Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings July 7-14
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between July 7 and July 14 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.
H240506: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 0712-13-100009; Classification of SuperSand Filter Components
| Ruling: By application of the General Rules of Interpreation 1 and 6 (with the exception of the sockets, which are classified by application of GRIs 1, 3(b), and 6), the imported components are classified as follows: (1) Air lift pumps: 8414.10.00 (2.5% ad valorem) (2) Sand discharge pipes: 7304.90.70 (duty free) (3) Sand measuring rods: 8421.99.00 (duty free) (4) Measuring plug: 8421.99.00 (duty free) (5) Air hoses: 3917.32.00 (3.1% ad valorem) (6) Splash hoods: 8421.99.00 (duty free) (7) Sand washers: 8421.99.00 (duty free) (8) Box of pipes: 7304.29.50 (duty free) (9) Pipe joints 76: 4016.99.60 (2.5% ad valorem) (10) Pipe joints 154: 4016.99.60 (2.5% ad valorem) (11) Sockets 154x175mm: 7307.11.00 (4.8% ad valorem) (12) Spacing washers concrete: 8421.99.00 (duty free) (13) M12 threaded rods: 7318.15.50 (duty free) (14) M6M12 nuts: 7318.16.00 (duty free) (15) M6M10 nuts: 7318.16.00 (duty free) (16) Washers: 7318.22.00 (duty free) (17) Screws M6SM 10x30: 7318.15.80 (8.5% ad valorem) (18) Screws M6SM 10x50: 7318.15.80 (8.5% ad valorem) |
| Issue: Whether the subject components are classified: (1) together as unassembled “filtering or purifying machinery” under heading 8421, HTSUS, (2) or individually under their respective headings. |
| Item: Westech Engineering's components imported together for the assembly of the SuperSand Continuous Backwash Filter |
| Reason: It is well-settled that goods are to be classified according to their condition as imported, according to Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Given that the missing components are essential to the operation of the SuperSand Filter device, the imported components do not possess the essential character of a complete filtering apparatus of heading 8421 by application of GRI 2(a). |
| Ruling Date: April 29, 2025 |
H333257: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 270421153931; Tile Traditions, LLC; Antidumping Duties (A-570-084) for Certain Quartz Products from the People’s Republic of China
| Ruling: The legal date of entry for entry number xxx-xxxx289-9 was November 9, 2018. Accordingly, the entry is not subject to antidumping duties. |
| Issue: What is the legal date of entry for entry number xxx-xxxx289-9? |
| Item: Tile Traditions' certain quartz products from China |
| Reason: For entry number xxx-xxxx289-9, the importer filed in ACE an entry summary that served as both the entry documentation and entry summary on Nov. 1, 2018. ACE reflects that this entry summary was accepted on Nov. 1, 2018. However, because the date of entry cannot predate the arrival of the cargo within port limits, the date of entry cannot predate Nov. 9, 2018, which is the date on which the cargo actually arrived at the Port of Los Angeles. CBP found that the date of entry is Nov. 9, 2018, the date on which the cargo arrived within port limits with the intent to unlade. CBP found that the subsequently filed paper entries and entry summaries, and rejection of the entry summary on April 3, 2019, do not serve to modify the time of entry as established in accordance with federal code. Furthermore, pursuant to an AD order, CBP was instructed to assess antidumping duties on “unliquidated entries of quartz surface products from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 20, 2018.” The Nov. 9, 2018, date of entry thus predates the Nov. 20, 2018, date. |
| Ruling Date: May 6, 2025 |
H331108: Valuation of Imported Watches and Watch Components; Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91
| Ruling: The method proposed by the requestor to appraise the imported self-sourced and third-party sourced watches and the four statistical breakouts doesn't satisfy the requirements of Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91. |
| Issue: Whether the methods proposed by the requestor to appraise imported self-sourced and third-party sourced watches and their components are acceptable and comply with the requirements of Statistical Note 1, Chapter 91. |
| Item: Unnamed company's imports and distribution of watches containing both Swiss and other foreign-made components. All watches imported by the requestor are purchased from wholly-owned subsidiary companies. |
| Reason: Because the importer has complete insight into the component costs of its self-sourced watches and because it is manifestly clear that not all intellectual property, labor, overhead, and profit costs associated with the third-party sourced watches are attributable to the movement, CBP determined that HQ H259490 is inapplicable to the present matter. The requestor suggested an alternative allocation methodology: for the self-sourced watches, the requestor proposed a methodology in which the intangible costs are broken into two separate categories, assembly costs and overhead and profit costs, and apportioned separately; for third-party sourced watches, the requestor stated that the proposed allocation should be based upon the weighted average allocation percentages for similarly classified self-sourced watches. However, the requestor’s proposed method of allocation is not supported by the background documentation. First, the requestor’s proposed weighted-average allocation of the costs associated with assembly operations is based on a subjective assessment of the relative complexity of various manufacturing steps multiplied by the time taken to accomplish each operation. Second, the requestor’s proposed allocation of overhead and profit is also not substantiated by the provided documentation. Instead, CBP suggests that the valuation for intangible costs associated with the value of each watch (e.g., overhead, profit, and intellectual property) be apportioned in the same ratio as the material costs associated with each statistical breakout. |
| Ruling Date: June 11, 2025 |
H341715: Classification; Country of Origin; Substantial Transformation; Fungicide; Section 301
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, Gavel 75DF® is classified under heading 3808, specifically subheading 3808.92.15, HTSUS. Further, Gavel 75DF is substantially transformed through the process that occurs in India. Thus, the country of origin is India, and Gavel 75DF is not subject to Section 301 measures. |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of Gavel 75DF®? What is the country of origin of Gavel 75DF® for purposes of Section 301 trade remedies? |
| Item: Gowan Company's granular formulated mixture intended for use as a fungicide, containing active ingredients from China and India. |
| Reason: In NY N007374, dated March 9, 2007, CBP classified a prepared fungicide containing active ingredients Mancozeb and Mefenoxam, an aromatic, under subheading 3808.92.24. Because the presence of a benzene ring was revealed in mefenoxam making it an aromatic, CBP determined that the fungicide was classified under subheading 3808.92.15, which provides for fungicides containing any aromatic or modified aromatic fungicide. Similarly, Gavel 75DF contains an aromatic due to the presence of a benzene ring. The Explanatory Notes of the Harmonized Commodity Description Coding System of Rule 2(b) explains that “Mixtures being preparations described in a heading text are to be classified under the provisions of Rule 1,” which means that GRI 3 is not applicable to mixtures that are in and of themselves preparations described in their entirety in a single heading or subheading. As for country of origin, in determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of products from chemicals, Customs has consistently examined whether a chemical reaction occurs when two chemicals are mixed in the production of the final article. In this case, similar to the cases above, the mixture increases the effectiveness of the individual active ingredients and expands their application. When Zoxamide is mixed with Mancozeb, the mixture may be used for more purposes, such as for controlling bunch rot and dead arm on grapes, a use it does not have before the APIs are mixed. Accordingly, CBP concluded that a substantial transformation has occurred through the mixing of the active ingredients in India, making India the country of origin of Gavel 75DF. |
| Ruling Date: June 30, 2025 |
H348097: Instruments of International Traffic; 19 U.S.C. § 1332(a); § 10.41a(a)(1); § 10.41a(a)(2), Aeronet Middle East FZE; Returnable Pallets, Cargo Nets, Restraint Straps, Repair and Accessory Components
| Ruling: The subject pallets qualify for treatment as instruments of international trade (IIT) within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and § 10.41a(a)(1) The subject cargo nets qualify for treatment as accessories for instruments of international trade within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and § 10.41a(a)(2) The subject cargo nets qualify for treatment as accessories for instruments of international trade within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and § 10.41a(a)(2) The subject repair and accessory components qualify for treatment as accessories or repair parts for instruments of international traffic within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and § 10.41a(a)(2). |
| Issue: Whether the subject pallets qualify for consideration as IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1); Whether the subject cargo nets qualify for consideration as accessories of IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(2); Whether the tie down straps qualify for consideration as accessories of IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(2); Whether the subject parts qualify for consideration as IIT repair components within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(2). |
| Item: Aeronet Middle East's aircraft pallets, cargo nets, restraint straps, repair and accessory components |
| Reason: To qualify for entry-free and duty-free treatment as IITs under the aforementioned statutory and regulatory authority, the article must be a substantial container or holder. To qualify as an IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1), an article used as a container or holder must be: (1) substantial, (2) suitable for and capable of repeated use, and (3) used in significant numbers in international traffic. Based upon review of the submission and information provided, the subject pallets 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 aluminum and are expected to have a five-to-six-year life span. Based upon review of the submission and information provided, the subject cargo nets 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 high tenacity polyester and steel and are expected to have a three-to-five-year lifespan. Based upon review of the submission and information provided, the subject tie down straps 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 high tenacity polyester webbing and steel and are expected to have a three-to-five-year lifespan. For repair parts, consistent with the foregoing regulation, CBP has held that repair parts for foreign-produced instruments of international traffic would receive duty-free treatment if the remaining conditions of the regulation were met. As such, upon entry of the spare parts, if Aeronet files a declaration with CBP that the assorted components are to be used in the repair of the subject pallets and cargo nets, and the port director where the assorted components are entered is satisfied that they were intended to be imported as repair components for the subject pallets and cargo nets at the time of importation, the assorted components may be entered without the deposit of duty. |
| Ruling Date: July 2, 2025 |
H346255: Affirmation of HQ H283420; Country of Origin Marking Requirements for Repackaged Prescription Medication Sold at Retail Pharmacies
| Ruling: CBP reiterated that the ultimate purchaser of prescription medication sold at retail pharmacies is the customer who buys the medication at retail, and not the retail pharmacy. Furthermore, importers of prescription medication that sell to retail pharmacies, which repackage and sell the medication to the ultimate purchasers, must comply with the certification and notice requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 134.25(a) and (d). Therefore, HQ H283420 is hereby affirmed. |
| Issue: Should HQ H283420 be upheld and maintained? |
| Item: National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Community Pharmacists Association and Healthcare Distribution Alliance requested reconsideration of HQ H283420, dated June 14, 2024, which held that the ultimate purchaser for imported prescription medication sold at retail pharmacies is the customer at retail and that importers of prescription medication have certain certification and notice requirements. |
| Reason: Requesters have not provided any evidence or a single example that shows how adherence to HQ H283420 hinders the ability of retail pharmacies to comply with state or federal law. Requesters have simply argued that the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) does not require this information. Although this may be true, CBP, not the FDA, is the agency that implements and enforces the marking statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1304. Furthermore, CBP is not bound by the rules and regulations of other agencies, and we found no conflict between FDA’s guidance and the holding in the internal advice. In fact, requiring the country of origin on prescription medication sold at retail furthers the objective of the DSCSA of protecting patient safety and preventing dangerous counterfeit medications sold at retail. |
| Ruling Date: July 3, 2025 |