Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings July 15
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on July 15 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.
H329919: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-22-127609; Tariff Classification of LED Panels and LED Display Units
| Ruling: The LED panels imported with MCTRL660 controller/processors are properly classified under subheading 8528.52.00, which provides for “Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus; reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus: Other monitors: Capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471.” The LED panels imported without a MCTRL660 controller/processor are to be classified under subheading 8528.59.33, which provides for “Monitors and projectors, not incorporating 6 television reception apparatus; reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus: Other monitors: Other: Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other.” |
| Issue: Whether the subject LED panels and LED display units are properly classified under subheading 8528.52, as “[O]ther monitors: capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471” or under subheading 8528.59, as “[O]ther monitors: Other.” |
| Item: ANC Sports Enterprises' LED panels and LED display units |
| Reason: It is clear that the LED panels, which were imported in every entry, satisfy the definitions provided in Prysm v. U.S. and HQ H049555, making them “monitors” under heading 8528. As such, the principal issue arises at the six-digit level, namely whether the LED panels are “capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with” an ADP under subheading 8528.52. While each LED panel may be able to directly connect to an ADP machine via its Ethernet inputs, they are not designed for use with an ADP without an accompanying MCTRL660 functioning as a processor/controller. The subject LED panels are designed to be connected in a system, with the MCTRL660s being the intermediary between the panels and an ADP. Without the MCTRL660, the LED panels cannot adequately convert signals transmitted from an ADP and a user could not manage the LED panel’s display settings, including the general appearance and image uniformity, or account for the resolution, aspect ratio, and orientation of each display. Regarding those entries that include both LED panels and MCTRL660s, the panels and controller/processors “contribute together to a clearly defined function,” namely displaying images from an ADP, and, consequently, are a functional unit under Legal Note 4 to Section XVI, HTSUS. Both the LED panel and the MCTRL660 are “essential to the performance of the function specific to the functional unit as a whole” because the LED panel needs the controller/processor in order to satisfy the requirement of being “designed for use” with an ADP. As such, it is important that the MCTRL660s possess the necessary capabilities to properly function with the LED panels in each entry. If the MCTRL660s did not have the controlling/processing abilities to manage the number of LED panels imported, the merchandise would not be a functional unit because the entry would not contain the articles “essential to the performance specific to the functional unit as a whole.” |
| Ruling Date: May 13, 2025 |
H317418: Protest and Application for Further Review No 3501-20-100587; Classification of certain models of “heat guns”
| Ruling: The Furno 300, 500, 700, and 750 model heat guns are classified under subheading 8419.89.9585, which provides for “Machinery, plant or laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated (excluding furnaces, ovens and other equipment of heading 8514), for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, sterilizing, pasteurizing, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporizing, condensing or cooling, other than machinery or plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage water heaters, nonelectric; parts thereof: Other machinery, plant or equipment: Other: Other: Other: Other: For other materials." To the extent that they were entered when it was still valid, the subject heat guns are eligible for the exclusion covered by Chapter 99 Note 20 (o) (16) under subheading 9903.88.12: “Heat guns (described in statistical reporting number 8419.89.9585).” |
| Issue: Whether the subject heat guns are classified under heading 8419, as machinery for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, or heading 8516, as other electrothermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes. |
| Item: Wagner Spray Tech's products commercially known as “heat guns” |
| Reason: CBP has issued several rulings on products similar to the subject merchandise. In HQ 966792, dated Feb. 18, 2004, CBP examined the principal use of heat guns, also imported by protestant, in domestic and non-domestic applications and concluded they were properly classified in heading 8419. |
| Ruling Date: May 13, 2025 |
H345452: Protest No. 2704-2014-101137; Legal Sufficiency of Notice to Redeliver
| Ruling: The Notice to Redeliver was legally sufficient because the content and overall circumstances surrounding the notice adequately apprised Siderick of the basis of the redelivery demand to allow it to protest the action. |
| Issue: Whether the Notice to Redeliver sufficiently provided adequate notice of the basis for CBP’s demands. |
| Item: Siderick International's shipment of 308 cartons of men’s shoes on June 2, 2014 into the Port of Long Beach |
| Reason: CBP included in the notice’s remarks section additional information about the redelivery demand. Specifically, CBP stated that the shipment is “suspected of containing merchandise in violation of intellectual property rights (IPR) registered with Customs and Border Protection Gucci and Salvatore Ferragamo.” While CBP did incorrectly cite 19 C.F.R. 113.26 instead of 19 C.F.R. 133.26 and did not cite 19 U.S.C. § 1526, Siderick still received notice of the issue: a violation of Gucci’s and Salvatore Ferragamo’s intellectual property rights. Siderick stated in its protest that it discussed the matter with CBP and even argued that the merchandise has its own trademarks, independently designed and manufactured. Given these considerations, Siderick clearly had notice of the issue and understood the basis for the redelivery demand. Siderick, nevertheless, still failed to provide CBP with any additional documentation or information to rebut CBP’s allegation of an intellectual property violation. Furthermore, CBP’s redelivery demand was not overly broad given the circumstances of the case. The notice explicitly indicates that CBP is concerned about shoes that bear intellectual property similar to those owned by Gucci and Salvatore Ferragamo. CBP had no other means of distinguishing between the shoes in the shipment or reducing the scope of the redelivery demand because Siderick’s entry documents did not provide any differentiating information regarding the shoe designs. For example, the Entry Summary only states “Men PU and Leather Shoes,” and the 4 packing list only describes the shoes as having the Siderick label, as being different generic black and brown colors, and as being made of different types of leather. |
| Ruling Date: May 14, 2025 |
H346762: Coastwise Transportation; Undersea Cable Laying; Dredging; 46 U.S.C. § 55012; 46 U.S.C. § 55109
| Ruling: The proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment would not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55012. 2. The proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment would not violate the Dredging Statue, 46 U.S.C. § 55109. |
| Issue: Whether the proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment would violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55012. 2; and whether the proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment would violate the Dredging Statue, 46 U.S.C. § 55109. |
| Item: Unnamed company's proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment to effect the installation of electric transmission cables |
| Reason: See ruling. |
| Ruling Date: July 3, 2025 |
H329278: Tariff Classification of Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws, and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo fruit puree products at issue are classified in heading 2008, specifically, subheading 2008.97.90, which provides for “Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included: Other, including mixtures other than those of subheading: Mixtures: Other.” |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification of the Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo? |
| Item: Lotus Bakeries North America's bite sized “fruit roll-up” snack foods |
| Reason: The manufacturing process for the Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo products is as follows: The fruit is moved to a stainless-steel depositor where it is transferred to a baking sheet and allowed to dry. The sheets of fruit are then slightly baked in a convection oven at a temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit. That heat treatment at 108 degrees Fahrenheit is not sufficient to render a product to be “obtained by heat treatment at atmospheric pressure or under reduced pressure” and therefore are not “obtained by cooking” within the meaning of Note 5 to Chapter 20. Accordingly, the Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws, and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo products are not classified in heading 2007. Upon review of the ingredients contained in the Banana and Blueberry Smoothie Paws and Strawberry and Banana Smoothie Yoyo products, the products overwhelmingly consist of various fruit purees. Therefore, they are appropriately classified within heading 2008, as fruit preparations. The other ingredients in the products at issue -- gluten free oat extract, sunflower oil, and black carrot extract -- do not alter the essential character of the subject products as fruit purees. |
| Ruling Date: July 7, 2025 |