Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Oct. 14
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 14 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.
Below are half of the rulings that were released on Oct. 14. The first half was published on Oct. 22 (see 2510200031):
H348568: Subheading 9808.00.30, HTSUS; Emergency War Materials
| Ruling: Articles imported for the Department of the Navy are eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9808.00.30, provided they are certified to the Commissioner of Customs by the authorized procuring agencies to be emergency war material purchased abroad, and the documentary requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 10.102 are satisfied. |
| Issue: Whether CBP may accept DCMA certificates as “emergency war materials” for purposes of duty-free treatment under subheading 9808.00.30, or whether CBP must perform its own analysis regarding qualification. |
| Item: Various materials obtained via contract by the Department of the Navy. |
| Reason: Subheading 9808.00.30 covers “Articles for military departments: Materials certified to the Commissioner of Customs by the authorized procuring agencies to be emergency war material purchased abroad.” Section 10.102(b), CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 10.102(b)), states that the certification required under subheading 9808.00.30 must be provided to CBP for the agency to accept the goods as emergency war materials. |
| Ruling Date: June 30, 2025 |
H344638: 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 Neat Board Pro
| Country of Origin: For purposes of U.S. government procurement, the Neat Board Pro is a product of Taiwan. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the Neat Board Pro for the purposes of U.S. government procurement? |
| Item: Amtran Technology's Neat Board Pro, an all-in-one video conferencing device specifically designed for medium-to-large meeting spaces. The Neat Board Pro is designed by AmTRAN, and the device’s prospective production will be handled by its Taiwanese supplier, Rick Service. Rick Service will source materials and components from both China and Taiwan and will produce the finished product based on AmTRAN’s design in Taiwan. Testing, packing and the integration of the software will also be conducted in Taiwan. Rick Service will also outsource the manufacturing of key components in Taiwan, including the printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs), and will then source the remaining materials and components needed to manufacture the product based on the design. For those key components, Rick Service will send the materials and components to a Taiwanese third party, Info-Tek Corporation, for commissioned processing and preliminary testing. |
| Reason: Based on the totality of the circumstances and consistent with the pertinent authorities, CBP finds that the country of origin of the Neat Board Pro is Taiwan. Both the production of the PCBAs and the assembly of the PCBAs into the finished product will occur in Taiwan. The final testing, packing, and programming of the Neat Board Pros will also occur in Taiwan. Although a majority of the components come from China, the most significant components come from Taiwan, and the cost of the components from Taiwan is significantly higher. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 27, 2025 |
H348154: Country of Origin Marking of Smart Glasses; Section 301
| Country of Origin: The country of origin of the Smart Glasses for purposes of marking and for purposes of additional Section 301 measures is Vietnam. Therefore, the Smart Glasses are not subject to Section 301 measures. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin for marking purposes of the Smart Glasses? Whether the Smart Glasses are subject to Section 301 measures. |
| Item: An unnamed company's Artificial intelligence Smart Glasses. The instant glasses will include a different type of battery (steel can) and corresponding adjustments to surrounding components, providing substantially longer battery life and enabling extended use of device features for users throughout the day; a privacy light-emitting diode (LED) and camera module that are no longer electrically coupled; and different signal routes within the main logic board (MLB). The manufacturing steps for the Smart Glasses will occur in three main stages: (1) the production of individual components in ten to eleven countries; (2) the production of the main PCBA (i.e., the MLB) and the auxiliary PCBA (i.e., the SLB) in Vietnam by means of surface-mount technology (SMT); and (3) final assembly, final software uploads, testing, and backout (FATP) in China. |
| Reason: In this case, the individual components and the blank circuit board undergo a change in character when the components are assembled onto the blank circuit board and become printed circuit board assemblies via the SMT process. The PCBAs in the instant case, like the PCBAs in HQ H302801, form the “brain” of the device and enable the device to function as intended. Further, even though a majority of the components in these glasses are of Chinese origin (as in HQ H328859), CBP does not find that the country of origin of these Smart Glasses is China. Although the FATP process occurring in China also takes a significant amount of time, CBP is satisfied that, because the MLB and SLB are the “brain” of the Smart Glasses, the FATP does not result in a substantial transformation. After the MLB and SLB have been assembled, the Smart Glasses do not undergo any operations that change their name, character, or use. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 29, 2025 |
H339398: USMCA Eligibility of Receiver Dryer Units
| Ruling: Based on the information provided, the imported receiver dryer units are not eligible for preferential tariff treatment under USMCA. |
| Issue: Whether the subject receiver dryer units are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA when imported from Canada into the United States. |
| Item: Mobile Climate Control's (MCC) receiver dryer units. The receiver dryer unit, which is designed to filter out contaminates and moisture in air conditioning systems, consists of a cylindrical tank with a solid core filter inside, which contains a drying agent. It is assembled in Canada from three main components: (1) a Chinese-origin receiver dryer, (2) a Chinese-origin pressure switch, and (3) a United States-origin harness. When asked by CBP to describe the Canadian assembly process, MCC responded that the process “involves the addition of harness and pressure switch.” |
| Reason: In MCC's initial submission, the company provided a “bill of materials” listing the “FOB purchase price” of the three components (i.e., Chinese-origin receiver dryer, Chinese-origin switch, and U.S.-origin wire harness) as well as the relevant freight costs. In response to a follow-up inquiry by CBP, however, MCC also provided commercial invoices between MCC and MCC China. These invoices do not directly support the costs provided in the “bill of materials.” Instead, these invoices show MCC has purchased the underlying components at different times and at different values. Specifically, the invoices show a maximum FOB unit price of $2.10 for the pressure switch and $7.207 for the receiver dryer. Using these amounts, the VNM would be $9.307. As such, the Regional Value Content is calculated as follows: (($22.19 - $9.307) /$22.19) * 100 = 58.057%. This is below the 60% minimum required by federal code. Accordingly, MCC has not sufficiently demonstrated that its imported receiver dryer units would satisfy the regional value content necessary to receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 16, 2025 |
H326186: Affirmation of NY N323823; Classification of woven garments
| Ruling: The subject garments are primarily worn as outerwear that do not necessitate an additional layer. CBP agrees with the determination in NY N323823 that support is not the paramount function of the garments since their outerwear function is of at least equal importance to their support function. Therefore, the garments are not considered “similar articles” under heading 6212. |
| Issue: Whether styles M05, W09, and W04 can be classified under heading 6212, and specifically in subheading 6212.90.00 which provides for “Brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted: Other.” |
| Item: Sanko's four styles of pants. In NY N323823, CBP classified four styles of men’s and women’s lower body garments, specifically, styles M05, M20, W04, and W09; determined that the country of origin marking on styles M05 and W09 were not acceptable; and noted that the submitted samples for styles M20, M05, and W09 were not properly marked with their fiber content. Sanko's request for reconsideration concerns the classification of only styles M05, W09, and W04. |
| Reason: The question in this case is whether the subject articles are classifiable as “similar articles” of heading 6212. Sanko indicates that it utilizes special patented woven compression technology to manufacture styles M05, W09, and W04 to provide graduated compression along the wearer’s appendage. Along with the request for reconsideration, compression test results concerning the subject style garments to indicate that the paramount function of the garments is the support was also submitted. In the request for reconsideration, the Requestor contends that while the subject garments “can function as outerwear” their “primary purpose … is to provide this long-term body and muscle support using graduated levels of compression.” CBP said that while there is no dispute that the instant garments are designed for both coverage and support, the inquiry is whether the support function outweighs the outerwear function. Unlike in HQ 966804, HQ 965621, and NY K83299, the subject garments’ entire function and design are not concentrated on providing support. Even though the subject garments provide compression to the wearer’s body, the design of the garments including the outerwear features and fit, as a whole, negate the notion that support is their primary function. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 6, 2025 |
H351362: Ruling request concerning the tariff classification of a countertop soft-serve ice cream and frozen drink maker and dispenser
| Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 (Note 4 to Chapter 85) and 6, the subject countertop soft-serve ice cream and frozen drink maker and dispenser is classified under heading 8509, specifically subheading 8509.40.00, which provides for “[E]lectromechanical domestic appliances, with self-contained electric motor, other than vacuum cleaners of heading 8508; parts thereof: Food grinders, processors and mixers; fruit or vegetable juice extractors.” |
| Issue: What is the proper tariff classification of the subject, a countertop soft-serve ice cream and frozen drink maker and dispenser, under the HTSUS? |
| Item: Steelstone Group LLC dba Gourmia's counter-top soft-serve ice cream and frozen drink maker and dispenser |
| Reason: The exclusion of refrigerators in the Explanatory Notes to 85.09 is not applicable in this instance, as the subject articles are not covered by heading 8418, which provides for refrigerators, freezers, and other such equipment. The EN to 84.18 provides that refrigerators of this heading generally run “in a continuous cycle of operations." However, the subject article is not designed for continuous operation. Second, its mixing component cannot be considered ancillary to the refrigerating component as the internal auger paddle is necessary for both mixing and dispensing food products. Lastly, this dispensing feature is not described by the EN 84.18 exemplars “ice-cream containers” and “ice-cream makers.” |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 7, 2025 |
H350619: Eligibility for substitution unused merchandise drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2); “Other Other” Rule; 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(5)
| Ruling: Diamonds which are classifiable at the 8-digit level under subheading 7102.39.00 are not precluded from substitution unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(5) if they share a classification at the 10-digit level under SRN 7102.139.0010 or 7102.39.0050 of the HTSUS. |
| Issue: Whether certain diamonds are precluded from substitution unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(5), which is the federal code enabling drawback. |
| Item: International Tariff Management is a customs brokerage that files drawback claims on behalf of its clients. ITM seeks an advanced ruling as to whether certain diamonds are eligible for substitution unused merchandise drawback pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2). |
| Reason: Imported and substituted diamonds which share a classification at the 8-digit level under subheading 7102.39.00 are subject to the “Other Other” Rule because the article description for this subheading begins with the word “Other.” Such diamonds are ineligible for substitution unused merchandise drawback unless the two criteria specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(5)(B) are satisfied. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 7, 2025 |