Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Aug. 5-7
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Aug. 5-7 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.
H337458: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1303-23-104102; Transaction Value; Formula
Ruling: Based on the information provided, the final price that the protestant pays Rusal marketing is determined according to an acceptable formula such that it constitutes the price actually paid or payable. |
Issue: Are the post-importation value decreases acceptable? |
Item: Aluminum products imported by PerenniAL Group, formerly known as Rusal America |
Reason: If the final sales price of imported merchandise is not ascertainable at the time of importation, the phrase “price in effect on the date of export” may be determined by application of a formula, provided that the formula is fixed at the time of importation and depends on some future event or occurrence over which neither the seller nor the buyer have any control. Here, the protestant has established a valid formula for purposes of determining the price actually paid or payable. The sales contract between Rusal Marketing and the protestant setting out the formula was entered into on April 29, 2022, which is prior to the entry of the imported merchandise on June 27, 2022. The final price that the protestant will pay depends on an objective standard over which neither the seller nor the protestant has any control - namely the Official London Metal Exchange. |
Ruling Date: May 27, 2025 |
H303312: Protest and Application for Further Review No. 2704-19-102404; Classification of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy systems from Lichtenstein
Ruling: By application of General Rules of Interpretation 1 and 6, the subject Bemer Professional Set and the Bemer Classic set are classified under subheading 9018.90.75, which provides for “Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof: Other instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof: Other: Electro-medical instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof: Other:” |
Issue: What is the proper classification under the HTSUS of the subject products? |
Item: Bemer USA's two models of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy systems. They are noninvasive devices designed to stimulate muscles by improving local blood distribution. |
Reason: In HQ 082973 (Oct. 4, 1989), CBP recognized that “intrinsically medical” devices may be classified in HTSUS heading 9018 even when they are used by patients instead of medical professional practice. Also, according to the 501(k) premarket notification submitted by Protestant, the devices are designed for patient-managed self-use in home settings and are suitable for “over-the-counter” use. Given the analysis of the Bemer Professional Set and the Bemer Classic Set devices’ capabilities, CBP finds that they are used as devices that are within the scope of subheading 9018 and are of the class or kind of goods classified in heading 9018. As to the scope of heading 8543, heading 8453 is a basket provision, and the Court of International Trade has held that classification of imported merchandise in a basket provision is appropriate only when there is no tariff category that covers the merchandise more specifically. |
Ruling Date: June 3, 2025 |
H335208: Protest and Application for Further Review No 4110-23-100871; Classification of certain LED display panels; NEOTI, LLC
Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject LED modules are classified in subheading 8528.59.33, 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: Other: Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other.” |
Issue: Whether the subject LED displays are classified under subheading 8528.52 as monitors capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471, or subheading 8528.59 as other monitors and projectors. |
Item: Light-emitting diode (LED) display panels imported by NEOTI |
Reason: CBP precedent establishes when a monitor itself is not capable of directly connecting to an ADP machine and is not designed for use with an ADP machine, and instead, when that monitor directly connects to another device, such as a video controller, processor, set-top box, etc., to be classified under subheading 8528.59 as other monitors. displays. The display controller serves as an intermediary connection between the display and the ADP machine. As such, the display is not capable or directly connecting to an ADP machine nor accepting a signal from the central processing unit of an machine. NEOTI in its protest cites NY N328363 (Oct. 17, 2022), where CBP classified a Sony Display System video wall under heading 8528.52. Protestant notes that both that NY ruling and its products utilize a display controller. However, the complete facts surrounding the displays classified in NY N328363 and those presently before CBP are not the same. The merchandise in NY N328363 were described as: a display controller, multiple display cabinets, cables, and a set up kit that work together to display images on a large scale. Because the goods in that ruling were presented together with the display controller and all the components needed to build the display wall system, a different analysis applied to classify those particular goods. |
Ruling Date: June 4, 2025 |
H331375: Subheading 9804.00.05; Country of Origin; Appraisement
Ruling: The custom wooden house kit is not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under subheading 9804.00.05. The country of origin of the custom wooden house kit for purposes of marking and trade remedies is Italy. The custom wooden house kit may be appraised under the fallback method pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(f) based on adjusting the original purchase price to reflect reasonable depreciation for the period it was used in Italy provided it is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). |
Issue: Is the house kit eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9804.00.05? What is the origin of the house kit for purposes of marking and additional trade remedy measures? Is the proposed method of appraisement of the imported house kit appropriate? |
Item: A disassembled custom wooden house kit imported from Italy. It is a prefabricated house manufactured in China primarily of wood, which was shipped unassembled to Italy where it was assembled on site into a complete finished home and utilized for three years. |
Reason: The term “household effects” in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as “[t]he movable contents of a house; property relating to the running or maintenance of a household, as furniture, domestic appliances, etc.” Based on this definition, CBP finds that the house kit is not considered a household effect and therefore it is not eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9804.00.05. Because the imported merchandise is a finished, unassembled house meant to be assembled on site, it is a prefabricated building of heading 9406. Such a house would be classifiable under subheading 9406.10.0000, which provides for prefabricated buildings: Of wood. The country of origin of the house kit imported into the United States remains the country where the housing components last underwent a substantial transformation into the finished house, which in this case is Italy. In Italy, the house was used for three years before being disassembled. The housing components do not undergo a change in character or use as a result of the disassembly. Accordingly, CBP finds that the country of origin of the house kit is Italy for marking purposes and for purposes of trade remedies. The method for appraisement based on adjusting the original purchase price to reflect reasonable depreciation for the period that the home kit was used in Italy is acceptable as a fallback method, provided it is in accordance with GAAP. |
Ruling Date: July 23, 2025 |
H332358: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-23-134023; Dreamwear Inc.; First Sale Valuation
Ruling: Dreamwear has not demonstrated the merchandise at issue was purchased via bona fide sales whereby Lucky Zone, as the middleman vendor, acted both as the buyer from DongGuan Lucky Zone, a related factory seller, and as the seller to Dreamwear, the importer of record. CBP also finds that Dreamwear failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that the transactions between the two related parties, Lucky Zone and DongGuan Lucky Zone, were negotiated at arm’s length. Because Dreamwear failed to demonstrate that the sales between Lucky Zone and DongGuan Lucky Zone were bona fide sales negotiated at arm’s length, CBP will not address whether the costs declared to CBP at the time of entry included all dutiable assists provided by Lucky Zone to DongGuan Lucky Zone. |
Issue: Whether the Protestant submitted sufficient evidence to support the use of transaction value of the entered merchandise based upon the sales between the middleman vendor and its related factory seller under the “first sale” principle of appraisement. |
Item: Dreamwear's two entries of clothing that were entered on Aug. 21, 2020, and Sept. 25, 2020, and liquidated on Sept. 2, 2022. The entries at issue all involve clothing produced in China and were subject to multi-tiered transactions. Importer Dreamwear purchases clothing from a “middleman” vendor, Lucky Zone Development, which does not manufacture the clothing items, but places orders with a related factory seller, DongGuan Lucky Zone Garments and Accessories. Dreamwear's counsel claims that the first sale valuation of the entries at issue based upon the sales price between Dreamwear’s middleman vendor, Lucky Zone, and DongGuan Lucky Zone, should have been used. |
Reason: Based on the documentation presented to CBP, there is no question that the merchandise manufactured at DongGuan Lucky Zone’s factory was clearly destined for the United States. While Dreamwear did provide CBP with a variety of documents, it did not meet its burden of providing a complete paper trail as required by Treasury Decision (TD) 96-87, even after being accorded multiple opportunities to do so. Accordingly, it impossible to determine whether the transactions between the middleman vendor, Lucky Zone, and the factory seller, DongGuan Lucky Zone, constitute bona fide sales for exportation upon which transaction value may be based. For determining whether an arm's length transaction occurred, Dreamwear failed to meet its burden in demonstrating via documentary evidence. Dreamwear provided an organizational chart describing the functions of the middleman vendor and the factory seller, but this chart falls far short of setting forth detailed descriptions of the roles of each of the parties involved in the multi-tiered transactions. Moreover, according to Dreamwear, Lucky Zone and DongGuan Lucky are related to one another through common family ownership, which raises further concerns regarding arm’s length transactions. The documentation submitted by Dreamwear does not substantiate that the price was adequate to ensure the recovery of all costs plus a profit equivalent to the firm’s overall profit realized over a representative period of time. CBP further notes that under the circumstances of the sales approach, Dreamwear did not provide any other evidence indicating that the relationship between Lucky Zone and DongGuan Lucky Zone did not affect the price paid or payable. |
Ruling Date: June 4, 2025 |
H348257: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1370; Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same
Ruling: The Nvidia Blackwell Products at issue in this inter partes proceeding are subject to exclusion from entry unless and until they are found not to be subject to the scope of the investigation as defined in the limited exclusion order. This would be when Blackwell computing systems do not contain power converter modules as defined in the limited exclusion order and for purposes of the scope of investigation. |
Issue: Separately filed requests from Quanta Computer and Quanta Computer USA (collectively, Quanta) and Nvidia, both of which are dated May 16, 2025. |
Item: Nvidia Blackwell Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) that may be included on ‘mezzanine’ boards. The baseboards do not contain any power converter modules, let alone any made by Delta or Cyntec. NVIDIA also designs server boards with Grace CPUs and Blackwell GPUs. |
Reason: See ruling. |
Ruling Date: July 8, 2025 |