Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for April 21
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 21 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
H321772: Tariff classification of interlocking artificial grass floor tiles
| Ruling: The interlocking artificial grass floor tiles are classified in subheading 6307.90.98, HTSUS, which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of the interlocking artificial grass floor tiles under consideration? |
| Item: Interlocking artificial grass floor tiles. Each tile measures 12 x 12 inches, and contains artificial grass mounted onto a rigid plastic interlocking base. The artificial grass blades, comprised wholly of polypropylene, are tufted into a woven polypropylene fabric in rows and secured by strips of glue on the back of the fabric. The pile height is approximately 18 millimeters. The tufted fabric is glued to a molded rigid polypropylene plastic base. The molded base is ribbed on the top surface, has ½ inch long cylindrical shaped protrusions spaced every 1 ½ inch on the underside and five tabs on two of the sides that allow the tiles to be connected. The value breakdown of the artificial grass floor tiles is as follows: the artificial turf/synthetic grass accounts for 53% of the final product, while the plastic base accounts for 47% of the final product. |
| Reason: The floor tiles under consideration are composite goods, consisting of the polypropylene fabric and glass component. Both the polypropylene fabric and grass component, and the molded rigid polypropylene plastic base component, serve a significant function. Because both components serve a significant function with each one also accounting for roughly half of the value of the final product, we cannot say which one gives the interlocking floor tiles their essential character. Therefore, the items are classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. |
| Ruling Date: April 15, 2022 |
H300962: Coastwise Transportation; Wind Turbines; Scour Protection; 46 U.S.C. § 55102; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 46 U.S.C. § 55109; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b.
| Ruling: (1) The use of the subject trenching machine by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel not constitute “dredging” as contemplated by the coastwise dredging statute. (2) The laying of cable along the seabed for the purpose of storage and subsequent pick up does not constitute coastwise trade. (3) The transportation of concrete mats and other material from one U.S. point to the subject electric cable constitutes coastwise trade under the Jones Act. CBP determines that such material is “merchandise” as contemplated by the Jones Act. (4) The proposed installation of scour protection materials on the pristine seabed of the OCS by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel is not in violation of the Jones Act. The use of such a vessel to install scour protection on top of an existing layer of scour protection on the OCS would be in violation of the Jones Act because such a location constitutes a coastwise point. (5) Transportation of WTG piles or components from a U.S. point to an installation vessel physically affixed to the seabed of the OCS for the purpose of installing an offshore wind energy structure constitutes coastwise trade under the Jones Act. The proposed use of a coastwise-qualified vessel to conduct this portion of the transaction is in compliance with the Jones Act. (6) The proposed use of non-coastwise-qualified installation vessels to lift and construct the subject WTGs would not violate the Jones Act because the proposed operation does not constitute transportation. (7) The transportation of installation tools by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel would not violate the Jones Act. The transportation of the project crew on board the Installation Vessel between WTG installation sites attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation of the PVSA to the extent the crew are performing tasks substantially related to the operation of the vessel. |
| Issues: (1) Whether the use of the trenching machine deployed by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to create a path along the seabed in which to place the cable constitutes a violation of the coastwise dredging statute, 46 U.S.C. § 55109? (2) Whether the subject cable placement, storage, and movement by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? (3) Whether the transportation of concrete mats and other material to be placed over the subject cable on board a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? (4) Whether the installation of the subject scour protection onto the seabed of the U.S. OCS by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? (5) Whether the transportation of WTG piles and components to a non-coastwise-qualified installation vessel on the U.S. OCS violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? (6) Whether the use of non-coastwise-qualified installation vessels to lift and construct the subject piles and WTGs violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? (7) Whether the transportation of installation tools and material between WTG sites on board a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102? |
| Item: N/A |
| Reason: CBP has held that the use of certain devices to create underwater trenches for the purpose of cable laying does not constitute “dredging.” CBP has long held that the sole use of a vessel in laying pipe or cable between two coastwise points is not considered a use in the coastwise trade of the U.S. The concrete mats are "merchandise" and portions of cable resting in U.S. territorial waters are a coastwise point because the Jones Act clearly applies to points in the territorial sea. CBP previously has determined that jurisdiction does not reach activity occurring at the pristine seabed. The installation site is a coastwise point because it is not "pristine seabed." CBP has previously held that the use of a non-coastwise-qualified crane vessel to lade and unlade cargo or to construct or dismantle a marine structure is not coastwise trade. The subject installation tools and materials constitute “vessel equipment.” |
| Ruling Date: April 14, 2022 |
H294092: Request to reconsider NY N287918; Classification of a gaming headphone set from China
| Ruling: NY 287918 is affirmed. The subject “XO Four Stealth” gaming headphone set remains classified in subheading 8518.30.20, “Microphones and stands therefor; loudspeakers, whether or not mounted in their enclosures; headphones and earphones, whether or not combined with a microphone, and sets consisting of a microphone and one or more loudspeakers; audio-frequency electric amplifiers; electric sound amplifier sets; parts thereof: Headphones and earphones, whether or not combined with a microphone, and sets consisting of a microphone and one or more loudspeakers: Other…” |
| Issue: reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) N287918, dated July 14, 2017 |
| Item: “XO Four Stealth” gaming headphone set, which consists of a wired headset, detachable microphone and an adapter unit. The wired headset incorporates two large padded ear cups (speakers), a microphone connection port and an approximately 3 foot length of audio cable terminated by a standard 3.5mm, 4 conductor, TRRS audio plug. This plug would allow the headset to be used with a variety of audio sources. The adapter unit incorporates a 3.5mm audio port, a proprietary connector that allows it to be electrically connected to a gaming system hand controller and a variety of control buttons. The adapter unit/audio controller allows the user to connect the headset to a gaming controller while also providing additional audio control functions. This proprietary adapter/audio controller uses the transfer of digital data to connect to the gaming controller. The digital data is decoded into security, control and audio signals. The detachable microphone consists of a microphone attached to an approximately 5 inch length of audio cable which is terminated by a standard 3.5mm, 3 conductor TRS plug connectors. The microphone would be plugged into the headset to form a telecommunication style of headset. |
| Reason: NY N287918 does not rely on GRI 3. Rather, the “XO Fourth Stealth” gaming headphone set is classified pursuant to GRI 1 (Note 4 to Section XVI), under heading 8518, HTSUS. The components that make up the subject merchandise contribute together to translate an electrical signal into an audible sound and translate an audible sound into an electrical signal. |
| Ruling Date: April 12, 2022 |
H312973: First Sale Appraisement; Fabric
| Ruling: Nolar Industries has not established that the sale between Nolar and the foreign manufacturer is a bona fide sale for export to the United States. |
| Issue: Whether the sale between the middleman, Nolar, and the foreign manufacturer qualifies as an acceptable basis for appraisement of the subject merchandise. Whether the transactions at issue may be appraised using the transaction value between the foreign manufacturer and Nolar Industries as a bona fide sale for export to the U.S. |
| Item: nonwoven fabrics |
| Reason: Nolar did not meet the burden of demonstrating that the sale at issue was a bona fide sale for export to the U.S. CBP reached out to Nolar requesting additional information such as further details regarding the structure of the transaction, any other potential U.S. customers for the subject goods, and a description of the corporate relationship of the parties, if any. The requested documentation was never provided. By not providing sufficient information, Nolar has not established that the sale between Nolar and the manufacturer was a sale for export to the U.S. |
| Ruling Date: March 31, 2022 |