Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Nov. 20-Nov. 22
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Nov. 20 and Nov. 22 with the following headquarters ruling (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.
H340588: USMCA Eligibility of Nickel Powder; Country of Origin; Marking
| Ruling: The nickel powder is classified under subheading, 7504.00.00, which provides for: “Nickel powders and flakes.” Based on the information provided, the nickel powder isn't eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Section 102.11(b), the country of origin of the nickel powder for marking purposes is Australia and must be marked “Made in Australia.” |
| Issues: Does the imported nickel powder qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA? What is the country of origin of the imported nickel powder for marking purposes? |
| Item: Oerlikon Metco U.S.'s pure nickel powder is manufactured by hydrometallurgy in Australia and shipped to Canada, where it's screened and cut into different sizes that may be sold as is or blended together with other sizes. The powder is packaged in either pails with 25 kg of powder or drums holding 250 kg of powder. |
| Reason: The 100% nickel powder is sourced from Australia. As such, it's not considered a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in a USMCA country. The final product consists of nickel powder in different sizes and is classified under 7504.00.00 before and after its importation to Canada. Because there is no change to the nickel powder from any other heading, including another heading within that group, the applicable tariff shift is not met. Therefore, the nickel powder is not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. Furthermore, based on the facts presented, the country of origin for marking purposes is Australia and the powder needs to be marked as “Made in Australia.” |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 20, 2024 |
H331751: Eligibility for unused merchandise drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1) and for same condition drawback under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (19 C.F.R. § 182.45(b))
| Ruling: The foil is not used and is eligible for drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(1). Further, the foil is not materially altered in character and is eligible for same condition drawback under the USMCA. |
| Issues: Is the aluminum foil eligible for unused merchandise drawback under 19 U.S.C. Section 1313(j)(1)? Is the aluminum foil exported in the same condition as imported in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Section 182.45(b) for drawback under the USMCA? |
| Item: Aluflexpack plans to import into the U.S. rolls of aluminum foil, each measuring 25,000 meters in length, 622 millimeters in width, and 11 micrometers in thickness. Ultimately, the imported rolls of aluminum foil will be exported to candy manufacturer Ferrero Rocher North America (Canada) for use in wrapping confectionary products sold at retail. |
| Reason: CBP has determined previously that embossing or foil stamping operations, such as those that Aluflexpack plans to perform on the rolls of aluminum foil, do not materially alter the characteristics of the merchandise. Moreover, the original purpose of the aluminum foil to wrap confectionary products remains unchanged. Further, these processes are analogous to labeling operations, where the foil will be imprinted with a distinctive pattern that is affiliated with Ferrero Rocher, akin to a logo, trademark or name. Labeling is included in the list of permissible operations in 19 C.F.R. Section 182.45(b) that don't affect the character of the merchandise. Accordingly, the aluminum foil is exported to Canada in the same condition as when imported into the U.S., and eligible for drawback under the USMCA in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Section 182.45(b). |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 20, 2024 |
H326919: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2809-22-109253; U.S.-Israeli Free Trade Agreement; Tahini; Double Substantial Transformation; Defective Goods; Segev Food International, Inc.
| Ruling: The protest should be denied. Based on the foregoing, the subject tahini is not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under ILFTA, and a duty refund cannot be granted under 19 C.F.R. Section 158.12. |
| Issue: Are the raw sesame seeds processed as described above subject to a double substantial transformation in Israel so that the value of the raw sesame seeds may be considered in calculating the Israeli value content for purposes of meeting the 35 percent value content requirement of the ILFTA? Does the subject merchandise qualiy for a defective merchandise allowance pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Section158.12? |
| Item: Segev Food International's tahini produced in Israel from raw sesame seeds grown in Uganda |
| Reason: To meet the 35% value requirement, the value of the sesame seeds would need to be included in the calculation. However, the value of the sesame seeds may be included in the required value calculation only if the sesame seeds undergo a double substantial transformation in Israel. They do not. In sum, the cost or value of the imported raw sesame seeds cannot be used toward the calculation of the required 35% Israeli content in order to qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the ILFTA because the sesame seeds do not undergo a double substantial transformation in Israel. Also, protestant failed to satisfy CBP’s long-standing requirements to obtain an allowance in duties for perishable merchandise, which are necessary to prove that such damage rendering the merchandise completely worthless was, in fact, present at the time of importation. Protestant is also not entitled to a duty refund because it did not file an application for allowance with the port director within 96 hours after the unlading of the merchandise and before any of the shipment involved was removed from the pier. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 17, 2024 |
H314738: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0417-19-100044; Classification of overband separators and permanent suspension magnets; Magnetic separating machinery for metals
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 (Note 3 to Section XVI) and 6, the subject overband separators are classified under subheading 8479.89.94, which provides for “[M]achines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and mechanical appliances: Other: Other." By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject permanent suspension magnets are classified under subheading 8505.19.00, which provides for “[E]lectromagnets; permanent magnets and articles intended to become permanent magnets after magnetization: electromagnetic or permanent magnet chucks, clamps and similar holding devices; electromagnetic couplings, clutches and brakes; electromagnetic lifting heads; parts thereof: Permanent magnets and articles intended to become permanent magnets after magnetization: Other.” |
| Issue: What is the proper classification of the subject overband separators and permanent suspension magnets under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.? |
| Item: Bunting Magnetics' overband separators and permanent suspension magnets |
| Reason: The subject overband separators are not described by any other heading in Chapter 84 and they perform their individual function of separating ferrous material without the aid of any other machine or appliance. Accordingly, the subject overband separator machines are classified in heading 8479, specifically subheading 8479.89.94. For the permanent suspension magnets, the protestant has not submitted the requisite evidence of treatment for the 2-year period immediately preceding its May 8, 2019 treatment claim. Protestant’s reliance on the Aug. 10, 2006, notice of arrival (NOA) falls outside the prescribed time period. Also, protestant entered the overband separators under subheading 8474.10.00, and not under subheading 8474.90.00, as set forth in the Aug. 10, 2006, notice. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 17, 2024 |
H305367: Application for Further Review of Protest Number 3801-19-100535; Honey from the People’s Republic of China; A-570-863; Antidumping Duties; Deemed Liquidation; 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d); Voluntary Reliquidation; 19 U.S.C. § 1501
| Ruling: CBP properly and timely reliquidated entry number XXX-XXXX808-1 on Jan. 11, 2019, and March 22, 2019. However, CBP’s April 5, 2019, reliquidation was untimely and is therefore void. The protest should be granted in part. |
| Issue: Was entry number XXX-XXXX808-1 deemed liquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(d) or did CBP properly liquidate the entry? |
| Item: CPNA International's imports of honey from the People’s Republic of China |
| Reason: CBP had 90 days from Dec. 22, 2018, or until March 22, 2019, to voluntarily reliquidate entry number XXX-XXXX808-1. On Jan. 11, 2019, CBP reliquidated entry number XXX-XXXX808-1 in accordance with the liquidation instructions it received from Commerce in Message No. 8351309, dated Dec. 17, 2018. This reliquidation was proper and timely in accordance with those instructions. On March 22, 2019, CBP again reliquidated the entry to amend the interest owed by CPNA. This reliquidation, too, was timely as it occurred within 90 days of the Dec. 22, 2018, deemed liquidation date. However, CBP’s final reliquidation on April 5, 2019, once again modifying the interest owed by CPNA, occurred more than 90 days from the Dec. 22, 2018, deemed liquidation date. As such, this reliquidation was untimely. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 20, 2024 |
H298399: Tariff classification of a monitor from an undisclosed country of origin
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject monitor is classified under subheading 8528.52.00, which provides for “Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus; …: Other monitors: Capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471.” |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of the subject monitor? |
| Item: A 70” liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitor, model number BM-B70AU. It has a diagonal screen size of 70” and four HDMI input ports and can receive an 8K video signal from 8K output compatible devices such as cameras, computer video cards, etc. The monitor can directly connect to a personal computer and can display output from the PC on its screen. |
| Reason: The instant monitor can directly connect to a PC and display the PC’s output on its screen. Further, the monitor possesses four HDMI input ports and can receive an 8K video signal from 8K output compatible devices such as cameras, computer video cards, etc. It also contains a USB media player and can reproduce video from a USB stick. Considering these characteristics, the subject monitor meets the terms of subheading 8528.52.00. While the instant monitor does come packaged with a remote control, it does not contain an integrated tuner or channel selector. As a result, this monitor is properly classified in subheading 8528.52.00, as an ADP monitor rather than in subheading 8528.72.00, as a television monitor. |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 21, 2024 |