Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for June 7
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 7 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.
H323996: Applicability of U.S. Coastwise Laws to a Floating Drydock; 1 U.S.C. § 3; 46 U.S.C. § 55102
| Ruling: The proposed use of the subject floating drydock would not violate the Jones Act. |
| Issue: whether the subject drydock operations, will be subject to the Jones Act |
| Item: A floating drydock is constructed overseas and brought to the U.S. for rental use. Once in the United States, the drydock “will be permanently moored to two mooring dolphins.” The drydock operation will consist of submerging and deballasting, moving up and down in a vertical direction only. The drydock will be submerged to the required depth for each vessel’s draft and safety allowance, then tugs and line handlers will be used to guide vessels in need of repair and maintenance into the drydock. The drydock will be raised vertically, lifting the vessel in need of repair out of the water, and it will remain stationary at the pier while work is performed on the lifted vessel. Once the work on the vessel is completed, the drydock will be re-submerged, and the repaired vessel will be floated off. |
| Reason: The drydock will be permanently moored, would not participate in the transportation of merchandise, but will only move vertically to facilitate the repair of vessels. The subject drydock would not be used to transport merchandise over water. |
| Ruling Date: May 22, 2022 |
H320052: Coastwise Transportation; Outer Continental Shelf; Wind Turbines; 46 U.S.C. § 55102;19 CFR §§ 4.80a and 4.80b; 43 U.S.C. § 1333
| Ruling: The transportation does not violate the Jones Act. |
| Issue: whether the transportation of the WTG components by a coastwise-qualified tugboat and barge from a U.S. port to an affixed, non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel located on the U.S outer continental shelf violates the Jones Act |
| Item: offshore wind turbines |
| Reason: Transportation between coastwise points would be effected by coastwise-qualified vessels. Installation activity is not coastwise trade. WTG component containers, installation tools and materials are not “merchandise.” |
| Ruling Date: May 11, 2022 |
H324274: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Maixin has established that its percussive massage devices are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206. |
| Issue: Are Maixin's massage devices (9º, 9ºS, a7, Chrome Mini, K-005, K-008, M68-7A, M69-2, M75-2, Mini, MMG0101, and Nano) subject to exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices |
| Reason: Counsel for complainant Hyperice said that Hyperice will not contend that the Maixin products infringe the ‘574 patent. Given the absence of an infringement contention by Hyperice that the articles are covered by the asserted claims of the ‘574 patent, Maixin has established that the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry on the basis of the 1206 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: March 31, 2022 |
H322386: Revocation of NY E83373; Tariff classification of plastic urine drainage bags from Mexico; capacity measures
| Ruling: The plastic urine drainage bags at issue are classified under subheading 3926.90.9910, 5.3%, “[O]ther articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914: Other: Other: Laboratory ware.” |
| Issue: What is the classification of plastic urine drainage bags at issue in NY E83373? |
| Item: plastic urine drainage bags – Both articles include a transparent bag marked in milliliters to permit measurement of urine and connective tubes. The leg bag also features leg straps. |
| Reason: As the subject urine drainage bags are marked in milliliters to permit measurement of urine, they are “capacity measures” and thereby precluded from classification in heading 9018. |
| Ruling Date: March 29, 2022 |
H324057: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Weisheng has established that its percussive massage devices are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206. |
| Issue: Are Weisheng's massage devices subject to exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices – the Weisheng WS003, Weisheng WS06, Weisheng WS021, Weisheng WS025, Weisheng WS029, Weisheng WS030, Weisheng WS031, Weisheng WS034, Weisheng WS035, Weisheng WS036, Weisheng WS037, and Weisheng MG001 |
| Reason: Hyperice indicated that they “agree that the product detailed in Yongkang Weisheng’s request for administrative ruling are not covered by the ‘574 patent...’” Given that Hyperice agrees that the articles do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘574 patent, Weisheng has established that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1206 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: March 22, 2022 |
H324058: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Medcursor, Inc. and Nekteck, Inc. have established that their percussive massage devices are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206. |
| Issue: Are Mecursor's and Nekteck's massage devices subject to an exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices – MMG0101, MMG0201, and MMG0601 models under the Medcursor brand, and NMG200 and NMG300 models under the Nekteck brand |
| Reason: Hyperice indicated that it agrees that the articles do not infringe the ‘574 Patent. Requesters have established that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1206 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: March 22, 2022 |
H324059: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Ruicheng has established that its percussive massage devices are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in Inv, No. 337-TA-1206 |
| Issue: Are Ruicheng's massage devices subject to an exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices – the MG-008, MG-008-1, MG-010, MG-013, MG-015, MG-018, MG-029, MG-057, MG-060, and MG-A3 |
| Reason: Hyperice indicated that the Ruicheng products do not infringe the ‘574 patent because they do not have the claimed battery assembly receiving tray.” Therefore, Ruicheng has established that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1206 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: March 22, 2022 |
H324060: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Yilun has established that its products are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206. |
| Issue: Are Yilun's massage devices subject to an exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices – the MG11, MG17, MG19, MG23, MG29, M06PRO, M08PRO, M11PRO, YL-MG001, and YL-MG003 |
| Reason: Hyperice indicated that the Yilun devices infringe the ‘574 Patent. Given the absence of an infringement, the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry on the basis of the 1206 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: March 22, 2022 |
H324061: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices
| Ruling: Pinotec has established that its percussive massage devices are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order that the USITC issued in Inv. No. 337-TA-1206 |
| Issue: Are Pinotec's massage devices subject to an exclusion order in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1206? |
| Item: percussive massage devices – the PRO2, FUSION-01, M2-A, DYNA Mini, PRO 3, IQ-WVNQ-D3VL, Y8, Y8-1, BD-002, and BD-V3 by Pinotec |
| Reason: Hyperice indicated that Pinotec's devices do not infringe the ‘574 Patent. Given the absence of an infringement contention by Hyperice, Pinotec has established that the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry. |
| Ruling Date: March 22, 2022 |
H321592: Valuation of Used Goods Returned After Repair or Calibration Abroad and Replacement Goods Imported Pursuant to Warranty Claims
| Ruling: (1) Used goods that are returned to the U.S. after undergoing repairs or calibration abroad can be appraised under the proposed fallback method of valuation using straight-line depreciation and the cost of repairs or calibration performed abroad. (2) New and used replacement goods that will be imported into the U.S. pursuant to a warranty claim can be appraised using the transaction value of identical or similar new goods. |
| Issues: (1) Can used goods that are returned to the U.S. after undergoing repairs or calibration abroad can be appraised under the proposed fallback method of valuation using straight-line depreciation and the cost of repairs or calibration performed abroad? (2) Can new and used replacement goods that will be imported into the U.S. pursuant to a warranty claim can be appraised using the transaction value of identical or similar new goods? |
| Item: measuring instruments |
| Reason: In the case of goods that are repaired or calibrated abroad, the U.S. customer will retain title and ownership of the goods, so no “sale” occurs. HBK is not able to provide information about the book values because the unrelated U.S. customers, rather than HBK, carry the merchandise on their books. The proposed methodology treats new and used replacement goods the same. Even if a used good is fully repaired or calibrated, it does not necessarily have the same condition or useful life as a new good. Because HBK does not have access to relevant data about how the foreign affiliate carries the used replacement goods on its books, nor does HBK purchase identical used goods from its foreign affiliate, CBP finds that the used goods are sufficiently similar to the new goods, the proposed valuation is acceptable. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 4, 2022 |