Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings March 10-25
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between March 10 and March 25 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.
H335561: Request for Internal Advice; Tariff Classification of “Nippies Tape”
| Ruling: 6002.40.80, which provides for “Knitted or crocheted fabrics of a width not exceeding 30 cm, containing by weight 5 percent or more of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, other than those of heading 6001: Containing by weight 5 percent or more of elastomeric yarn but not containing rubber thread: Other.” |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of the “Nippies Tape”? |
| Item: a certain adhesive tape described as “Nippies Tape” and imported by Charope |
| Reason: Upon review of the sample, CBP determined that the plastic adhesive covering applied to the textile tape cannot be seen with the naked eye. Therefore, CBP concluded that the adhesive tape at issue is not classified in heading 5903. Consistent with Note 2 to Chapter 59, fabrics with impregnation that cannot be seen with the naked eye are generally provided for in Chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60. Chapters 50 to 55, and 58 do not cover knitted fabrics and the adhesive tape at issue is comprised of a knitted fabric. Therefore, these chapters are not applicable. However, because Chapter 60 covers knitted or crocheted fabrics and the adhesive tape is comprised of a knitted fabric consisting of 80% nylon and 20% spandex, CBP found that it is provided for in Chapter 60. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 18, 2024 |
H340672: Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS; silicon wafer; solar cells; solar panels
| Ruling: The solar cells and solar panels, which are manufactured in a third country using U.S.-origin crystalline silicon wafers, will not qualify for a partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80. |
| Issue: Will the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, apply to U.S.-origin crystalline silicon wafers exported to a third country for assembly into solar cells and panels? |
| Item: Company A's U.S.-origin crystalline silicon wafers that are exported to a third country, then assembled into solar cells and solar panels in another country, and then imported into the U.S. Upon entry, the declared origin of the solar cells and solar panels will be that of the third country where assembly takes place. |
| Reason: Texturing the wafer is about more than simply removing or trimming a small portion of the wafer surface. By texturing the surface of the wafer with chemical additives through anisotropic etching, more light becomes trapped as the number of hills and valleys on the surface increase. Otherwise, if the surface of the wafer is too smooth, light would bounce off, thus impeding the proper functioning of the solar technology. Thus, texturing imparts significant new characteristics on the wafer that enable greater photon capture, an important characteristic necessary for the proper functioning of solar technology. While Company A asserts that texturing is incidental because it does not chemically alter the wafer or give it new chemical characteristics, this is a misreading of the regulatory language. Rather, 19 C.F.R. 10.16(c)(3) refers to “chemical treatment” that imparts “new characteristics.” It does not require these new characteristics to be chemical in nature but that a chemical treatment be applied to impart new characteristics, which is precisely the case here with the use of chemical additives through anisotropic etching to create pyramidal structures on the surface of the wafer. |
| Ruling Date: March 5, 2025 |
H335829: Country of Origin; Optical Transceivers
| Ruling: The country of origin of the subject optical transceiver units is China. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the subject optical transceivers? |
| Item: Eoptolink Technology's several models of optical transceiver modules used for a variety of applications, including data centers, telecom networks, security monitoring, and smart grids |
| Reason: The entirety of the physical manufacturing and assembly of the optical transceiver devices occurs in China. Once the physical devices are exported from China to Thailand, Eoptolink installs Thai-origin firmware onto them and conducts certain tuning, calibration, and testing operations. Nevertheless, Eoptolink argues that programming the device in Thailand imparts the country of origin. But CBP found that the Thai assembly process does not result in a change in name. The entirety of the physical assembly occurs in China. The subcomponents are manufactured and assembled into the final, physical unit in China that impart the components necessary for the device’s functionality. CBP also found that the Thai process does not result in a change of use. The Thai processes merely enact the “intended function” of the physical devices rather than imparting a new use distinct from that of the Chinese-origin transceivers. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 26, 2025 |
H301145: Internal Advice; Dutiability of Post-Importation Fees Paid; Proceeds; Section 402(b)(1)(E)
| Ruling: CBP found that the service fees paid by Stahl USA to the Stahl B.V. from the resale of the imported merchandise to the automotive sector in the United States should be considered dutiable. However, transaction value should not be used to appraise the imported merchandise because sufficient information cannot be ascertained for establishing that the services fees paid by importer to a party related to the seller were arms-length transactions. Accordingly, Stahl USA should proceed sequentially through the valuation statute to obtain proper appraisement of the subject chemical products and technology used in the processing, tanning, dyeing, and finishing of leather surfaces and coatings, beginning with the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise. |
| Issue: Whether the service fees paid by the importer to a related party seller for the various services, risks assumed and assets provided in connection with the resale of the imported merchandise in the United States would be an addition to the price actually paid or payable, as proceeds of a subsequent resale. |
| Item: Stahl USA's importation of chemicals to treat leather products |
| Reason: Since a portion of the revenue in the form of profits obtained from the resale of the imported merchandise to the automotive customers will be sent to Stahl B.V., in exchange for the services it provided, CBP found that the portion of the revenue sent as fees to Stahl B.V. should be considered dutiable. But while CBP believes that the funds sent from Stahl USA to Stahl B.V. from the resale of the imported merchandise in the United States are dutiable, CBP noted that it is not clear how the amounts of service fees paid were determined other than through some alleged negotiations between Stahl USA and Stahl B.V. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 10, 2025 |
H340312: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-24-137219; Eurasia Stone Work Corp. d/b/a Eurasia Stone; Valuation of a Refund or Credit
| Ruling: The total payment made for the tiles in the subject protest is the transaction value which was made for imported tile merchandise received by the protestant. The price for the received tiles is correct, and the tiles were not returned to the seller. As such, there is no need to amend the total price in this case. |
| Issue: Whether the protestant has provided sufficient documentation to support its claim that the wrong merchandise was shipped with incorrect valuation of the merchandise, and the importer is entitled to a refund of duties due to the errors. |
| Item: glass over stone tiles sought by Eurasia Stone Work Corporation |
| Reason: Two prior rulings are not applicable to this case since these two decisions showed how a mistake was made concerning the calculation of the merchandise itself. Here, there is no dispute that the value of the “Herringbone Ceramic Mosaic” was not correct. The price of the ceramic tile was correct, it was just not what was ordered. There is no evidence that the ceramic tile was returned to Xiamen Stone. Therefore, Eurasia did receive ceramic tile and the value on this article was correct. While Eurasia did receive a credit for Xiamen Stone’s mistake, this does not warrant reducing the duty due on the merchandise that Eurasia did, in fact, receive. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 23, 2025 |