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.
H314204: Eligibility for duty-free treatment as temporary importations under bond
| Ruling: The finstock is ineligible for entry as an article intended solely for testing, or experimental or review purposes via a TIB pursuant to subheading 9813.00.30, HTSUS. |
| Issue: May the finstock be imported via a TIB as an article intended solely for testing, or experimental or review purposes, pursuant to subheading 9813.00.30, HTSUS? |
| Item: Burr manufactures production machinery in the United States that is sold to customers worldwide. Burr’s machinery is custom-built to customer specifications. Burr will import raw material termed “finstock” from several countries, including Canada and Mexico, for use in the custom-built machinery it will manufacture, specifically in order to determine if a machine will perform as required. The finstock will consist of three distinct types of metal: 1) flat-rolled stainless-steel products; 2) copper plates, sheet or strip; and 3) aluminum foil. Burr states that the imported finstock is intended for assessing the performance of the machinery Burr builds and will not be offered for sale or purchase. |
| Reason: The primary purpose of the importation of the finstock is not to test the finstock, itself, but to test how Burr’s machinery processes the finstock. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 2, 2023 |
H315944: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-19-106281; Buying Agency; Commissions
| Ruling: The protest should be granted. Tianjin acted as a buying agent whose commissions should be excluded from the transaction value of the imported merchandise. |
| Issue: Did Tianjin act as a buying agent whose commissions should be excluded from the transaction value of the imported merchandise? |
| Facts: The transaction under review involves three parties: (1) Leviathan Corporation (“Leviathan”), a U.S. entity and the importer of record; (2) Tianjin Leviathan Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Leviathan Corporation organized under the laws of China; and (3) Shandong Haohua Tire Co., an unrelated Chinese tire manufacturer. The proper appraisement of the imported truck tires at issue in this case turns on whether Tianjin acted as a buyer and seller of the merchandise, as the Center of Excellence and Expertise contends, or as a buying agent on behalf of Leviathan, as counsel asserts. |
| Reason: Here, according to the information provided, including the Agreement and the uncontradicted statements in the affidavit from Shandong, Tianjin carried out activities consistent with a bona fide buying agency. Moreover, there is no evidence that Tianjin Leviathan accepted title or risk of loss for the goods. As noted in paragraph (m) of the Agreement, “[Tianjin Leviathan] shall never act as a seller in any transaction involving [Leviathan].” |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 3, 2023 |
H305747: Application for Further Review of Protest Number 460119102875; Failure to Give Notice of Extension of Liquidation to Surety; 19 U.S.C. § 1504; 19 C.F.R. § 159.1
| Ruling: CBP provided adequate notice of extension of liquidation to Penn National for the relevant entries. The protests should be denied in full. |
| Issue: Did CBP provide adequate notice to Penn National of the extended liquidation for the relevant entries? |
| Item: Dynamic Metals imported three entries of steel wire hangers from Sri Lanka, filed as type 01 entries. The entries were secured by a continuous bond issued by surety Penn National. CBP converted each of the entries to a type 03. According to ACE, liquidation of the entries was extended on Dec. 20, 2017. ACE further indicates that notices of extensions of liquidation were issued to the importer and the surety for all relevant entries. Penn National alleges that it should not be obligated to pay the delinquent amount because CBP suspended liquidation of the entries on Dec. 20, 2017, without proper notice to Penn National. Penn National characterizes these notices as pertaining to suspension of liquidation, instead of extension of liquidation, as reflected in ACE. |
| Reason: There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that CBP provide any notice beyond the posting of the official notice on its website. While there is aspirational language in 19 C.F.R. 159.12(c) that CBP will “endeavor” to provide an electronic courtesy notice to the surety, it need not do so as a matter of statutory or regulatory law. As explained in 19 C.F.R. 159.9(d), such courtesy notice “serve[s] as an informal, courtesy notice and not as a direct, formal, and decisive notice of liquidation.” Failure to provide the courtesy notice is not grounds for alleging “substantial prejudice” in cases where CBP posted the official notice of extension online. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 1, 2023 |
H330864: Request for Internal Advice; Right to Make Entry
| Ruling: Hhoya USA didn't have sufficient financial interest in the erythritol, at the time of entry, to act as importer of record. |
| Issue: Did Hhoya USA have sufficient “financial interest” in the imported goods, at the time of entry, to act as the importer of record? |
| Item: This internal advice concerns two entries of erythritol made in 2020. The subject erythritol was sold by a Chinese manufacturer to Hhoya BV. Hhoya BV issued payment to the manufacturer for the merchandise and paid the applicable duties and taxes. Hhoya BV’s sister company, HHoya USA, Inc. (Hhoya USA), was listed as the importer of record on the two entry summaries. The sister companies operate as separate entities under common ownership. |
| Reason: In no way can Hhoya USA be characterized as an “owner” or “purchaser” with sufficient financial interest in the goods so as to act as an importer of record. There is no evidence that Hhoya USA has a sufficient financial interest in the goods so as to act as importer of record. While Hhoya USA may characterize its role in the transaction as seller’s agent, which would ordinarily be permitted pursuant to CBP Directive 3530-0002A, based on the above, the facts do not give rise to a seller agent role for purposes of determining the right to make entry. Consequently, Hhoya USA did not have a sufficient financial interest in the two entries of erythritol, at the time of entry, to act as importer of record. |
| Ruling Date: Sep. 6, 2023 |
H330544: Request for Reconsideration of NY N330484; Tariff Classification of the Droplette Micro-Infuser and the Droplette Micro-Infuser Kit
| Ruling: The subject merchandise is properly classified in subheading 8509.80.50 as “Electromechanical domestic appliances, with self-contained electric motor, other than vacuum cleaners of heading 8508; parts thereof: Other appliances: Other.” NY N330484, dated Feb. 8, 2023, is affirmed. |
| Issue: NY N330484 involved the classification of a Droplette Micro-Infuser and a retail kit that includes the Droplette Micro-Infuser. |
| Item: The Droplette Micro-Infuser is a hand-held, rechargeable, battery-operated, electromechanical personal care device. The device transforms various specially formulated skincare ingredients, by releasing single-use capsules made of HDPE (high density polyethylene), into a therapeutic aerosolized “micro-mist.” As a result, ingredients are more deeply transdermally infused into the skin than traditional topical skincare application methods. The Droplette Micro-Infuser is roughly in an oval shape resembling a computer mouse. It consists of a housing, capsule chamber, capsule door, power button, and an indicator light. The device contains an electric motor, PCBs (printed circuit board), etc., inside the housing. |
| Reason: Based on the submitted information, the subject DMI and the DMI Kit are electromechanical appliances, designed for common domestic use, with a self-contained electric motor. They are hand-held devices that weigh below the 20 kg threshold provided in Note 4(b) to Chapter 85. Thus, the DMI and the DMI Kit fall within the scope of heading 8509 as electromechanical domestic appliances. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 24, 2023 |