Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings April 28-29
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 28-29 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.
H334008: Request for Internal Advice; Classification of Ceramic Filters for Hot Gas Filtration
| HTS: The subject Cerafil XS (1) is classified under subheading 6806.90.00, which provides for, "Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools; exfoliated vermiculite, expanded clays, foamed slag and similar expanded mineral materials; mixtures and articles of heat-insulating, sound-insulating or sound-absorbing mineral materials, other than those of heading 6811 or 6812, or of chapter 69: Other." The general column one rate of duty is free. The subject Cerafil TopKat (2) is classified under subheading 8421.39.01, which provides for, "Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases; parts thereof: Filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for gases: Other." The general column one rate of duty is free. |
| Issue: First, whether the Cerafil XS is classified under heading 6806, HTSUS, which provides for "slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools", or under heading 8421, HTSUS, which provides for "filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases." Second, whether the Cerafil TopKat is properly described as "dust collection and air purification equipment" under statistical reporting number 8421.39.0115 of the HTSUSA or as "other" under statistical reporting number 8421.39.0130, HTSUSA. |
| Item: The merchandise under consideration are ceramic filters for hot gas filtration. The subject ceramic filters are the Cerafil XS (1) and Cerafil TopKat (2) models, both imported from China. Certain industrial processes, including cement and glass manufacturing, can emit hot waste flue gases carrying harmful pollutants including dust and other particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dioxins, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. The purpose of the Cerafil XS and Cerafil TK is to filter out these pollutants under high temperatures. |
| Reason: (1) Based on the Cerafil XS's composition and properties, it meets the terms of "similar mineral wool" under heading 6806, HTSUS. The composition of the Cerafil XS shares similarities with goods mentioned in the ENS to Chapter 68 and heading 6806. The Cerafil XS specifically includes organic and inorganic binders, as the EN to Chapter 68 puts forward. The subject merchandise also consists of "a blend of alumina and silica, in varying proportions" as provided by the EN to heading 6806, specifically 49% alumina and silica by weight. Further tracking the EN to heading 6806, the ceramic fibers give the Cerafil XS a "flocculent appearance" and are non-combustible due to their high thermal conductivity. Forming a Cerafil XS filter may not involve "fusing" this aluminosilicate blend; nor is the filter blown or extruded during production. But the EN to Chapter 68 does grant that "[m]ost of these products and finished articles are obtained by operations (e.g., shaping, moulding), which alter the form rather than the nature of the constituent material." In this case, the inherent characteristics of the Cerafil XS's ceramic fibers do not change despite undergoing shaping operations. These operations, therefore, change the form of the fibers into a wet-formed element "rather than the nature of the constituent material." Given these characteristics, the subject Cerafil XS is classifiable as "similar mineral wool" under heading 6806. (2) There is no dispute that the subject Cerafil TopKat (TK) constitutes "filtering machinery" under heading 8421, and it's clearly designed for filtering "gases" in accordance with goods classifiable under subheading 8421.39, The crux of the matter lies in whether the TopKat meets the terms of "dust collection and air purification equipment" under statistical reporting number 8421.39.0115, or if it exhibits alternative functions or characteristics such that it must be classified as "other" under statistical reporting number 8421.39.0130. The TopKat can't be classified by application of GRI 3(a). Under that rule, two or more provisions are equally specific if they "each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods." Even though statistical reporting number 8421.39.0130 provides for "other," this provision includes the chemical conversion function exhibited by the catalyst. Therefore, in this matter, "dust collection equipment" and "other" each refer to part of the TopKat's functions and are thus equally specific in relation to each other. The TopKat can't be classified by application of GRI 3(b) as there is no indication that either function -- "dust collection" or chemical conversion plays a more prominent role in relation to the use of the goods. Since the TopKat cannot be classified by application of GRI 3(a) or 3(b), GRI 3(c) says to classify the good under the provision which occurs last in numerical order. Here, that provision is statistical reporting number 8421.39.0130. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 14, 2025 |
H339484: Application for Further Review of Protest 2304-23-102696; USMCA; Denial of §1520(d) Claim
| Ruling: Protest denied. |
| Issue: Whether the protestant’s USMCA preferential tariff treatment claim under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) was properly denied. |
| Facts: The protestant imported merchandise between June 28, 2021, and September 30, 2021, without claiming USMCA preferential tariff treatment. The merchandise consisted of two groups of products produced in Mexico: (1) split air conditioner and indoor coil units (and certain parts) imported separately, and (2) electric furnace units (and certain parts). On June 30, 2022, the protestant filed a post-importation USMCA claim pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) indicating that it had now received the USMCA Certifications of Origin from the Mexican supplier. The protestant’s submission was identified as a “520(d) post importation preference claim” in CBP's ACE portal and was given claim number 2304-22-316361 in ACE. |
| Reason: The two Section 1520(d) post-importation claims were received by CBP on March 18, 2022, and June 30, 2022. The language of 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) states that an importer must file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the merchandise. The Machinery CEE correctly denied those claims with respect to merchandise imported into the United States prior to May 18, 2021, and June 30, 2022, as they failed to meet the one-year from the date of importation filing requirement. The § 1520(d) claim was timely only with regard to the merchandise which was imported on and after May 18, 2021, and June 30, 2021. The claim cannot be rectified by a subsequent filing of a protest. Failing to make a timely post-importation USMCA claim is a valid reason to deny a claim under 19 C.F.R. 181.33(d)(1). Additionally, some of the entries included in the protest were already refunded. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 27, 2025 |
H324840: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0401-22-102887; Information Systems Error; Overvaluation
| Ruling: The protestant has not supported its error claims with respect to the Nov. 10, 2020 entry. The numbers do'nt add up after the claimed errors are corrected. Also, the two sets of revised invoices contain different Incoterms and total values. |
| Issue: Whether the protestant has demonstrated that the merchandise was overvalued due to an information systems error and is entitled to a refund of duties due to the error. |
| Facts: The protestant, a U.S. subsidiary of a company in France, filed two entries on Oct. 16 and Nov. 10, 2020, which were both liquidated on September 10, 2021. This protest/AFR was timely submitted on Feb. 28, 2022. The entries consisted of various electronic equipment such as indicator panels, modems, and telephone parts. The protestant claims that the entry value of the two entries was overstated, and customs duties were overpaid due to information system errors following the French parent’s deployment of a new enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system on May 11, 2020. |
| Reason: The protestant paid its parent company more than four months after the goods were entered into the United States and the invoices do not contain terms and conditions of payment. No purchase orders have been submitted. The protestant has not provided relevant documentation addressing the first sale in the multi-tier transaction such as invoices from the manufacturer in China, purchase orders to the manufacturer, and proof of payment to the manufacturer. Such evidence would have allowed a comparison of the first and second sale prices to determine if the goods were overvalued. The protestant did not take advantage of the opportunities to provide additional information in response to our requests on June 2 and Aug. 9, 2022; March 8, Oct. 12 and Nov. 20, 2023; and Feb. 15 and 26, 2024. Accordingly, the revised invoices should replace the invoices originally submitted for the merchandise covered by the Nov. 10, 2020 entry. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 26, 2025 |