Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Aug. 14-15
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Aug. 14-15 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.
H342749: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2801-24-102038; Application of Section 301 duties to filter membrane rolls and filter membrane flats from China; U.S. note 20(ttt)(i)(2), (28) to subchapter III of Chapter 99 (subheadings 9903.88.01, 9903.88.67, HTSUS)
| Ruling: The filter membrane rolls and filter membrane flats are classified in subheading 8421.99.1040, which provides for “Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases; parts thereof: Filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids: Parts: Other: Parts of machinery and apparatus for filtering or purifying water.” Also, the goods are subject to an additional 25% ad valorem rate of duty imposed by subheading 9903.88.01. |
| Issue: Are the subject articles excluded from the scope of subheading 9903.88.01, HTSUS, by virtue of the application of U.S. Note 20 (ttt)(i)(28) to subchapter III of Chapter 99 (9903.88.67, HTSUS)? |
| Item: Filter membrane rolls and filter membrane flats from China imported by Snyder Filtration |
| Reason: There is no dispute that the goods are classified in subheading 8421.99.01, as parts of filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids and gases. What is being considered is whether the goods are subject to additional duties by application of subheading 9903.88.01, or excluded from such duties by application of the exclusion. Protestant argues that the exclusion’s reference to “steel” only applies to the preceding terms “filter housings, covers, or couplings,” and that the “and” after the phrase “the foregoing of steel” is adding to that phrase to specify that other parts that are not made of steel are included within the scope of the exclusion. But that is a labored interpretation of the exclusion’s plain language. A straightforward reading of the language indicates that the phrases “the foregoing of steel” and “comprising parts of machinery or apparatus for filtering liquids” qualify and restrict the scope of the preceding elements “filter housings, covers, or couplings.” Simply put, the exclusion indicates that pertinent filter housings, covers or couplings must be made of steel and must also be parts of machinery or apparatus for filtering liquids in order for the exclusion to apply, and the subject articles are not made of steel. |
| Ruling Date: June 9, 2025 |
H323634: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5501-21-105519; Classification of Optical Protection Switch Modules
| Ruling: The optical protection switch modules (OPSMs) are properly classified under subheading 8517.69.00, which provides for: “Telephone sets, including smartphones and other telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than transmission or reception apparatus of heading 8443, 8525, 8527 or 8528; parts thereof: Other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network): Other.” |
| Issue: Do the subject optical protection switch modules (OPSMs) constitute “Machines for the reception, conversion, and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus” under subheading 8517.62? |
| Item: Coriant North America's optical protection switch modules (OPSMs), which are devices used in fiber optic communication networks |
| Reason: There is no dispute that the subject OPSMs constitute apparatuses “for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,” in accordance with the terms of heading 8517. The OPSMs are clearly designed to facilitate and preserve the connectivity of a fiber optic network, along which voice, images, and other data are transmitted and received. To be classifiable under GRIs 1 and 6 under subheading 8517.62, the OPSMs must be used for receiving, converting, and transmitting or regenerating voice, images, or other data. But because the subject OPSMs can only perform two of these functions – (1) “reception” and (2) “transmission,” but not “conversion” – the OPSMs cannot be classified under subheading 8517.62. The protestant’s submissions clearly demonstrate that the OPSMs can transmit and receive an optical signal. Instead, the OPSMs fit squarely within the ambit of subheading 8517.69, the basket provision that covers “other” articles that do not meet the terms of the superior subheadings. |
| Ruling Date: June 10, 2025 |
H342822: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBP Regulations; Country of Origin of Unifyia Platform Software; Substantial Transformation
| Ruling: Based on the facts and analysis set forth, the subject Unifyia platform software is last substantially transformed in the United States. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the platform software for purposes of U.S. government procurement? |
| Item: Unifyia Platform Software, a software that provides identity and credential management, and high assurance authentication solutions for the U.S. government. Unifyia’s software is built using a four-step process with the assistance of a subsidiary in India. The first step is design and engineering efforts conducted by the Unifyia team in the U.S.; the second step is source code development by the Unifyia team in India; the third step is the compilation of source code into executable object code by the same team in the U.S.; and the last step is to secure the finished software in storage on Amazon Web Services for deployment to government customers. |
| Reason: The writing of source code in India (and the U.S.) involves the creation of computer instructions in a high-level, human-readable language, whereas the software build performed in the U.S. involves the compilation of those instructions into a format that computers can execute. Based on the information provided, and consistent with the rulings cited in the ruling, CBP finds that as a result of the software build that occurs when the source code is transformed into executable code when moved through either of the two U.S.-based platforms, Bitbucket Pipeline or the U.S.-based server, the last substantial transformation occurs in the United States. Through this process, the character changes from computer code to finished software, and the use changes from instructions to an executable program. Therefore, Unifyia’s software is not a product of a foreign country or instrumentality designated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2511(b). |
| Ruling Date: May 15, 2025 |
H329722: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 5301-22-108091; Classification of Battery Energy Storage System Containers
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject BESS containers are properly classified under subheading 7309.00.00, which provides for “Reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material (other than compressed or liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not lined or heat-insulated, but not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment.” Pursuant to U.S. Note 20 to Subchapter III, Chapter 99, products of China classified under subheading 7309.00.00, unless specifically excluded, are subject to an additional 25% ad valorem rate of duty imposed by the relevant Chapter 99 subheading, i.e., 9903.88.03. |
| Issue: Whether the subject BESS containers are properly classified under heading 7309, which provides for “Reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material (other than compressed or liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not lined or heat-insulated, but not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment,” or under heading 8609, which provides for “Containers (including containers for the transport of fluids) specially designed and equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport.” |
| Item: Battery energy storage system (BESS) containers from China. The BESS containers consist of steel containers that are designed to hold batteries after modifications that are made post-importation. |
| Reason: CBP echoes the conclusion found in NY N317967 -- that the subject BESS containers are “not designed to transport goods, but rather to store batteries in a designated location,” and are thus precluded from classification under heading 8609. The BESS containers squarely meet the terms of heading 7309, as they are inherently “containers for any material (other than compressed or liquefied gas),” specifically containers for batteries; they are made of steel; their internal cubic capacity exceeds 300 liters; and they are not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment. As a result, CBP holds that the subject BESS containers are classifiable under heading 7309, as containers of steel. |
| Ruling Date: June 16, 2025 |