Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Sept. 25

October 6, 2025 |Customs Rulings

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Sept. 25 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.

Start My Free Preview

H326279: Protest and Application for Further Review No 4501-21-103251; Classification of Educational Robot Kit Parts

Ruling: Pursuant to General Rules of Interpretation 1 and 6, the subject merchandise is classified in subheadings 7616.99.51, 7326.90.86, 3926.90.99, 8536.69.80, 7318.15.40, 7318.15.60, 8536.50.90, 4010.39.90, 8483.50.90, 8482.10.50, 7318.22.00, 7318.21.00, 7318.16.00, 4202.12.29, 7604.21.00, 8483.20.80, 4016.99.60, 8482.10.50, 8501.10.40, 8544.42.10, 8536.69.40 and 8544.42.90. Per presidential proclamations on March 8, 2018, additional tariffs and quotas on a number of steel and aluminum mill products may be imposed. Quantitative limitations or quotas may apply for certain exempted countries and can also be found in Chapter 99. Additional duties for steel of 25% and for aluminum of 10% are reflected in Chapter 99, subheading 9903.80.01 for steel and subheading 9903.85.01 for aluminum. Products classified under subheading 7604.21.0010 may be subject to additional duties or quota.

Issue: Whether the subject merchandise is classified in subheading 9023, as parts of demonstrational instruments or whether the subject merchandise is classified elsewhere in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.

Item: Educational robot kits parts used to make robots for educational robot competitions such as the First Tech Challenge. The goBilda Master FTC Kit designed by Robotzone can incorporate additional parts sold separately.

Reason: The Protestant alleges that the subject merchandise is the same class/kind as the merchandise in NY N314278 and accordingly should be classified in heading 9023, which provides for “Instruments, apparatus and models, designed for demonstrational purposes (for example, in education or exhibitions), unsuitable for other uses, and parts and accessories thereof.” HTS heading 9023 and Explanatory Notes 90.23 make clear that articles of heading 9023 are those designed for “demonstrational purposes” to the exclusion of all other uses. The term “demonstrational” is not defined in the HTSUS and must therefore be construed in accordance with its common meaning, which may be ascertained by reference to “standard lexicographic and scientific authorities” and to the pertinent ENs. The subject merchandise is not “designed for demonstrational purposes” nor is it “unsuitable for other uses.” The subject merchandise is clearly comprised of parts that have purposes other than being specifically designed for use in the creation of the robots.

Ruling Date: June 5, 2025

H338586: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-20-147302; Tariff Classification of Frozen Tilapia Fillets; Application of Section 301 China Products Trade Remedy

Ruling: Products of China classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.00, unless specifically excluded, are subject to an additional 25% ad valorem rate of duty under secondary tariff number 9903.88.03, consistent with Notes 20(e) and 20(f) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99. The frozen tilapia fillets are not eligible for the exclusion provided for in secondary tariff number 9903.88.43, Subchapter III to Chapter 99, U.S. Note 20(vv)(2).

Issue: Whether the subject quick frozen three and four ounce tilapia fillets are eligible for the Section 301 trade remedy provided for in U.S. Note 20(vv)(2) to Chapter 99 and subheading 9903.88.43.

Item: Monarch Trading's frozen tilapia fillets

Reason: There is no dispute concerning CBP’s classification of the subject merchandise under subheading 0304.61.00. CBP further notes that consistent with Notes 20(e) and 20(f) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99, frozen tilapia fillets of Chinese origin classified under subheading 0304.61.00 are subject to an additional 25% ad valorem rate of duty under subheading 9903.88.03. However, consistent with U.S. Note 20(vv)(2) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 and subheading 9903.88.43, the referenced additional duty does not apply to frozen tilapias weighing not more than 115 grams. Upon review of the documents filed at the time of entry, CBP has noted that the specific quantities of the three, four, and five ounce fillets have not been identified. While the invoices filed with the protest identified the exact quantities of tilapia fillets weighing three, four, and five ounces, the original invoices filed with the entries simply indicated quantities of three to five ounce fillets together as one line items. Therefore, at issue is whether the tilapia fillets weighing not more than 115 grams are “commingled merchandise” within the meaning of General Note 3(f), HTSUS, and thus subject to Section 301 duties applicable to fillets weighing more than 115 grams. Based on the record, CBP finds that the frozen three, four, and five ounce tilapia fillets qualify as commingled within the meaning of General Note 3(f). While they are goods subject to different rates of duty, the record shows that the fillets were packed together or comingled and that the quantity or value of the three, four, and five ounce fillets was not readily ascertainable. Although the Protestant argues that the portion of each entry relating to the tilapia fillets weighing three and four ounces is clearly identified by the vendor’s commercial invoices and processing line inspection, CBP disagrees.

Ruling Date: July 21, 2025

H338585: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-20-122648; Application of Section 301 Trade Remedy Duties on Certain Tilapia Fillets

Issue: Whether the frozen tilapia fillets at issue in the subject protest are eligible for the Section 301 trade remedy exclusion provided for in U.S. Note 20(vv)(2) to Chapter 99 and Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9903.88.43.

Item: three to five ounces of individually frozen tilapia fillets, packed in 10-pound boxes

Reason: There is no dispute concerning CBP’s classification of the subject merchandise under subheading 0304.61.00, which provides for “Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.” However, consistent with U.S. Note 20(vv)(2) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 and subheading 9903.88.43, the referenced additional duty does not apply to frozen tilapias weighing not more than 115 grams. Moreover, according to the Federal Register notice issued on March 26, 2020, the exclusion specifically covers frozen Tilapias weighing not more than 115 grams and entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after Sept. 24, 2018, until Aug. 7, 2020. At issue is whether the tilapia fillets weighing not more than 115 grams are “commingled merchandise” within the meaning of General Note 3(f), and thus subject to Section 301 duties applicable to fillets weighing more than 115 grams. Based on the record, CBP finds that the tilapia fillets at issue in the subject protest are commingled within the meaning of General Note 3(f). While the fillets weighing not more than 115 grams and the fillets weighing more than 115 grams are goods subject to different rates of duty, the fillets were packed together or mingled so that the quantity or value of the fillets could not be readily ascertained. The specific quantities of the three, four, and five ounce fillets have not been identified in the commercial invoices and packing lists accompanying the shipments. Although Protestant claims that the majority of those fillets weigh not more than 115 grams because it is a matter of industry practice and consumer preference, and because smaller fillets are preferred by vendors, processors, and purchasers, this claim was not substantiated by any of the documents provided. The affidavits are also not sufficient to establish the specific quantities of the three, four, and five ounce fillets imported in the entries at issue in the subject protest.

Ruling Date: July 21, 2025

H338459: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-20-123529; Application of Section 301 Trade Remedy Duties on Certain Tilapia Fillets

Item: Conrad Sales d/b/a Bayhill Seafood's three to five ounce individually frozen tilapia fillets, packed in 10-pound boxes

Reason: CBP finds that the tilapia fillets at issue in the subject protest are commingled within the meaning of General Note 3(f), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. While the fillets weighing not more than 115 grams and the fillets weighing more than 115 grams are goods subject to different rates of duty, the fillets were packed together or mingled so that the quantity or value of the fillets could not be readily ascertained. As discussed above, the specific quantities of the three, four, and five ounce fillets have not been identified in the commercial invoices and packing lists accompanying the shipments. Protestant also claimed that General Note 3(f)(iv) provides the applicable exclusion from 301 duties to the entirety of the three to five ounce fillet boxes. General Note 3(f)(iv) requires satisfactory proof that (A) the value of the commingled goods is less than the aggregate value would be if the shipment were segregated; (B) the shipment is not capable of segregation without excessive cost and will not be segregated prior to its use in a manufacturing process or otherwise; and (C) the commingling was not intended to avoid the payment of lawful duties. Upon review, while CBP agrees that the merchandise at issue in the protest is not capable of segregation and that the commingling was not intended to avoid the payment of lawful duties, CBP finds the information concerning the value of the commingled fillets, presented by the Protestant to be insufficient. General Note 3(f)(iv) requires satisfactory proof that the value of the commingled goods is less than the aggregate value would be if the shipment were segregated. However, consistent with the foregoing, segregation would be impossible because no information concerning the quantities of tilapia fillets weighing 115 grams or less, and the quantities of tilapia fillets weighing over 115 grams, was presented.

Ruling Date: July 21, 2025