CIT Classifies Laser Additive Manufacturing Machines in HTS Residual Provisions; Not Welders or Machine Tools
The Court of International Trade ruled that laser sintering machines that use an additive manufacturing process to build metal and plastic objects are correctly classified under residual provisions for machinery, instead of as machine tools or laser welders. Both EOS and the government argued that technology in each category has advanced beyond what the writers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for those products could have anticipated. But CIT, turning to common definitions of each, said neither category could be stretched to include the laser sintering machines.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Products Use Additive Manufacturing to Build Objects
EOS imported two models of laser sintering machines in 2007. The EOSINT M270 and P390 systems use an additive manufacturing process to create complex three-dimensional objects out of layers of particles of metal (in the case of the M270) or particles of plastics (in the case of the P390). For each model, a computer directs a built-in laser that selectively heats and melts together particles within a “build chamber” to form thin layers shaped to specification.
EOS argued that both the M270 and E360 should be classified as laser beam welding machines under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8515.80.00, a duty free provision. Alternatively, it argued the M270 should be classified under subheading 8479.89.98, a residual provision for “machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or elsewhere included in this chapter; Other,” dutiable at 2.5%.
CBP said the M270 should instead be classified as a machine tool in subheading 8463.90.00, dutiable at 4.4%. The agency also posited that, in the alternative, the M270 should be classified under the subheading 8479.89.98 residual provision. CBP argued the P390 should be classified in subheading 8477.80.00 (“machinery for working rubber or plastics or for the manufacture of products from these materials, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter … other machinery”), dutiable at 3.1%.
Not Welders or Machine Tools; ‘Machinery Not Specified Elsewhere’
In its opinion, the court ruled out EOS’ preferred classification in heading 8515. Neither model meets established definitions of laser beam welding machines, because they don’t join discrete parts, CIT said. Instead, the metal and plastic particles are completely liquefied in the laser sintering process, which “destroys their individual identities, thus rendering them shapeless,” the court said. When the raw materials re-solidify, they don’t regain their individual shapes or identities.
But turning to CBP’s proposed classification for the M270, the court said that model of laser sintering machine couldn’t be classified as a machine tool under subheading 8463.90.00 either. Again looking at common definitions, CIT said machine tools create metal objects by removing material from, or deforming, existing solid metal forms. The laser sintering machines, by contrast, build up metal objects from small metal particles, the court said.
The M270 is instead correctly classified in both parties’ alternative residual classifications under subheading 8479.89.98 (“machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter”), CIT said. The laser sintering function performed by the M270 isn’t described anywhere else in Chapter 84, the court said. And Chapter 84’s residual provision takes precedence over Chapter 85’s residual provision in heading 8543, because the M270’s mechanical functions are more important than its electrical ones, CIT said.
And the P360 falls within CBP’s proposed classification under subheading 8477.80.00 as “machinery for working rubber of plastics or for the manufacture of products from these materials, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter,” CIT said. The terms of that subheading exactly describe the laser sintering machine, the court said.
(EOS of North America, Inc. v. U.S.; Slip Op. 13-59, dated 05/10/13, Judge Stanceu)
(Attorneys: Damon Pike of The Pike Law Firm for plaintiff EOS of North America; Justin Miller for defendant U.S. government)