Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Oct. 14
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 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.
Below are half of the rulings that were released on Oct. 14:
H331318: Application for Further Review of Protest number 2304-23-102744; USMCA Preference Claim; 19 U.S.C. § 1514; 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d); Denial of Preference Claim
| Ruling: CBP’s liquidation of the imported merchandise at the general rates of duty was proper, and the entry subject to this protest was properly liquidated because the importer failed to file a claim for preferential tariff treatment at the time of entry or within one year of importation. The importer’s claim for USMCA preference under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 was properly denied. |
| Issue: Was the importer’s claim for USMCA preference under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 properly denied? |
| Item: Unnamed merchandise imported by Kunhwa Mexico |
| Reason: Kunhwa did not make a claim for preferential tariff treatment at the time of filing of the entry summary in 2022 as required by 19 CFR § 182.31, and the entry was liquidated at the applicable general rate of duty. Since Kunhwa did not make a claim for preferential treatment at the time of entry or file a § 1520(d) post-importation claim within one year of importation, CBP’s liquidation of the imported merchandise at the general rates of duty was correct based on the information provided at entry, and this protest should be denied. |
| Ruling Date: May 10, 2023 |
H333407: Country of Origin Marking; proMESH
| Country of Origin: The proMesh sand control solution will be classified in subheading 8421.29.00, and the country of origin for marking purposes will be Canada. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the proMesh sand control solution for purposes of country of origin marking? |
| Item: Variperm Canada's 4.5 inch proMESH, described as a cost-effective sand control solution that is designed to filter a high percentage of poorly sorted sands in unconsolidated formations, classifiable under subheading 8421.29.00. It consists of a base pipe -- either slotted or perforated -- support core, filter media, drainage layer and protective shroud. The filter media is the core of the sand control mechanism and can be engineered to meet customer’s specific reservoir requirements. |
| Reason: Pursuant to 19 CFR §102.11(a)(3), the country of origin of a good is the country in which each foreign material incorporated in that good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification as set forth in 19 CFR §102.20 and satisfies any other applicable requirements of that section. The applicable tariff shift requirement in section 102.20 for the proMESH of subheading 8421.29, HTSUS, is: A change to subheading 8421.11 through 8421.39 from any other subheading, including another subheading within that group. The foreign material in this case consists of the mesh jackets, centralizers, and casings. The mesh jackets are classified in 8421.99.01, while the centralizers and casings are classified in Chapter 73. Accordingly, the tariff shift requirement of section 102.11(a)(3) is met. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 25, 2024 |
H332525: Country of Origin; Refrigerated and Non-Refrigerated Trailers; Section 301 Measures; Country of Origin Marking
| Country of Origin: The country of origin of the subject refrigerated and non-refrigerated trailers for Section 301 purposes is Canada. The country of origin for the purposes of marking is also Canada. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the subject trailers imported from Canada for purposes of the application of Section 301 measures and marking? |
| Item: Certain refrigerated and non-refrigerated truck trailers classified under subheading 8716.39.00, which provides for “Trailers and semi-trailers…; Other trailers and semi-trailers for the transport of goods; Other; Other; Other; Other.” The subject truck trailers are detachable, non-motorized trailers intended to be pulled by motorized truck units to transport merchandise. The refrigerated and non-refrigerated trailers consist of a trailer body, with components from China, and an undercarriage, which is referred to as a “bogie,” with components from the United States. The refrigerated trailers also contain a refrigeration unit with components from the United States. Additional components and sub-assemblies from China and the United States are imported into Canada for final assembly in Canada. The bogie is the assembly that provides the movement-related functions of the trailer. |
| Reason: Based on the information provided, CBP finds that the Canadian production process substantially transforms the individual components into an article with a new name, character, and use — the subject refrigerated and non-refrigerated trailers. Importantly, the manufacturing process in Canada is complex and meaningful. As outlined in your request, the Canadian assembly process occurs in two stages (i.e., the production of the bogie and the “box”) and involves approximately 17 individual steps. The Canadian production, furthermore, requires dozens of skilled and specially trained employees and the use of various types of specialized equipment, including cranes, forklifts, and welding machines. The production also involves several extensive processes, including bolting, riveting, welding, and wiring. As a result of the Canadian operations, the underlying components undergo a change in name, first to either the bogie or the box, and then to the trailer itself. The components also undergo a change in character, from discrete objects into a fully functioning trailer. Finally, the components undergo a change in use, from a wide array of automotive or transportation uses, to a specific trailer unit intended to transport cargo. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 27, 2024 |
H331488: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations; Country of Origin of Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters Capsules
| Country of Origin: The Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters made in Norway, do not undergo a substantial transformation when encapsulated into individual doses and combined with inactive ingredients in China. Therefore, the country of origin of the Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters capsules for purposes of U.S. government procurement is Norway. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters capsules for the purposes of U.S. government procurement? |
| Item: Epic Pharma's Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters capsules. Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters, which are the sole Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) in the final product, are produced in Norway, while in China, the API is combined with inactive ingredients of various origins to produce the finished capsules. |
| Reason: The processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals into dosage form, even with the addition of inactive ingredients, will not result in a substantial transformation. In this case, the processing begins with the Norwegian-origin bulk Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters, and after the product is processed and combined with inactive ingredients in China, it results in Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters capsules. There is no change in name after processing. Furthermore, no change in character occurs in China, as the Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters maintain the same chemical and physical properties both before and after processing. Finally, because the Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters have a predetermined medical use to “reduce TG levels in adult patients with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia,” no change in use occurs after it is processed in China. |
| Ruling Date: March 28, 2024 |
H336031: Country of Origin; CATV Amplifiers; Section 301 trade remedy
| Country of Origin: The country of origin of the HGD, HGBT, and Line Extender is the country in which the main PCBA is manufactured (i.e., Vietnam, Taiwan, or a country other than China). |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the subject HGBT, HGD, and line extender? |
| Item: Applied Optoelectronics' several models of cable television broadband (CATV): 1. the Quantum12 High Gain Balance Triple 1.2 GHz System Amplifier (the HGBT); 2. the Quantum12 High Gain Dual 1.2 GHz Amplifier (the HGD); and 3. the Quantum12 LE 1.2 GHz Line Extender (the LE or Line Extender). The subject system amplifiers (the HGBT and HGD) and the Line Extender have almost identical production processes with slightly different processing times and components used. Each device is composed of a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) and other structural component parts. The HGBT and HGD models contain a Chinese-origin reverse amplifier module (i.e., the reverse AMP), which is a secondary PCBA used to transmit and amplify signals in the reverse path from the user end to operators. The system amplifiers and Line Extender are manufactured in a series of approximately nine steps occurring in either China or “Vietnam, Taiwan, or a country other than China.” |
| Reason: CBP determines that the various components undergo a change in character via the PCBA creation, and that no change of character occurs via assembly in China. As it did in H326574, AOI indicates that a variety of electronic components are added to the raw PCB via SMT to create the subject PCBAs. This includes amplifier chips that enable the subject devices to function as an amplifier or Line Extender when complete. As a result, CBP determines that the PCBA that is created in Vietnam, Taiwan, or a country other than China, which incorporates the amplifier chips and various other components that enable the devices to function as an amplifier, imparts the character of the subject devices. |
| Ruling Date: April 11, 2024 |
H329103: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 520321100337; C&H Yachts, LLC; Entry and Valuation of M/V LOON
| Ruling: CBP determines: (1) C&H was properly required to enter the LOON; (2) that the LOON was eligible for duty-free treatment pursuant to subheading 9801.00.10; and (3) that the liquidated valuation of $20,000,000 was the result of a clerical error and that the entry should be reliquidated based on the deductive value methodology. |
| Issue: Was C&H required to make entry for the LOON? Was the LOON entitled to duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10? What is the proper method of valuation of the LOON? |
| Item: C&H Yachts' entry and payment of duties of a motor yacht, the M/V LOON |
| Reason: For the first question, C&H paid Florida sales tax on the U.S.-flagged LOON when it purchased the LOON on Jan. 10, 2018. However, C&H reflagged the LOON to Jamaica shortly thereafter and ABS listed the LOON’s homeport as Montego Bay, Jamaica. When C&H sold the LOON to S&E Travel Yacht LLC on Nov. 10, 2020, no Florida sales tax (or that of any other U.S. state) was paid on the LOON. In the absence of further factual information regarding the activities of the LOON between January 2018 and September 2020, the evidence on the record supports a finding the LOON was exported from the United States during this time period and that C&H was required to file entry. For the second question, initially, C&H failed to respond to multiple CBP Forms 28 and 29 in which the agency requested information whether the vessel was advanced in value outside the United States. However, on April 19, 2024, C&H provided information demonstrating the repair and upgrades performed on the vessel occurred in the United States. C&H also submitted a signed statement from the vessel’s captain stating that the vessel “was returned to the United States after exportation without having been advanced in value or improved in condition….” As a result, C&H has provided sufficient information demonstrating that the vessel was not advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means while abroad. For the third question, the LOON was entered on Sept. 18, 2020, and was sold on Nov. 11, 2020, to S&E Travel Yach LLC. As such, the sale of the LOON occurred within the 90-day requirement pursuant to federal code. |
| Ruling Date: May 24,2024 |
H345030: Protest and Application for Further Review 0401-24-103269; Prototype; Lithium-ion Batteries
| Ruling: By application of General Rules of Interpretation 1 and 6, the subject batteries are classified in heading 8507 and specifically in subheading 8507.60.00, which provides for “Electric storage batteries, including separators therefor, whether or not rectangular (including square); parts thereof: Lithium-ion batteries.” |
| Issue: Whether the entered merchandise is entitled to treatment as prototypes under subheading 9817.85.01, and, if not, whether the entered merchandise should be classified under subheading 8507.80.82 or 8507.60.00. |
| Item: Flux Marine's importation of lithium-ion batteries from China. The batteries were declared as prototypes under subheading 9817.85.01. The underlying tariff classification declared for the batteries was subheading 8507.80.82. Flux Marine is a developer of electronic propulsion systems for boats. Flux Marine has been engaged in research and development since 2015. The goal has been to create purpose-built electric propulsion systems for the demanding conditions of the marine environment. |
| Reason: Flux Marine has provided no evidence that the batteries are in pre-production or are subject to a design change from their current production. The documents provided by Flux Marine indicate that the batteries are being sold as completed goods and not as prototypes. The manufacturer states that they are standard modules. This indicates that the batteries are not specific to Flux Marine’s designs or subject to change based on its needs. Therefore, the batteries are not prototypes. |
| Ruling Date: April 15, 2025 |