Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on April 4 and May 13 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.
H329916: Country of Origin Marking of Worn Donated Clothing
| Ruling: Whenever the name of any foreign country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced appear on an imported article or its container, and those words, letters or names may mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the article, there shall appear legibly and permanently in close proximity to such words, letters or name, and in at least a comparable size, the name of the country of origin of the product preceded by “Made in,” “Product of,” or other words of similar meaning. The country of origin of used clothing purchased from the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, and similar charitable organizations has previously been considered by CBP. For example, in HQ730174, dated March 31, 1987, CBP determined that used clothing was of U.S. origin because it was purchased from the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries stores, and similar organizations within the United States, and therefore presumed to have been worn and used in the United States. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin marking of the worn donated clothing? Is the marking “Processed, Packaged and/or Produced in Canada” an acceptable country of origin marking? Is it acceptable to identify the warehouse in Canada as the manufacturer of the worn, donated clothing at issue? |
| Item: Certain worn donated clothing processed in Canada and imported into the U.S. by Manji Trading. |
| Reason: The country of origin of clothing items that were sourced from donations in Canada is Canada. Accordingly, such clothing items must be marked with “Made in Canada,” “Country of origin Canada,” or other words of similar meaning. The country of origin of clothing items that were sourced from the United States is the United States. However, no statement as to their country of origin is required under Customs laws. The use of the phrase “Made in the U.S.A” or similar words denoting U.S. origin is under the jurisdiction of the FTC, not CBP, and warrants consultation with the FTC. Use of the terms “Processed in Canada” on the donated graded, checked, scrubbed, washed, repaired, overdyed, and re-graded items is permissible provided the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 are met. However, use of “Processed, Packaged and/or Produced in Canada” is not acceptable because such marking is misleading as to the actual country of origin of the clothing items featuring it. The warehouse in Canada, in which the clothing items are graded, checked, scrubbed, washed, repaired, overdyed, and re-graded, cannot be identified as the manufacturer pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 102.23(a). |
| Ruling Date: March 28, 2025 |
H299275: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-18-100410; Classification of Styrene-Isoprene Block Copolymer
| Ruling: By application of GRI 1 and GRI 6, Septon 1020 is classified in subheading 3902.90.00, which provides for “Polymers of propylene or of other olefins, in primary forms: Other.” |
| Issue: Whether the instant merchandise is properly classified as polymers of propylene or of other olefins of heading 3902, or synthetic rubber and factice derived from oils of heading 4002 |
| Item: Kuraray America's styrene-isoprene block copolymer identified as “Septon 1020” |
| Reason: Three different CBP Laboratory analysts conducted a full examination of the Septon 1020 and came to the same conclusion that it is not classifiable in Chapter 40. CBP found that there is no evidence that would call into question the accuracy of CBP’s laboratory report, and the Protestant has therefore failed to overcome the presumption of correctness given to CBP’s Laboratory. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 27, 2023 |
H310555: Modification of NY H85742; Classification of truck and trailer wheels and hubs from China or South Korea
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the hubs for trucks are classified in subheading 8708.99.68, which provides “Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705: Other parts and accessories: Other: Other: Other: Other parts of 3 power trains….” The hubs and wheels for trailers are classified under subheading 8716.90.50, which provides for “Trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not mechanically propelled; and parts thereof: Parts: Other….” |
| Issue: What is the classification of the wheels and hubs for trucks and trailers? |
| Item: Webb Wheel Products' certain spoke wheels for truck steering axles, spoke wheels for trailers, hubs for truck drive axles, and hubs |
| Reason: The wheels and hubs at issue are not designed for interchangeable use with motor vehicles and trailers. Rather, each model corresponds to its specific use. The hubs for motor vehicle use are very much distinguishable from the hubs used on trailers by name and physical characteristics. Therefore, they must be classified separately. Wheel hubs (or axle hubs, or hubs) are also not wheels, nor parts or accessories to wheels. The hubs for trucks are for drive axles, which makes them parts of power trains. As such, they are classified in subheading 8708.99.68. The wheels and hubs for trailers are classified under subheading 8716.90.50. |
| Ruling Date: Feb. 24, 2025 |
H342446: National Oilwell Varco Request for Internal Advice; 19 C.F.R. § 177.11; Tariff Classification of PFT Hub and Cap System
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the Hub and Cap System is classified in heading 7307 when intended to be attached to a pipe, and specifically in subheading 7307.93.3040, which provides for “Tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves), or iron ot steel: Other: Butt welding fittings: With an inside diameter of less than 360 mm: Of iron or nonalloy steel: Other.” When not intended to be attached to a pipe, the hub and cap system is classified in heading 7326, and specifically in subheading 7326.90.8688, which provides for “Other articles of iron or steel: Other: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Issue: Whether the Hub and Cap System is classified in subheading 7307.93.3040, which provides for “Tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves), or iron ot steel: Other: Butt welding fittings: With an inside diameter of less than 360 mm: Of iron or nonalloy steel: Other,” or in subheading 7326.90.8688, which provides for “Other articles of iron or steel: Other: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Item: National Oilwell Varco's PFT Hub and Cap System, which is used in oil field applications to facilitate inspections or cleaning of piping systems, pig traps, and pressure vessels |
| Reason: If the intended use of the hub and cap system at issue here is not to be attached to a pipe, then it is, by definition, not a pipe fitting because it does not connect two ends of pipe. Because the hub and cap system cannot be a pipe fitting in this context, GRI 1 prevents its classification in heading 7307. Because there is no other appropriate heading for the hub and cap system when not attached to a pipe, then it must be classified in the basket provision for other articles of iron or steel, heading 7326. The non-pipe fitting use of the hub and cap system would fall into heading 7326 because it is not more specifically provided for in the HTSUS. In such instance, the hub and cap system is classified in subheading 7326.90.8688. |
| Ruling Date: March 11, 2025 |
H317599: Application for Further Review of Protest Number 4601-20-120362; alleged entry by broker without authority
| Ruling: Flagship is liable for payment of the duties owed on xxxxxxxx93-5. |
| Issue: Whether Flagship is liable for the duties owed on entry xxx-xxxxx93-5. |
| Facts: Flagship Converters had imported 48 rolls of metalized film and disputed its obligation to pay the final assessment of duties owed on entry number xxx-xxxxx93-5 on the basis that it did not consent to be the importer of record for the entry. |
| Reason: Both the entry and the entry summary list Flagship as the importer of record and ultimate consignee. The commercial invoice for the entry transaction, along with the packing list, also name Flagship as the purchaser of the imported film. Flagship does not dispute that it did in fact purchase the film and take delivery as the ultimate consignee. As the “owner or purchaser” of the film, Flagship qualifies as the importer of record for the entry. Significantly, Flagship did not avail itself of the remedy to avoid liability for payment of duties provided by the filing of an actual owner’s declaration. Neither of the two arguments raised by Flagship -- that it did not duly authorize customs broker NYC Supply Chain Solutions to make entry and that it did not contractually accept liability for duty payment by claiming delivered duty paid payment terms -- outweigh CBP’s authority to rely on the entry documentation and evidence before it. |
| Ruling Date: March 11, 2025 |
H345045: Requirements for Exportation of Used Self-Propelled Vehicles; Racing; 19 C.F.R. § 192
| Ruling: The vehicles are not being transported out of the U.S. for the purpose of entering them into the commerce of Mexico, therefore the provisions of 19 C.F.R. 192 are not applicable. |
| Issue: Whether the transportation of U.S.-owned race cars from the U.S. to Mexico for the purpose of participating in a race event with the intent to return would require compliance with 19 C.F.R. § 192. |
| Facts: Cars, off-road vehicles and related equipment participating in a June 2025 race in Mexico City, Mexico, scheduled by the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing |
| Reason: See ruling. |
| Ruling Date: May 12, 2025 |