Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Dec. 1
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Dec. 1 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.
H342573: Further review of Protest No. 3001-10-100233, Denial of Florence Agreement Application; California Institute of Technology
| Ruling: The denial of Cal Tech’s Florence Agreement application was improper. The protest is hereby granted in full. |
| Issue: Whether or not a Florence Agreement applicant must demonstrate that the qualifying institution intends to purchase the imported instrument or apparatus. |
| Item: California Institute of Technology's 2W Mephisto Lasersystem, also referred to as an “ND: Yag Laser” |
| Reason: The Florence Agreement endeavors to promote international understanding and peace by lowering barriers to the exchange of cultural, scientific, and educational materials. Pursuant to subheading 9810.00.60, scientific instruments or apparatus can be entered duty-free if such instruments or apparatus are not being manufactured in the U.S. Among other qualifying requirements, the institution making an application for duty-free treatment under subheading 9810.00.60 must provide a statement “that either the institution has already placed a bona fide order for the instrument or apparatus or has a firm intention.” The term “bona fide order” is not defined in the Florence Agreement, the legislative history of the Florence Agreement, the article description for subheading 9810.00.60, the U.S. Notes for Chapter 98 of the HTSUS, or the implementing CBP regulations. Thus, the question presented by this protest is whether the “bona fide order” requirement is a requirement that the applicant purchase the imported equipment, as opposed to something less than a purchase, such as a lease, loan, or gift of the imported instrument or apparatus. CBP finds that the plain meaning of the term and the purpose of the Florence Agreement dictate that a bona fide order does not require the purchase or sale of the instrument or apparatus. Pursuant to the plain meaning of the term “bona fide order,” CBP finds that a bona fide order is evidenced by a firm agreement between two parties, a qualified institution and a foreign supplier or manufacturer of instruments, under which the institution is to receive an instrument for a use required by subheading 9810.00.60. The fact that the agreement may constitute a gift, loan, lease, rental, or purchase is of no consequence, so long as no commercial benefit will inure therefrom in this country. There is no requirement in the law that an institution must purchase the instrument that is the subject of the agreement. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 20, 2025 |