Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for Aug. 23-29

September 4, 2024 |Customs Rulings

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29 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!

Start My Free Preview

H329165: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55102; 19 CFR § 4.80(b)

Ruling: The transportation and installation of monopile foundations from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS by a non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned installation vessel would not violate the Jones Act so long as the installation vessel is not anchored or attached to the installation site. The transportation and installation of monopile foundations by a non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS where the jack-up vessel attaches itself to the seabed would violate the Jones Act. The transportation of the transition pieces and their installation on the previously-installed monopile foundations would violate the Jones Act if transported by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel from another coastwise point. A non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned vessel may install the transition pieces onto the monopile foundations, provided it remains stationary during the lifting operation, and any transportation of the transition pieces between coastwise points is effected by coastwise-qualified vessels. The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to lay export cable or inter-array cable on the pristine seabed on the OCS as described in CBP's decision would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55102. The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to either (1) transport substation jackets laden at a foreign port and install them at a site on the OCS containing pre-placed scour protection, or (2) transport substation jackets laden at a domestic port and install them on the pristine seabed of the OCS as described in CBP's decision, would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55102. In addition, the subsequent installation of the substation topsides transported from a foreign port by a foreign-flag transportation vessel and installed by a foreign-flag crane vessel would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55102.

Issue: Does the transportation of the monopiles and transition pieces by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel as described in CBP's decision violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102; does the use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to lay the IAC or export cable as described in CBP's decision violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102; and does the use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to construct the substations as described in CBP's decision violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?

Item: Inter-array cables (“IAC”) will be installed from one turbine to another and are connected between individual offshore wind turbines in order to link together multiple individual turbines in strings to the offshore substation. The IAC construction work will be conducted by a U.S.-flag or foreign-flag cable laying vessel. An export cable will be used to connect the offshore substations to the onshore transmission grid. The export cable construction work will be conducted by a U.S.-flag or foreign-flag cable laying vessel. For both types of cable, the vessel performing cable laying operations will pay out and lower cable to the seabed between turbines or between the offshore stations and the shoreline. The cable in all cases will not be landed as cargo but will be paid out in the course of installation operations (i.e., paid out instead of unladen). The cable laying, both for the export cable and IAC, is independent of the MP/TP installation work, and it may commence, before, after, or contemporaneously with the installation of the MPs/TPs.

Reason: see ruling

Ruling Date: Aug. 21, 2024

H332743: Request for Internal Advice; Classification of digital security camera; continuous capture still images; motion activated video; flash memory

Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 (Note 3 to Section XVI) and 6, the subject camera is classifiable in heading 8525, specifically subheading 8525.89.30, HTSUS, which provides for “Transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Other: Television cameras: Other.” The general, column one duty rate is free.

Issue: What is the proper classification of the subject camera under the HTSUS?

Item: Amazon “Ring Video Doorbell” (RVD) devices, identified by Amazon Standard Item Numbers (ASINs) B089N2QZTP and B08JNR77QY. The RVD consists of a doorbell, camera, sensors, speaker, and microphone and is described by Amazon as a home security monitoring device.

Reason: The subject camera can be configured to provide a variety of images in terms of the length of video and intervals of still frame images via the “Snapshot Capture” feature for desired viewing in the Ring® mobile app. Likewise, the camera features EEPROM and flash memory to facilitate the transmission of content to the cloud and guard against losing content when the camera is offline. All of these features are in furtherance of the camera capturing and transmitting video images to locations outside the camera, in the manner of a surveillance camera described in EN 85.25(B), and not for the internal recordation of images for direct retrieval by the user. As such, the subject camera is properly classified under subheading 8525.89.30, which provides for television cameras.

Ruling Date: June 21, 2024

H331779: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3901-23-129207; tariff classification of digital doorbell security camera

Ruling: By application of GRIs 1 (Note 3 to Section XVI) and 6, the subject camera is classifiable under heading 8525, specifically subheading 8525.80.30, HTSUS (2021), which provides for “Transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Other: Television cameras: Other.” The general, column one duty rate is free.

Issue: What is the proper classification of the subject camera under the HTSUS?

Item: A digital doorbell security camera identified as Amazon Standard Item Number (ASIN) B08SGKLDRV (“Blink Video Doorbell White”) and ASIN B08SGC46M9 (“Blink Video Doorbell Black Plus Sync Module 2”), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Blink Video Doorbell” or “BVD." The BVD includes a doorbell, camera, sensors, speaker, and microphone and is marketed as a home security monitoring camera. The device features an analog/digital converter (ADC) and wireless output mechanism that streams video to the cloud for viewing on external devices (i.e., automatic data processing machines, smartphones, etc.).

Reason: Although Protestant submits that the “Sync Module” may be used to store the camera’s still and moving images, the “Synch Module” is a local USB drive (not internal) and is not sold with all versions of the BVD camera. Based on the foregoing, the subject camera does not record images onto an internal storage device or onto media and, therefore, classification is not proper under subheading 8525.80.40, HTSUS (2021). The subject camera can be configured to provide a variety of images in terms of the length of video and intervals of still frame images via the “Snapshot Capture” feature for desired viewing in the mobile app. Likewise, the camera features RAM and flash memory to facilitate the transmission of content to the cloud and guard against losing content when the camera is offline. All of these features are in furtherance of the camera capturing and transmitting video images to locations outside the camera, in the manner of a surveillance camera described in EN 85.25(B), supra, and not for the internal recordation of images for direct retrieval by the user. As such, the subject camera is properly classified under subheading 8525.80.30, HTSUS (2021), which provides for television cameras.

Ruling Date: June 21, 2024

H324237: Request for Internal Advice; Classification of digital security camera with floodlights; continuous capture still images; motion activated video; flash memory

Issue: What is the proper classification of the subject camera under the HTSUS?

Item: The subject “Floodlight Camera Wired Plus” with motion-activated 1080p high definition (HD) video and “Snapshot Capture” technology (Amazon Standard Item Numbers (ASIN) B08F6GPQQ7 and B08F6DWKQP) is a security camera with LED floodlights, 110-decibel siren alarm, and built-in microphone and speakers allowing for two-way talk. It is motion activated with ultra-wide-angle motion sensors and features an analogue/digital converter (ADC) and a wireless output mechanism that streams HD video to the cloud for viewing on external devices (i.e., automatic data processing machines, smartphones, etc.). “Snapshot Capture” is a feature exclusively used with a downloadable Ring® mobile application (app).

Reason: The subject camera does not feature an SD slot or user accessible internal memory or other removeable memory. Moreover, the subject camera erases (overwrites) all captured images when memory reaches capacity or within 24 hours of upload to the cloud. Based on the foregoing, the subject camera does not record images onto an internal storage device or onto media and, therefore, classification is not proper under subheading 8525.89.40, HTSUS. The subject camera can be configured to provide a variety of images in terms of the length of video and intervals of still frame images via the “Snapshot Capture” feature for desired viewing in the Ring® mobile app. Likewise, the camera features EEPROM and flash memory to facilitate the transmission of content to the cloud and guard against losing content when the camera is offline. All of these features are in furtherance of the camera capturing and transmitting video images to locations outside the camera, in the manner of a surveillance camera described in EN 85.25(B), supra, and not for the internal recordation of images for direct retrieval by the user. As such, the subject camera is properly classified under subheading 8525.89.30, which provides for television cameras.

Ruling Date: June 21, 2024

H305155: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2304-19-100407; Continental Automotive Systems, Inc; Reconciliation

Ruling: In this case, CAS failed to provide additional information, documentation, evidence, or compelling arguments that suggest the underlying entry was subject to an FTA reconciliation prior to the liquidation of the reconciliation entry for those entries flagged for value reconciliation. Accordingly, we find this AFR to be without merit. We find that the port properly liquidated reconciliation entry XXX-XXXX312-2 and properly issued CBP bill number 478417891.

Issue: Did CBP properly liquidate the reconciliation entry?

Item: The protest and AFR were filed by Sandler & Travis Trade Advisory Services, Inc. (“STTAS”) on behalf of Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., (“CAS” or “protestant”) to challenge CBP's decision to liquidate reconciliation entry number XXX-XXXX312-2 and issue a bill. CAS alleges that CBP erred in liquidating the reconciliation entry by failing to consider the revised Harbor Maintenance Fee (“HMF”) on the underlying consumption entry number XXX-XXXX233-1. CAS requests cancellation of the bill that resulted from the liquidation of reconciliation entry XXX-XXXX312-2.

Reason: In its protest of the reconciliation entry at issue, CAS did not identify the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) reconciliation entry. Upon review of the records, only four of the ninety underlying consumption entries that comprised reconciliation entry XXX-XXXX312-2 were flagged for both FTA reconciliation and value reconciliation. The underlying consumption entry that CAS identifies to be at issue, XXX-XXXX233-1, however, was not one of them and was not flagged for FTA reconciliation. The underlying entry at issue was filed as an entry type 06 (Foreign Trade Zone), which might explain CAS’ confusion vis-à-vis the payment of HMFs. As a result, CAS' protest should be denied in full.

Ruling Date: June 24, 2024

H327987: Internal Advice; Related Party Transaction; Exercise Equipment; Computed Value; 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(e)

Ruling: The merchandise imported into the United States by the importer is to be appraised under fallback modified deductive value of 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(f) as outlined above.

Issue: What is the appropriate method of appraisement for the imported fitness equipment purchased by the importer from a related-party manufacturer via the related intermediary or transferred from the importer’s foreign distribution centers?

Item: The importer has requested confidential treatment for the information contained in its submission, which includes certain identifying information, as well as for prices, costs, and profit figures contained in their submissions. Inasmuch as the request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR §177.2(b)(7), the company's request for confidentiality is approved. The protestant is a U.S. importer and distributor of fitness equipment and miscellaneous components.

Reason: Because the importer is unable to obtain the actual costs of certain deductions, including transportation costs, CBP agrees that the most appropriate way to appraise the imported fitness equipment would be to use a fallback modified deductive value under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(f) where the requirement to deduct the actual costs of transportation under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(d) are relaxed in favor of a pro-rated methodology. The value should be based on the price the goods are sold for, the retail price, minus the allowable deductions. Based on the foregoing, CBP determines that fallback modified deductive value may be used as the method of appraisal for the imported merchandise purchased by the importer from the related manufacturer via the related intermediary. CBP notes, however, that Regulatory Audit has also inquired whether a separate analysis is necessary for merchandise imported as “internal stock transfers” in which the importer transfers its own merchandise from its foreign distribution centers to those in the United States. CBP determines that transaction value under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1) is not available because no sale for exportation occurs and because there is not sufficient evidence in the record to substantiate transaction value as the method of appraisement. Appraisement based on the transaction value of identical or similar merchandise is unavailable because the importer cannot provide information that would satisfy the requirements for 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(c). Next, deductive value under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(d) is unavailable because the importer is unable to identify certain costs on a per-transaction basis and would instead need to use an averaging methodology. As such, CBP determines that fallback modified deductive value is the appropriate basis of appraisement for goods imported by the importer as internal stock transfers.

Ruling Date: June 24, 2024