Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for Aug. 19-21
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 19 and 21 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
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
H337761: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4197-22-105721; Classification of the FL 350 and FL 400 Pulse Oximeters from China
| Ruling: 9018.19.95, which provides for, “Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof: Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters); parts and accessories thereof: Other: Other: Other.” |
| Issue: Are the subject pulse oximeters classified under heading 9018, HTSUS, as “instruments used in medical sciences” or under heading 9029, HTSUS, as “tachometers”? |
| Item: Two models of pulse oximeters from China: the “FL 350” and the “FL 400.” These pulse oximeters are designed to readily examine the oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin and the pulse rate of patients at home and in clinical environments. The information provided by the pulse oximeters, alone, cannot form the basis for a diagnosis; rather, it must be read together with other clinical information to determine if the blood is well oxygenated. |
| Reason: This matter turns on the application of GRI 1, specifically whether the subject merchandise meets the terms of heading 9018, HTSUS, as “instruments used in medical sciences” or the terms of heading 9029, HTSUS, as a “tachometer.” It is a well-established principle “that statutes, regulations, and administrative interpretations not related to tariff purposes are not determinative of customs classification disputes.” It is also well-established that “in order to produce uniformity in the imposition of duties, the dutiable classification of articles imported must be ascertained by an examination of the imported article itself, in the condition in which it is imported.” If the subject pulse oximeters are described in whole by the terms of one of the headings, then that heading applies, and the succeeding GRIs are inoperative. |
| Ruling Date: June 18, 2024 |
H338702: Coastwise Transportation; Outer Continental Shelf; Wind Turbines; 46 U.S.C. §§ 55102 and 55103; 19 C.F.R. §§ 4.80a and 4.80b; 43 U.S.C § 1333
| Ruling: The transportation of the subject WTG components aboard the coastwise-qualified Tug and Barge from a U.S. port located on the eastern seaboard to the jack-up vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation because the transportation between coastwise points would be effected by coastwise-qualified vessels. The installation of the WTG units by the jack-up vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation because the foreign-flagged jack-up vessel would remain completely stationary during the installation process, and any movement of the WTG components would be effected solely by the jack-up vessel’s crane. The transportation of the subject shipping frames, shipping containers, and associated vessel equipment between WTG sites onboard the jack-up vessel would not be in violation because such items, in this context, are not “merchandise.” However, the transportation of WTG components between WTG sites onboard the jack-up vessel would be violative because such components are merchandise. The transportation of the marine crew and project crew onboard the jack-up vessel between or at WTG installation sites attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation because they are directly and substantially related to the operation of the vessel. |
| Issue: Would the installation of wind turbine generators (“WTG”) and associated operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) violate the coastwise laws? Specifically, whether the transportation of the WTG components by a coastwise-qualified tug and barge from a U.S. port located on the eastern seaboard, to an anchored, non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel located on the OCS violates the Jones Act, whether the installation of the subject wind turbine generators by the non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel on the OCS violates the Jones Act, whether transportation of certain empty shipping frames, containers, tools, and materials as described above between coastwise points by the non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel violates the Jones Act, and whether the transportation of the marine crew and project crew between coastwise points by the non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel violates the Passenger Vessel Services Act. |
| Item: WTGs that would be installed in federal waters on the OCS. |
| Reason: See ruling. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 13, 2024 |