Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings April 28 - May 7
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 29 - May 7 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.
H337371: Country of Origin of an Automotive Fuel Pump; Section 301 Trade Remedy
| Ruling: The country of origin of the Automotive Fuel Pump for duty purposes will be Thailand. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the automotive fuel pump for duty purposes? |
| Item: The merchandise at issue is an Automotive Fuel Pump that extracts fuel from the tank and supplies fuel to the engine at a constant pressure and output power. The Automotive Fuel Pump services piston-type internal combustion engines that convert energy produced by the combustion of fuel into mechanical energy. The Automotive Fuel Pumps are ultimately used in passenger vehicles, medium and heavy-duty trucks, and commercial vehicles, as well as all-terrain vehicles and utility task vehicles. |
| Reason: In the instant case, over 35 discrete parts from Thailand, China, and Japan are used to manufacture the pump core/motor subassembly, reservoir, inner support and other constituent parts at Joinhands-Thailand’s manufacturing facility in Thailand. The various subassembly and assembly processes are complex. In particular, there are 28 separate steps required just to manufacture the pump core/motor subassembly, which include welding, soldering, magnetization, machining, plastic injection molding, and crimping. The various separate parts are substantially transformed into the pump core/motor subassembly in Thailand. A series of plastic mold injection operations are also performed at Joinhands-Thailand’s manufacturing facility in Thailand, along with soldering and press-fitting, to produce other key components, including the inner support and reservoir. These subassemblies and other components are then combined to assemble the finished Automotive Fuel Pump through a series of 18 additional steps, also in Thailand. Accordingly, the various components will lose their individual identities and will become an integral part of a new article, the Automotive Fuel Pump, with a new name, character, and use. Therefore, the discrete parts are substantially transformed in Thailand when they are combined to form a finished Automotive Fuel Pump, and the country of origin will be Thailand. |
| Ruling Date: April 24, 2025 |
H325600: Modification of NY N251623; Tariff classification of women’s pants
| HTS: 6210.50.75, 3.3%, “Garments, made up of fabrics of heading 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907: Other women’s or girls’ garments: Other: Having an outer surface impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with rubber or plastics material which completely obscures the underlying fabric.” |
| Issue: Whether the women’s pants (style GTGH-24388) are classified under heading 6104, heading 6204, or heading 6210. |
| Item: Style GTGH-24388 is a woman’s pant constructed from two different fabrics. The front panels are constructed from 100% cotton woven fabric coated with PVC. The back panels are constructed from 78% cotton, 17% nylon, and 5% spandex knit fabric. The pull-on pants feature a wide elasticized waistband with a button closure and a zipper, six belt loops, two faux front pockets at the sides, two patch pockets in the back, and hemmed leg openings. The garment extends from the waist to the ankles. |
| Reason: Note 6 to Chapter 62, HTSUS, requires that “[g]arments which are, prima facie, classifiable both in heading 6210 and in other headings of this chapter, excluding heading 6209, are to be classified in heading 6210.” Accordingly, the subject trousers cannot be classified in heading 6204. The trousers are still classifiable in headings 6210 or heading 6104. In this instance, no component exceeds 60% of the visible surface area, and the woven fabric constitutes the entire front of the trousers. Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of GRI 3(b) and the guidance in HQ memorandum 084118, it is necessary to determine if the essential character of the garment can be identified. In this instance, the woven front panel of the trousers is instantly visible and has the greatest visual impact by creating a faux leather pant look. Accordingly, the woven front panel imparts the essential character of the trousers. The garment is therefore classified in heading 6210. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 14, 2025 |
H343308: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1353; Certain Pick-Up Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof (III)
| Ruling: Due to the concession of Extang Corporation and Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries, Golden Sun has established that its pick-up truck folding bed cover system, is not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1353. |
| Issue: Whether Golden Sun's product, Design A, is not within the scope of the GEO. |
| Item: a pick-up truck folding bed cover system |
| Reason: Complainants have not raised any arguments alleging that the article at issue infringes the asserted claims of the ’788 patent or the ‘758 patent. To the contrary, “Complainants do not contend that ‘Design A’ as represented in Golden Sun’s November 21, 2024 letter is subject to the 1353 General Exclusion Order.” Due to the lack of a contention from Complainants that the article at issue infringes the asserted claims of the ’788 patent or ‘758 patent, and as further cemented with its non infringement concession, Golden Sun has established that the article at issue is not subject to exclusion from entry pursuant to the 1353 GEO. |
| Ruling Date: April 7, 2025 |
H342829: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-22-126417; Subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS
| Ruling: The case-y-diffuser is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10. Protest granted. |
| Issue: Whether the case-y-diffuser is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10. |
| Facts: The merchandise subject to the protest at issue is a case-y-diffuser. The case-y-diffuser was removed from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037M engine, serial number 717912. The protestant states that this engine was made by Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, Connecticut, and exported on June 2, 2021. The case-y diffuser was disassembled by the protestant in Germany and reimported into the United States by the protestant for repair on July 1, 2021. The case-y-diffuser was repaired after which it was reexported to be reassembled in the disassembled turbojet in Germany. The protestant claims that the case-y-diffuser is classified under subheading 8411.91.90, HTSUS. The CEE agrees with the protestant; therefore, this decision does not address the classification issue. Next, the protestant clams that the case-y-diffuser is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. |
| Reason: The declaration lists the port of exportation as the Atlanta, the date of exportation as June 2, 2021, merchandise description as diffuser case, part number 1B4091-002, quantity, and value. The declaration states that the merchandise was returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means. The declaration includes all of the required information. While the manufacturer’s affidavit was not submitted, the merchandise was returned within three years of the date of export from the United States. Since the documentary requirements under 19 C.F.R. § 10.1 are met, the case-y-diffuser is eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 28, 2025 |
H342634: Dutiability of Assists; Resin
| Ruling: Based on the information presented, the resin does not constitute an assist pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1401a(h)(1)(A)(i), and does not need to be added to the price actually paid or payable of the finished LDPE bags. |
| Issue: Whether the cost of the resin is part of the "price actually paid or payable" in determining the transaction value of the final imported product. |
| Facts: The importer of the merchandise, various styles of zipper type LDPE plastic bags, does not produce or provide the resin to the Chinese manufacturer. Instead, the Chinese manufacturer purchases the resin from unrelated U.S. vendors at market rate. After purchase, the resin is sent to the Chinese manufacturer with “FOB China” Incoterms. In China, the resin is mixed and made into a film that is then used to make the plastic bags. Once production is complete, Duralok imports the bags into the U.S. The country of origin of the bags is China and they are classifiable under subheading 3923.21, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The term of sale for the bags being sent back to the U.S. is “FOB China.” |
| Reason: In this case, the resin is to be used as a material to be incorporated into the imported merchandise. However, as stated previously, the importer does not provide the resin material that is used in the production of the bags. Further, the resin is sold directly to the Chinese manufacturer at “full price” by an unrelated U.S. vendor. Therefore, the resin would not be considered an assist in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §1401a(h)(1)(A)(i). |
| Ruling Date: April 24, 2025 |
H343576: Internal Advice; Transaction Value; Bona Fide Sale
| Ruling: Based on the information presented, the appraisement of the merchandise should be based upon the price paid by the importer. |
| Issue: Whether the sale between the contract manufacturer and the importer is a bona fide sale for export to the United States which may be used for appraisement purposes under transaction value. |
| Facts: The merchandise at issue is the Compact Smart Grid Data Logger (Model EE-405). Edge Zero outsources the manufacturing of the merchandise to an unrelated contract manufacturer in Country A.After taking possession of the products, Edge Zero will arrange shipment directly from Country A to the United States. After entry, the merchandise will be stored in a third-party warehouse in the Chicago area and shipped to U.S. destinations when orders are received. Edge Zero will retain ownership while the products are in a warehouse. It is claimed that the sale between the contract manufacturer in Country A and the non-resident importer is a bona fide sale for export to the United States. |
| Reason: The documents submitted by the importer support the existence of a bona fide sale. The importer submitted a quotation from the contract manufacturer to the importer which lists EXW term of delivery. The commercial invoice and packing list from the contract manufacturer to the importer correspond to the quotation from the contract manufacturer, also listing EXW term of delivery. EXW means that the seller fulfills its obligation to deliver when it has made the goods available at its premises to the buyer or at another named place. Without a contract or other document containing terms of sale between the parties, CBP presumes the parties intended title and risk of loss to pass in accordance with the Incoterms contained in the purchase order and invoice documents. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 26, 2025 |
H336298: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5301-19-100875; Classification of Steel Seamless Line Pipes; Applicability of Section 232 Duties; Time of Entry
| Ruling: Protest granted. |
| Issue: Whether the subject steel seamless line pipes are subject to the Section 232 duties. |
| Facts: The subject protest concerns steel seamless line pipes which were classified under subheading 7304.19.1020. The applicable rate of duty was zero at the time of entry. According to ACE, the timeline of events is as follows: An entry summary (CBP Form 7501) was filed to serve as both the entry and entry summary, and was accepted on March 14, 2018; however, the Protestant resubmitted the entry summary on March 16, 2018. The subject merchandise arrived at the Port of Houston Seaport on March 17, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Section 232 duties became effective. On March 27, 2018, the subject merchandise was released from CBP custody, and ACE identified this date as the date of entry. On December 7, 2018, the subject entry was liquidated, and the Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise (Center) accordingly assessed the Section 232 duties, because ACE identified the date of release -- March 27, 2018 -- as the date of entry. |
| Reason: Although ACE identifies March 27, 2023, which is the date when the subject merchandise was released from CBP custody, as the date of entry, this is not the applicable date of entry as established by law. Pursuant to section 141.68 of the CBP regulations, once the entered merchandise arrives within port limits with intent to unlade, and an entry summary, which serves as both the entry and the entry summary, is timely filed, “the time of entry will be the time the entry summary is filed in proper form with estimated duties attached.” According to ACE, the entry summary was last filed on March 16, 2018, and the subject merchandise arrived at the Port of Houston Seaport on March 17, 2018. Accordingly, the proper date of entry is March 17, 2018, which predates the effective date of the Section 232 duties. Thus, the subject steel seamless line pipes are not subject to the Section 232 duties. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 24, 2025 |