Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings July 22
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on July 22 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.
H335773: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-23-167714; Classification of a Baby Monitor Set
| Ruling: 8525.89.30, which provides for “Transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Other: Television cameras: Other.” |
| Issue: Whether the subject touchscreen monitor, or “Parent Unit,” is classified under heading 8527, as a “reception apparatus for radiobroadcasting,” or under heading 8528, as a “monitor.” Whether the subject baby monitor set is classified under heading 8525, as a “television camera,” or under heading 8527, as a “reception apparatus for radio broadcasting.” |
| Item: Exclusive Group d/b/a Binatone North America's baby monitor set from China described as the “Nursery Pal Deluxe" |
| Reason: The subject touchscreen monitor, or “Parent Unit,” is a machine designed for the purpose of performing multiple alternative functions. These functions, in the main, include playing certain media – including lullabies, picture books, games, videos, and sounds – as well as displaying the live video feed from the wireless camera through an RF signal. Therefore, under Note 3 to Section XVI, HTSUS, the Parent Unit must be classified “as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function.” CBP found that the principal function of the subject touchscreen monitor is to display the live video feed from the wireless camera as a “monitor” of heading 8528. First, the touchscreen monitor defaults to viewing the live camera footage. This prioritization of the live camera feed demonstrates that the Parent Unit, by design, facilitates baby monitoring first, while the media functions are of secondary importance. Also, the protestant contends that the subject touchscreen monitor is more appropriately classified as a “reception apparatus for radio broadcasting” under heading 8527. In support of this assertion, the protestant avers that “since the Congress who drafted the headings and subheadings is presumed to understand the scope of the heading, the language of the subheadings is instructive as to the scope of the heading,” and that “[i]t would be unreasonable to assume that Customs did not intend that articles described in a subheading to heading 8527 would not be considered to be prima facie classified in that heading.” But this “bottom-up” approach for determining the scope of a heading and Congress’s intent is “backwards,” to borrow the courts’ phrasing. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explicitly rejected the protestant’s proposed analysis, and as the court has reiterated, “a proper classification analysis starts with the terms of the headings, not the subheadings.” Meanwhile, the wireless camera analogously imparts the essential character of the subject baby monitor set. Because the subject wireless camera imparts the essential character of the baby monitor set, the entire set is classifiable as if it consists only of the wireless camera. It is undisputed that the subject wireless camera is classifiable as a “television camera” of heading 8525. |
| Ruling Date: May 22, 2025 |
H329790: Temporary Importation under Bond (TIB); exportation; satellites launched into orbit
| Ruling: Launching a satellite into outer space does not constitute exportation for purposes of satisfying the requirement to export merchandise entered under a temporary importation under bond (TIB) but does constitute constructive destruction. Accordingly, constructive destruction of a satellite upon launch into outer space satisfies the requirement to destroy merchandise entered under a TIB. |
| Issue: Whether launching a satellite into outer space constitutes exportation for purposes of satisfying the requirement to export or destroy merchandise entered under a TIB. |
| Item: A Temporary Importation under Bond (TIB) entry number XXX-XXXXX113, dated Jan. 30, 2023. The entry was filed by Maxar Space for imported articles used to manufacture, produce, and test satellites that are launched into outer space. |
| Reason: Maxar entered under a TIB was launched into outer space upon the launch of a satellite. Maxar argues that launching a satellite into indefinite orbit in outer space, without any intention of returning the merchandise to the United States, constitutes exportation. Maxar bases its argument on HQ H282698, dated Feb. 24, 2017, in which CBP determined that “the definition of exportation includes satellites that are launched into permanent orbit from the territory of the United States” for purposes of drawback. CBP’s conclusion in Treasury Decision 67-199(2) is consistent with the definition of exportation in 19 C.F.R. Section 101.1, which requires not only a physical departure of merchandise from the United States but also an intent to enter such merchandise into the commerce of a foreign country. Although CBP has deemed exportation to occur if merchandise is not destined for a foreign country for drawback purposes, CBP has not reached the same conclusion for TIB purposes. Here, the merchandise Maxar entered under a TIB was launched into outer space as part of a satellite that was not destined for a foreign country because outer space, like international waters, does not belong to any foreign country. Accordingly, CBP finds that launching a satellite into outer space does not constitute exportation for TIB purposes. However, akin to the satellite in T.D. 67-199(2), this satellite was launched for an indefinite period of orbit and without any intention of being returned to the United States - such that this satellite cannot be recovered and will ultimately disintegrate upon reentry. Consequently, CBP finds that the merchandise Maxar entered under a TIB was constructively destroyed upon launch into outer space, and the requirement to export or destroy merchandise entered under a TIB was thereby satisfied. |
| Ruling Date: June 16, 2025 |
H341684: Classification; Country of Origin Marking; USMCA; Cargo Container
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the cargo container will be classified under subheading 8707.90.50, which provides for “other bodies for vehicles of heading 8704.” The goods at issue will also be deemed USMCA originating. |
| Issue: What is the tariff classification for the cargo container? What is the country of origin for marking purposes of the cargo container? Is the cargo container eligible for USMCA preferential tariff treatment? |
| Item: Hyundai Translead San Diego's Hyundai cargo container for use with heavy trucks. The cargo container is stated to be sold as an aftermarket part for heavy trucks. The cargo container is assembled in Mexico with parts consisting of USMCA-originating and non-USMCA-originating materials. All the non-USMCA-originating materials used in the production of the parts are classifiable outside of heading 8707. |
| Reason: To provide a more seamless transition to the USMCA for Canadian and Mexican traders, at this time, CBP continues to utilize the marking rules in 19 C.F.R. Part 102, e 19 C.F.R. Section 102.19, for purposes of country of origin marking with respect to goods of those countries. Based on the information from the diagrams in your submission, all the foreign materials of the cargo container are classified outside of heading 8707. Therefore, the tariff shift requirement is met. As such, the country of origin of the cargo container for marking purposes will be Mexico. As for eligibility for preferential tariff treatment under USCMA, the applicant provided the information necessary to determine whether the tariff shift rule in GN 11(o)/87.18 has been satisfied -- namely, a complete bill of materials listing the tariff classification and originating status of each material used in production. Based on the information provided, no non-originating materials are classified under the same heading. Accordingly, provided that all other requirements are met, the cargo container will be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA when used as aftermarket parts. |
| Ruling Date: July 10, 2025 |