Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings on Nov. 4
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 4 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.
H327804: Coastwise Transportation; Offshore Cable; Cable Protection Materials; 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; Modification of H322233 (Sept. 2, 2022)
| Rulings: (1) The use of the trenching machine by the non-coastwise-qualified CIV does not violate the law. (2) Cable laden onto the non-coastwise-qualified CIV at a coastwise point and laid on the seabed in U.S. territorial waters does not violate the Jones Act.(3) The return of unused electric transmission cable on board the non-coastwise-qualified CIV to the same U.S. point at which it was originally laden does not constitute coastwise trade in violation of the Jones Act.(4) The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to transport this material from one U.S. point to the subject cable, another coastwise point, would be in violation of the Jones Act.(5) The transportation of the project crew on board the CIV would not be in violation of the PVSA to the extent the crew are performing tasks on board the vessel that are related to the operation of the vessel. |
| Issues: (1) Whether the use of the trenching machine to create a seabed cable trench violates the coastwise dredging statute? (2) Whether the subject cable placement and movement by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act? (3) Whether the return of surplus cable to a U.S. port by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act? (4) Whether the transportation of concrete mats and other material on board a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to be placed over the subject cable violates the Jones Act? (5) Whether the transportation of the marine and project crew on board a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Passenger Vessel Services Act? |
| Item: N/A |
| Reason: (1) Creating a path along the seabed while placing cable does not constitute “dredging." (2) The laying of electric transmission cable along the seabed does not constitute coastwise trade as the material is not landed as cargo. (3) N/A (4) the electric transmission cable is a coastwise point. The transportation of concrete mats from one U.S. point to the subject cable constitutes coastwise trade under the Jones Act and the material is considered “merchandise." (5) The crew is responsible for cable installation which is part of the vessel's operation. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 28, 2022 |
H312092: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2720-20-101943; RMD Gutkha; excise tax
| Rulings: (1) RMD Gutkha is classified under subheading 2403.99.2030 as “Other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; “homogenized” or “reconstituted” tobacco; tobacco extracts and essences: Other: Other: Prepared for marketing to the ultimate consumer in the identical form and package in which imported: Chewing tobacco.” (2) CBP lacks the authority to issue a refund of excise taxes collected on imported tobacco products where the importer has not demonstrated an exception from the application of section 6423. |
| Issues: (1) What is the tariff classification of the RMD Gutkha? (2) Whether the protestant is entitled to a refund of tobacco excise taxes from CBP. |
| Item: “RMD Gutkha.” The stated ingredients are crushed betel nuts, aromatic spices (lime, saffron, and cardamom), and crushed tobacco leaf. The product contains 6% tobacco and appears as large, dry, and rough grayish/beige chunks, which are betel nut and tobacco leaf bits coated in the spice mixture. The gutkha is packaged in 4-gram pouches. |
| Reason: RMD Gutkha can be chewed as well as sucked, and the tobacco in the gutkha is in the form of crushed tobacco leaf. A credit or refund is due “only if the credit or refund is claimed on the grounds that an amount of alcohol or tobacco tax was assessed or collected erroneously, illegally, without authority, or in any manner wrongfully, or on the grounds that such amount was excessive.” |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 19, 2022 |
H323585: Internal Advice; First Sale Valuation and Related Party Pricing
| Ruling: Transaction value may not be used. The sale between Middleman and Manufacturer was not a bona fide sale for export to the U.S. |
| Issue: Whether the transaction at issue may be appraised using the transaction value between Middleman and Manufacturer as a bona fide sale for export to the United States. |
| Item: N/A |
| Reason: Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that the sales price between the middleman and the manufacturer was not influenced by the relationship of the parties. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 31, 2022 |
H324168: Internal Advice; Tariff Classification of CA2786 Spirulina Blue Colour
| Ruling: Spirulina Blue Colour is classified under subheading 3824.99.92 as “Prepared binders for foundry molds or cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Issue: What is the proper tariff classification of the CA2786 Spirulina Blue Colour? |
| Item: A water soluble, coloring powder that ranges from light greenish blue to dark blue. The product is made in China and is sold to food manufacturers for use in the beverage, confectionary, dairy, nutraceutical, and pet food industries. The product is said to have the ability to “enhance immunity” and have “anti-inflammat[ory], anti-oxidant, [and] anti-cancer effect[s].” |
| Reason: The subject merchandise is not classifiable in heading 2102, as two excipients are added to the product which "alter the character of the product as micro-organisms." It is also not classifiable in heading 3203 as it is not “of vegetable or animal origin” because it includes two chemical excipients and the spirulina is neither a vegetable nor an animal. It is not classifiable in heading 3206 as it is not used for any of the purposes provided for in the EN to 32.06. Phycocyanin is described as having a variety of potential health effects. When mixed with the trehalose and sodium citrate, the phycocyanin does not preclude the completed product from classification in heading 3824. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 26, 2022 |
H321630: Country of origin of Faucets; Section 301 trade remedy
| Ruling: The country of origin of all three faucets for the purpose of Section 301 measures will be Vietnam. |
| Issue: Whether the country of origin of the subject faucets is Vietnam or China for marking and Section 301 purposes. |
| Items: Faucets. The valve assemblies and bodies will be manufactured in Vietnam. |
| Reason: The valve assemblies as exported from Vietnam to China have a pre-determined use to make finished faucets and the valves perform the essential function of starting and stopping the flow of water. The handles and spout also play a functional role in enabling the user to open and close the valves so that water is delivered in a controlled manner. The spout and handles are an important factor in the consumer decision-making process of choosing which faucet to purchase, as the design of these elements will generally influence the final purchaser’s decision based on the color, style, and size, and whether the faucet will fit physically and stylistically into a particular space. The spout and handles serve more of a decorative purpose and the valve bodies impart more of the essence of the finished faucet, the country of origin of the faucets in the instant case to be Vietnam. |
| Ruling Date: June 27, 2022 |