Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Nov. 29 - Dec. 2
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Nov. 29 and Dec. 2 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.
H340856: Instruments of International Traffic; 19 U.S.C. § 1332(a); §§ 10.41a(a)(1), 10a(a)(2); Solotech U.S. Corporation; CB5 Carbon Light Emitting Diode (LED) tile frames
| Ruling: The subject CB5 Carbon Light Emitting Diode tile frames qualify for treatment as instruments of international trade within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and § 10.41a(a)(1). |
| Issues: Are the subject steel and aluminum frames designed to hold LED tiles qualify for consideration as instruments of international trade within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1)? |
| Item: Solotech's B5 Carbon Light Emitting Diode tile frames, which are steel and aluminum frames that surround the CB5 Carbon LED tiles to protect the tiles. |
| Reason: The subject steel and aluminum frames are containers that are substantial, suitable for and capable of repeated use, and used in significant numbers in international traffic. They are substantial in that they are made of steel and aluminum and the component parts have an average lifespan of 10 years. The frames are suitable for and capable of reuse by Solotech, for the transportation of other LED tiles around the world in around 200-300 expected trips per year. Based on the foregoing, the subject aluminum and steel frames intended to hold CB5 Carbon LED tile frames are designated as instruments of international traffic. |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 27, 2024 |
H314186: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2304-20-101510; Tariff classification of comber noils and eligibility for preferential tariff treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”)
| Ruling: CBP found that the comber noils at issue are classified under heading 5203, and specifically under subheading 5203.00.30, which provides for “Cotton, carded or combed: Fibers of cotton processed but not spun: Other.” The comber noils are not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under NAFTA. |
| Issues: What is the tariff classification of the comber noils? Are the comber noils eligible for preferential tariff treatment under NAFTA? |
| Item: Comber noils produced by an unnamed Mexican company. The company manufactures cotton yarn in Mexico and produces the comber noils during the yarn manufacturing process. In the process of making yarn, the Mexican company passes raw cotton through a machine which combs the fibers. Combing the fibers results in long cotton fibers which are retained for use in yarn production, and short fibers known in the industry as “comber noils.” |
| Reason: CBP’s laboratory tested the comber noils and confirmed that the comber noils are in fact carded. Because the CBP laboratory found that the cotton is carded, it is specifically excluded from classification in heading 5202. Since the cotton in this case is both carded and bleached, the comber noils are classified in heading 5203, and specifically in subheading 5203.00.30. Also, the subject comber noils do not qualify for NAFTA preferential tariff treatment because they do not meet the definition of waste and scrap as defined under GN 12(n)(ix)(A). They may be a lower quality or grade of yarn or fabric, like Protestant states, the combed long fibers of cotton are “worth approximately 125% more than discarded waste comber noils,” but when comber noils are repurposed to be used in blends of yarn and fabric, the comber noils are nevertheless still a type of yarn or textile fabric. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 17, 2024 |
H333105: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4772-23-101801; Classification of a Firefly DE550 Wireless Digital Video Otoscope
| Ruling: The subject wireless digital video otoscope is classified under heading 9018, specifically subheading 9018.19.40, which provides for, “Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof: Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters); parts and accessories thereof: Other: Apparatus for functional exploratory examination, and parts and accessories thereof.” |
| Issues: Is the subject wireless digital video otoscope classified under subheading 9018.19, as “other electro-diagnostic apparatus,” or under subheading 9018.90, as “other instruments and appliances”? |
| Item: Firefly Global's wireless digital video otoscope marketed as the “Firefly DE550.” The otoscope is designed for making observations of ear canals using precise images and live videos transmitted wirelessly from the device. It can be used for self-examination, telemedicine, patient education, and electronic medical records. |
| Reason: The subject otoscope is used for diagnostic purposes, including the functional exploratory examination of the human ear. That a physician may use this otoscope’s images to educate a patient and provide remote medical care via telemedicine, as well as other clinical applications, further evinces the subject merchandise’s suitability for diagnosing diseases. Because the subject otoscope meets the definition of an electro-diagnostic apparatus, and given it is used for the functional exploratory examination of the human ear, CBP held that it is classifiable under subheading 9018.19. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 27, 2024 |
H334497: Request for Internal Advice; Tariff Classification of Frozen Acai Juice
| Ruling: The frozen acai juice is classified under heading 2009, HTSUS, and specifically under subheading 2009.89.70, which provides for “Fruit or nut juices (including grape must and coconut water) and vegetable juices, unfermented and not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter: Juice of any other single fruit, nut or vegetable: Other: Other: Berry Juice.” |
| Issues: What is the tariff classification of the frozen acai juice? |
| Item: Amafruits' Organic Pasteurized 12% Acai, sold in single strength form |
| Reason: The final product contains 99.8% organic acai juice and 0.2% citric acid. The final product is best described as a frozen fruit juice. The appropriate heading for the product is as a fruit juice under heading 2009, rather than a prepared fruit under heading 2008. Meanwhile, the subheadings preceding 2009.89.70 are specific to individual fruits that do not include acai berries, or berries generally. Subheading 2009.89.70 provides for “Other” types of juices, specifically Berry Juice, Mango Juice, and “Other.” Because the final product is composed of 99.8% organic acai berry juice, the product is best classified under subheading 2009.89.70 as a “juice of any other single fruit, nut or vegetable: Other: Other: Berry Juice.” |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 27, 2024 |