Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Dec. 20-22
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 20-22 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
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.
H333886: 46 U.S.C. § 55102; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b(a); New and Different Product; Proposed Transportation of Briquette Feed
| Ruling: Based on the information provided, the proposed processing operations would result in the creation of a new and different product within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b(a); therefore, the proposed transportation by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel would not be a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55102. |
| Issue: Whether the proposed processing of iron ore pellet chips and fines into briquette feedstock would result in the creation of a “new and different product” within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b(a), such that the proposed transportation would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55102. |
| Item: Iron ore pellets produced in the U.S. The transportation and handling of the pellets results in the creation of iron ore pellet chips and fines that are not suitable as pellet feed for the blast furnace used to produce iron, but when crushed can be suitable to produce either sinter feed or briquette feedstock used to make briquettes utilized in the production of direct reduced iron. The briquette feedstock must be further processed into briquettes before it may be used to produce steel. The iron ore pellet chips and fines will be crushed into briquette feedstock in Ontario. The briquette feedstock will then be transported from Ontario to Toledo, Ohio, utilizing a non-coastwise qualified vessel. From there, the briquette feedstock will be transported by ground to a facility in Indiana, where they will be molded by a press into briquettes. |
| Reason: The briquette feedstock must be agglomerated into briquettes prior to use in steel making, resulting in a “new and different product.” Therefore, the proposed transportation is not considered coastwise transportation within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55102. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 3, 2023 |
H326926: Use of Unlicensed Data Entry Company; Customs Business; 19 U.S.C. § 1641; 19 C.F.R. § 111.1
| Ruling: The Unlicensed Company would impermissibly conduct customs business by extrapolating entry-related data from shipping documents and keying that data into Heizwerthy’s ABI software system. |
| Issue: Whether the unlicensed company will conduct customs business by extrapolating entry-related data from shipment documents and keying that data into Heizwerthy’s ABI system. |
| Facts: Heizwerthy is a licensed customs broker that would like to use a foreign and un unlicensed “offshore data entry company” to key data into Heizwerthy’s ABI software system. This unlicensed company would enter data elements provided by Heizwerthy through the use of “standard operating procedures and shipment documents," reviewing shipment documents, such as a bill of lading and commercial invoice, and extrapolate certain data elements necessary to file entry for the imported merchandise to key into the ABI software based on instructions provided by Heizwerthy. The unlicensed company would sign a confidentiality agreement and would only be granted a “limited access role” in Heizwerthy’s ABI software system, which would prevent the Unlicensed Company from transmitting entry data to CBP directly, generating customs documents, or viewing importer files. After the data has been entered, Heizwerthy would audit the data, make necessary amendments, and transmit the entry data to CBP. |
| Reason: Identifying entry-related data and keying it into an ABI system for falls squarely within the scope of preparing parts of an entry intended to be filed with CBP. Consequently, the unlicensed company would impermissibly be performing “customs business”. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1641(b)(1), no person may conduct customs business on behalf of another unless they hold a valid customs broker’s license. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 19, 2023 |
H325768: Tariff classification of six 12-inch plush articles described as a “Squishmallows®” “Squad”
| Ruling: By application of GRI’s 1 and 6, the articles are classified in subheading 9503.00.00. The column one, general rate of duty is Free. |
| Issue: Whether the six plush articles in the grouping are classified in heading 9404 as pillows or in heading 9503 as toys. |
| Item: A “squad” of six plush, whimsical, stuffed articles that are imported together but sold individually at retail with a suggested retail price of $14.99-$19.99. They are marketed as a collectible assortment, as shown on their hangtags. |
| Reason: The size of the items, their shape, their depth, their plush squishiness, and their colorful and fun design demonstrate that they are designed to amuse rather than be used for utilitarian purpose, and a personality and a name have been created for each plush creature, characteristics that are intended to humanize the articles for a child’s amusement. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 22, 2023 |
H322257: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4701-21-102076; Granulated turmeric extract/standardized curcumin extract
| Ruling: By application of GRI 1, the subject curcumin 95% (granular) is classified in subheading 2106.90.99 as “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: “Other: Other: Other: Other.” The column one general rate of duty is 6.4% ad valorem. |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of granulated turmeric extract/standardized curcumin extract? |
| Item: The merchandise at issue is described as curcumin 95% (granular) and is composed of curcumin extract granules, which are produced from the roots of turmeric (i.e., a turmeric extract). The production process consists of grinding, solvent extraction, distillation of solvent, crystallization, filtration and vacuum drying, and granulation. The final composition of the subject product consists of granulated curcumin powder with a strength of 95% curcuminoids with the remaining 5% consisting of natural non-curcuminoid turmeric extractives. The production process to obtain the 95% curcumin content involves the removal of volatile oils, crude fiber, dietary fiber, protein and carbohydrates. The granulated curcumin powder is imported in bulk within 25-kilogram drums and is not in consumer packaging. It is said to be used as a flavoring in food applications, coloring for cheese products, and for general health benefits in dietary supplements. |
| Reason: Contrary to Protestant’s assertions, the subject turmeric extract need not be encapsulated or in tablet form to have the character of a preparation of heading 2106. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 20, 2023 |