Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Oct. 17
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 17 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.
H342702: Accent Lamps; Country of Origin; Substantial Transformation; Generalized System of Preferences
| Country of Origin: The country of origin of the accent lamps under SKU# 40505601 and SKU# 40505501 for marking purposes is Cambodia, and the accent lamp under SKU# 40504601 is China. The accent lamps under SKU# 40505601 and SKU# 40505501 imported into the U.S. from Cambodia are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), provided the 35% value-content and the “imported directly” requirements are met at the time of entry. However, the legal authorization for the GSP program expired on Dec. 31, 2020, and to date it has not been renewed by Congress. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the accent lamps, and do the accent lamps qualify for the duty exemption under the GSP when imported from Cambodia into the U.S.? |
| Item: Old East Main Company's three accent lamps imported from Cambodia. The lamps will be manufactured in Cambodia, with parts imported from China and parts sourced locally in Cambodia. |
| Reason: Regarding lamp SKU# 40504601, the component that imparts the character of the lamp (the ceramic body), is imported into Cambodia and it does not undergo any processing and maintains its integrity throughout the assembly process. The ceramic body is by far the most expensive part of the lamp, and it is likely what a consumer would consider in its purchasing decision of the lamp. Therefore, similar to HQ 734503, as the ceramic body is imported and the overall assembly process is not exceedingly complex, we do not find that a substantial transformation occurs in Cambodia. Thus, the country of origin of the lamp for marking purposes will be the same as the ceramic body, which is China. However, for the lamp with SKU# 40505601, in addition to creating the lampshade through cutting, sewing, attaching, electro-plating, joining, and welding, the lamp body is created through the molding of the imported polyresin material in Cambodia. Additionally in the lamp assembly, other components undergo machine sawing and shaping. None of the components, before undergoing the manufacturing and assembly process, impart the character of the lamp individually. Therefore, consistent with HQ562558, we find that the material for lamp SKU# 40505601 does undergo a substantial transformation, and the country of origin of the lamp for marking purposes will be Cambodia. Since the lamp with SKU# 40505501 involves the same manufacturing process as the lamp with SKU# 40505601, the same analysis applies here. Accordingly, the country of origin of the lamp for marking purposes will be Cambodia. As for GSP, for purposes of GSP eligibility, upon importation the importer should be prepared to provide evidence that each lamp is imported directly from Cambodia. Such information can be, but is not limited to, shipping records, bills of lading, invoices, and/or any other evidence that individually or cumulatively establishes compliance with the “import directly” requirement. |
| Ruling Date: May 16, 2025 |
H322091: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-21-156119; Valuation; Pajamas; Jackets
| Ruling: The protest should be denied. The subject merchandise was correctly appraised by the Center under the fallback method set forth in 19 U.S.C § 1401a(f) based on the2020 aggregate value of similar merchandise classified in the same subheading and imported from the same country at or about the same time as the merchandise being appraised. |
| Issue: Whether transaction value is the proper method of appraisement in the import transactions in question, and whether the documentary evidence is sufficient to support a determination that the importer overpaid duties as a result of a clerical error in reporting the quantity on the entry. |
| Item: i5's imported pajamas and jackets |
| Reason: Counsel for the importer argues that CBP erred in departing from the declared transaction value because none of the four circumstances in 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(2) exist. Regarding the difference between the amount of the wire transfer ($20,000) and the invoice amount, counsel states that “the paid amount was slightly lower than the commercial invoice amount because of quality issues with certain items.” However, no evidence of communications with the seller about alleged quality issues was provided. The wire transfer also contains no reference to an invoice, and the amount does not match the invoice provided at entry. Moreover, no information was available about a potential relationship between the buyer and the seller, which could also affect the applicability of the transaction value method. In H322092, i5’s merchandise was ultimately appraised under the same method used by the Center here -- namely, the 2020 aggregate value of similar merchandise classified in the same subheading and imported from the same country at or about the same time as the merchandise being appraised -- under the fallback method. Meanwhile, based on the documents provided, CBP finds that the importer has not substantiated its entitlement to a refund of duties based on a clerical error. |
| Ruling Date: May 28, 2025 |
H342828: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Pirfenidone Tablets
| Country of Origin: The country of origin of the pirfenidone tablets for purposes of U.S. government procurement is Italy. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the pirfenidone tablets for purposes of U.S. government procurement? |
| Item: Alembic Pharmaceuticals' pirfenidone tablets. The tablets are used for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (scarring of the lungs with an unknown cause). The tablets have one active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) that is manufactured in Italy and shipped to India for final processing, which includes mixing with inactive materials, forming tablets, and packaging. |
| Reason: The processing in India does not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished tablets, the API retains its chemical and physical properties, and it is merely put into a tablet form and packaged. Accordingly, CBP finds that no substantial transformation occurs in India, and the imported tablets would be of the same country of origin as the API, which is Italy. |
| Ruling Date: June 24, 2025 |
H344327: Subheading 9808.00.30, HTSUS; Emergency War Materials
| Ruling: The worsted fabric imported may be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9808.00.30, provided that they are certified to the Commissioner of Customs by the authorized procuring agency to be emergency war material purchased abroad, and the documentary requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 10.102 are satisfied. |
| Issue: Whether CBP may approve the worsted fabric as “emergency war materials” for purposes of duty-free treatment under subheading 9808.00.30. |
| Item: Hyman Brickle and Son will be importing worsted fabric for the use in the production of U.S. military uniforms. |
| Reason: This question has been previously addressed on several occasions in the past.C.S.D. 80-222, 14 Cust. Bul. 1125 (1980) cites a letter from the Attorney General, dated Aug. 13, 1943, which states: “{w}hen any such officer has determined that the material being imported is a war material entitled to duty-free entry under the statute and has executed the certificate provided for (under the predecessor to section 10.102(b), Customs Regulations) the Customs officials are not required to make an independent determination of the matter, but may rely upon the determination made as embodied in the certificate.” A memorandum dated Oct. 14, 1993, confirms this decision. |
| Ruling Date: July 22, 2025 |
H343575: Valuation of Recycled Clothing
| Ruling: The imported merchandise shall be appraised under the fallback method using the fee paid to the U.S. recyclers to take possession of the clothing for recycling. |
| Issue: What is the correct method of appraising the recycled clothing? |
| Item: Canadian-based Debrand Services was seeking the valuation of bales of rejected, shredded, and worn garments that are destined for the U.S. for recycling. |
| Reason: CBP has previously found that merchandise entering the U.S. for purposes of recycling should be appraised under the fallback method using the fee paid to take possession of the merchandise. Here, the imported merchandise is not being sold to the U.S. recycler. Rather, the U.S. recyclers are being paid a fee to take possession of the bales into the U.S. and to downcycle them for specified applications. Also, the contract provides that the products may not be sold in their original form. Although the subject clothing is recycled instead of disposed of, it is not in its recycled state at the time of importation. Therefore, CBP finds that the imported merchandise may be appraised under the fallback method using the fee paid by Debrand to the U.S. recyclers to process the imported goods and repurposed the material. However, for purposes of valuation under the fallback method, as it is claimed that the clothing has no commercial value, and is not legally saleable in their imported condition, the importer should be prepared, if requested, to support such claims by providing further evidence, as requested by the Apparel, Footwear, and Textiles, Center of Excellence and Expertise to establish that the merchandise is indeed defective or damaged and has no commercial value. |
| Ruling Date: July 22, 2025 |
H350718: Articles for the handicapped; Subheading 9817.00.96; Equinus Brace
| Ruling: CBP affirms the finding of N348800 that the Equinis brace is not eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96. |
| Issue: Should the Equinis brace be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96? |
| Item: Thrive Orthopedic's prescription-based, non-ambulatory L-shape, length-adjustable brace. There are different versions of the Equinis Brace: the Equinus Brace (SKU numbers IQ-1001 and IQ-1004), the Pediatric Equinus Brace (SKU number IQ-1002), and the Equinus Brace (XL) (SKU number IQ-1003). |
| Reason: In NY N348800, CBP held that, because the brace was not specifically designed for use by the handicapped, it was not eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96. Thrive believes that the brace should not be considered a diagnostic tool nor a device intended for short-term therapeutic relief. Rather, its application is restorative and mobility-preserving, aligning it with the intent and legal representation of subheading 9817.00.96. While Thrive reaffirms its claim that the brace is in alignment with the definition of “specially designed” outlined in the Sigvaris, we agree with the National Commodity Specialist Division that it is not. Thrive claims that ankle equinis is a progressive chronic, disabling condition, but research allows CBP to believe that those with ankle equinis can recover from it with appropriate management (stretching, exercise, physical therapy, etc.) in a few months; only, in select cases are more severe treatments needed. While the brace is not available commercially and needs clinical supervision, Thrive mentions use by non-disabled consumers (professional athletes and performers) on its website. Thus, CBP believes that the probability of use by the general public is likely quite common. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 30, 2025 |