Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for April 27
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 27 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.
H322700: Application for Further Review of Protest number 2016-21-100103; Preference Claim under the Trade Agreement Between the United States and Japan
| Ruling: The insulators are originating under the Trade Agreement Between the United States and Japan. This protest may be granted. |
| Issue: whether the importer’s claim for Trade Agreement Between the United States and Japan preference was properly denied |
| Item: Insulators |
| Reason: Since the insulator contains non-originating materials, it is not considered a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in a JP party. The non-originating components, silicon nitride, classified in 2850.00, yttrium, classified in 2846.60, and the erbium, classified in 2846.90, are classified in a subheading other than 8546.20, HTSUS, the rule of origin is met. |
| Ruling Date: March 17, 2022 |
H322324: Protest and Application for Further Review 2720-21-104126; prototype; cameras
| Ruling: The cameras meet the requirements for classification as a prototype under subheading 9817.85.01 |
| Issues: whether the entered merchandise is entitled to treatment as a prototype under subheading 9817.85.01 |
| Item: Leopard B2 cameras, which Zoox will incorporate into Zoox pre-production prototype vehicles. Zoox initially entered these cameras with a primary classification as prototypes under subheading 9817.85.01 and a secondary classification of 8525.80.40. CBP liquidated the merchandise under subheading 8525.80.30. In this protest, Zoox argues that the correct primary classification of the merchandise is under subheading 9817.85.01 but does not contest the change to the secondary classification of 8525.80.30, HTSUS. |
| Reason: Original or models of articles can only be used for development, testing, product evaluation or quality control purposes at any stage of the production process. The cameras are for use as prototypes in the preproduction stage as the Zoox autonomous taxicab, which is still in the testing and development phase. The cameras also meet the requirements as they are imported in a limited commercial quantity and they will either be stored or destroyed after testing. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 22, 2022 |
H321162: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4103-21-102401; Woodcraft Supply, LLC; First sale valuation
| Ruling: The protest should be denied. Appraisement of the merchandise should be based upon the price paid by the U.S. importer. |
| Issue: whether the transactions at issue in the protest may be appraised using the transaction value between the foreign manufacturer and Woodriver as a bona fide sale for export to the United States |
| Item: N/A |
| Reason: Woodcraft has not provided sufficient proof that a bona fide sale exists between the manufacturer/factory and the Woodriver entity. In each case, the Master Sales and Purchase Agreement is a contract between a middleman and Woodcraft, and the manufacturer/factory is not a party. The sale between the importer and the middleman does not control the sale between the middleman and the manufacturer. Merely including a clause within the contract that attests to certain facts about a sale taking place between the middleman and the manufacturer does not provide actual proof of the facts of that sale or whether risk of loss and title actually transfer to the middleman before it enters into the transaction with the importer, Woodcraft. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 18, 2022 |
H313241: Request for Reconsideration of NY N312986; Tariff Classification of a Handled Electric Skateboard from China
| Ruling: The electric skateboard is classified in subheading 8711.60.00 which provides for “Motorcycles (including mopeds) and cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor, with or without side-cars; side-cars: With electric motor for propulsion….” |
| Issue: whether the motorized skateboard with handle is classified under heading 8711 as a motorcycle and cycle fitted with an auxiliary motor, or under heading 9506 as an article for general physical exercise |
| Item: A four-wheeled electric scooter, equipped with a handle for stability and ease of steering. The Yawboard is equipped with a Li-ion battery, which powers two (800W brushless motors. The top speed of the Yawboard is 20mph, a range of approximately 20 miles and an estimated weight of 12-14kg. A supplied remote control is used to accelerate and brake the scooter. |
| Reason: It is well established that heading 8711, HTSUS includes skateboards or scooters with motors. The ENs to heading 8711 state that the heading covers electrically-powered transportation devices, designed for carrying a single person, for use within low speed areas such as pavements (sidewalks), paths, and bicycle lanes. The presence of a motor indicates that the item is generally not intended to be foot-powered, thereby lessening the capacity to provide the user with meaningful exercise and a reasonable degree of physical activity. |
| Ruling Date: April 20, 2022 |