. Stassinopoulou Ms R. Kapiller-Dezsőfi Mr A. D Orsi Ms J. Vaitkevičiutė Mr B. Zegers Lithuania - coordinator France - Action leader Belgium Czech Republic France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Lithuania The Netherlands Contractors Mr E. Ziegler Ms A. Rebours BIPEA CLEN TAS Eurofins CLEN TAS TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 11/16

12 Annex II - Possible topics for the proficiency test (document sent by the coordinator prior to the meeting) TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 12/16

13 TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 13/16

14 TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 14/16

15 Annex III - Method MAD 02:2014 rev. 0 of the Italian Customs Agency for the analysis of Binary textile fibre mixture: protein fibres and certain other fibres TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 15/16

16 TAXUD/2014/DE/318 Page 16/16