Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings from Oct. 9-17
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Oct. 9 and Oct. 17 with the following headquarters ruling (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
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
H313009: Protest and Application for Further Review No. 5301-20-104797; chlorine removal promoted zeolites
| Ruling: The CLX-13X and CLX-16E are classified in heading 3824, and specifically in subheading 3824.99.3900, which provides for “Prepared binders for foundry molds or cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Mixtures of two or more inorganic compounds: Other.” |
| Issue: Is the instant merchandise classified in heading 3815, as reaction initiators, reaction accelerators or catalytic preparation, or in heading 3824, as other chemical products and preparations? |
| Item: UNICAT Catalyst Technologies' products CLX-13X and CLX-16E, which are chlorine removal promoted zeolite catalysts |
| Reason: Heading 3824, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S., which provides for “other” chemical products and preparations, can only be used to classify a chemical mixture as such if the product is not provided for in another heading of the HTSUS (as heading 3824 is a residual heading). The products at issue are the CLX-13X and the CLX-16E “promoted zeolite chloride removal catalysts." The Na2O in this case functions as a reactant rather than as a catalyst. As such, Na2O is not classified as a catalyst. Neither of the two components (promoter and molecular sieve) of the Unicat CLX-13X and CLX-16E (Promoted Zeolite Chloride Removal Catalysts) function as a catalyst. Furthermore, although the CLX-13X and CLX-16E are also described (and commercially known) as “molecular sieves,” referring to the pore trapping function of the instant products, there is no catalytic reaction occurring in the “pore size trapping” function of the instant products. As neither the CLX-13X and CLX-16E have a catalytic function, both products are precluded from heading 3815. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 5, 2024 |
H325452: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-22-126450; Subheading 9801.00.10
| Ruling: The turbine mid-frame assembly isn't eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10. |
| Issue: Is the turbine mid-frame assembly eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10? |
| Item: A turbine mid-frame assembly that was removed from a General Electric LM2500 gas turbine, serial number 677-186. Protestant MTU Maintenance Hannover states that this gas turbine was made by General Electric in Cincinnati, Ohio, and exported in March 2015. The turbine mid-frame assembly was disassembled by the protestant in Germany and reimported into the United States by the protestant for repair. The turbine mid-frame assembly was repaired after which it was reexported to be reassembled in the disassembled turbine in Germany. |
| Reason: There is no way to determine whether the assembly was, indeed, a product of the United States. Furthermore, since two court cases on similar situations have been decided, further amendments have been made to subheading 9801.00.10. Accordingly, the turbine mid-frame assembly is not eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.10. Although the protestant has indicated it has had issues with importations under bond, this may be the best solution under these circumstances. |
| Ruling Date: April 15, 2024 |
H339826: 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 Surgical Towels
| Ruling: The country of origin of the instant surgical towels will be Bangladesh. |
| Issue: What is the country of origin of the surgical towels for purposes of U.S. Government procurement? |
| Item: Global Resources International's blue surgical towels, which are made from 100% cotton huckaback weave fabric. The cotton fabric used to make the towels is from Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, the fabric is woven and dyed blue. Then the fabric is shipped to Vietnam in rolls, where it is cut to size, sewn, autoclaved, packaged, and shipped to the United States. |
| Reason: In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulation (FAR). In this regard, CBP recognizes that the FAR restricts the U.S. Government’s purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for acquisitions subject to the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Subpart B of Part 177 defines “Least developed country end product” as an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in a least developed country into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. In this case, the 100% cotton fabric that is woven and dyed blue in Bangladesh is imported into Vietnam where it is cut to size, sewn, and autoclaved to make surgical towels. Therefore, the country of origin of the surgical towels is Bangladesh, where the 100% cotton fabric that comprises the surgical towel was formed by a fabric-making process. As the surgical towels meet the requirements for goods classified in subheading 6307.90, pursuant to 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2), the country of origin of the surgical towels is Bangladesh. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 7, 2024 |
H341844: Coastwise Transportation; Outer Continental Shelf; Jack-Up Barge; Hotel; Gangway; 46 U.S.C. §§ 55102 and 55103; 19 CFR §§ 4.80a and 4.80b; 43 U.S.C. § 1333
| Ruling: The transportation of merchandise by coastwise-qualified supply vessels, between a U.S. port located on the eastern seaboard and a jack-up vessel secured to the seabed of the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) would not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.The transportation of core marine operational crew, subcontracted hotel personnel, and offshore substations (OSS) commissioning rersonnel between coastwise points would not violate the Passenger Vessel Services Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55103. |
| Issue: Whether the transportation of merchandise by coastwise-qualified supply vessels, between a U.S. port located on the eastern seaboard and a jack-up vessel secured to the seabed of the U.S. OCS violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102. Whether the transportation of core marine operational crew, subcontracted hotel personnel, and OSS Commissioning Personnel between coastwise points violates the Passenger Vessel Services Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55103. |
| Item: An unnamed company was asked to provide a jack-up barge outfitted with hotel and office accommodations to support the construction of an unnamed offshore wind project. The project will consist of a wind turbine generator array as well as two OSS. The Jack-Up Vessel will be utilized specifically to house OSS commissioning Personnel responsible for supporting commissioning activities at the two OSS sites. The company wants to know whether the use of jack-up barges equipped with hotel accommodations and catering services for workers involved in offshore wind construction on the U.S. OCSwould violate the coastwise laws. |
| Reason: See ruling. |
| Ruling Date: Oct. 16, 2024 |