March 27 CBP Bulletin Proposes to Revoke Rulings on Absorber Crashbox, Ratchet and Pawl Device
In the March 27 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 58, No. 12), CBP published a proposal to revoke and modify ruling letters concerning an absorber crashbox and a ratchet and pawl cargo securing device.
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.
Comments on Proposal Due April 26
CBP said consideration will be given to any written comments received by April 26 before taking these actions. In addition, any party that has received a ruling or decision on the merchandise that is subject to the proposed revocations or modifications, or any party involved with a substantially identical transaction, should advise CBP by the date that written comments on the proposed ruling are due. (An importer's failure to advise CBP of such rulings, decisions or substantially identical transactions may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations after the effective date of the final decision in this notice.)
Proposal
CBP is proposing to revoke or modify the rulings below, and any rulings on these products that may exist but have not been specifically identified. CBP also is proposing to revoke any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
An Absorber Crashbox
| Item: An Absorber Crashbox, which is designed to be used with passenger vehicles. The crash box is an important component designed exclusively to absorb energy in the event of a collision. It prevents the spread of kinetic energy, generating less damage to the vehicle structure. It is placed between the bumper and side rails before the chassis points. |
| Current: Country of origin China |
| Proposed: Country of origin Mexico |
| Reason: The sawing, stamping, washing, heat treatment and aging processes performed on the aluminum profiles in Mexico as part of their manufacture into Absorber Crashboxes result in a substantial transformation |
| Proposed for modification: NY N326445, dated June 30, 2022 |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H335139 |
A Ratchet and Pawl Cargo Securing Device
| Item: A steel ratchet and pawl cargo securing device designed to be used with a two inch woven polyester webbing to secure cargo and prevent it from shifting. The ratchet and pawl device consists of a frame containing toothed ratchet wheels mounted at the sides of a slotted drum, spring-loaded pawls, and a lever handle. The handle is worked back and forth in order to turn the drum and tighten the webbing. As the drum turns, the pawls engage with the teeth on the ratchet wheels to prevent the drum from rotating backwards, thus maintaining tension on the webbing. To release the tension, the pawls can be manually pulled back to disengage them from the ratchet wheels. |
| Current: 8425.39.0100, free, “Pulley tackle and hoists other than skip hoists; winches and capstans; jacks: Winches; capstans: Other.” |
| Proposed: 8479.89.95, 2.5%, “Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and mechanical appliances: Other.” |
| Reason: While the ratchet and pawl classified in NY N262442 does provide mechanical advantage, and is thus distinguishable from simple hardware like D rings or cams, it is not a winch. It does not have a separate stand-alone drum, nor does it have a handle or a crank like the winches covered by heading 8425, HTSUS. Rather, it has a lever or handle that the user pumps back and forth to tighten the webbing that has been threaded through its frame. Therefore, the subject ratchet and pawl is classified with the other ratchets under heading 8479, as a machine having individual functions not specified elsewhere. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY N262442, dated April 8, 2015 |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H336105 |