CLA-1 CO:R:C:G 085629 KWM
Mr. Donald Russell
American Jawa Ltd.
185 Express Street
Plainview, New York 11803
RE: Reconsideration of NYRL 841567, dated June 20, 1989;
Pneumatic Tires from Czechoslovakia
Dear Mr. Russell:
This letter is in response to your inquiry dated September
13, 1989, requesting reconsideration of a binding tariff
classification of pneumatic rubber tires. No sample was
submitted with your request, although we have received
information regarding designations assigned by the domestic tire
industry for tire size and use.
FACTS:
On June 20, 1989, our New York office issued New York Ruling
Letter (hereinafter "NYRL") 841567, which classified new
pneumatic rubber tires, having a "herringbone" or similar tread,
in subheading 4011.91.5000, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States Annotated (hereinafter "HTSUSA"). The duty
rate assessed on the goods in that ruling was 10% ad valorem.
Your letter of September 13, 1989, suggests that the tires
at issue in NYRL 841567 are designed for "tractors [suitable for
agricultural use] provided for in subheading 8701.90.1000,
HTSUSA, or for agricultural or horticultural machinery or
implements provided for in Chapter 84". As such, the tires
would be classifiable in subheading 4011.91.1000, HTSUSA, and
could be entered into the United States duty-free. Included with
your letter were several exhibits which purport to illustrate
that tires of this type, bearing the technical designations "F-3
(front tractor use)" and "R-4 (rear tractor use)", are
considered 'agricultural tires' by the domestic tire industry.
In addition to the information submitted with your request,
our New York office has met with representatives from your
company and the domestic distributor of the tires. The
discussion during that meeting appears to substantiate the
claims made by you in your correspondence.
ISSUE:
How should these goods be classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with
the General Rules of Interpretation (hereinafter "GRI(s)") 1
through 5. The systematic detail of the harmonized system is
such that virtually all goods are classified by application of
GRI 1, that is, according to the terms of the headings of the
tariff schedule and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. Then,
if GRI 1 fails to classify the goods, and if the headings and
legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs may be
applied, taken in order.
The issue in this case centers around your claim that the
tires in question are "designed for tractors provided for in
subheading 8701.90.1000 or for agricultural or horticultural
machinery or implements provided for in Chapter 84". We are of
the opinion that these tires are so designed, and hereby revoke
NYRL 841567, for the reasons discussed below.
Heading 8701, HTSUSA, classifies "Tractors", and includes
farm or agricultural tractors as well as other types of
vehicles. Chapter 84, and in particular heading 8432,
classifies machinery used for agricultural or horticultural
purposes, ordinarily used conjunction with a tractor of heading
8701, HTSUSA. For classification in subheading 4011.91, HTSUSA,
tires must be shown to have been "designed for" use with either
the above mentioned tractors or machinery pieces. In this case,
the certification provided by the manufacturer of the tires and
the U.S. distributor are strong evidence to that effect. In
addition, the fact that the Czechoslovakian manufacturer produces
nothing but tractor tires further indicates, in our opinion, that
the tires were "designed for" tractors or agricultural equipment.
Finally, we note that heading 4011, HTSUSA, is a "use"
provision in that it classifies products which are "used" for a
specified purpose. In this case, the tires must fall within a
class of goods used on the machinery specified by the subheading
terms. When classifying goods under a "use" provision, this
office is concerned not with the intended use of the product, but
by its principal, actual use of the class or kind of articles to
which the product belongs, in the condition in which it was
imported. The information submitted by you, principally that
regarding the industry technical designations, indicates that the
principal use of these tires will be in the manner contemplated
by the Nomenclature for subheading 4011.91.
Heading 4011, HTSUSA, provides for tires having a
herringbone or similar tread, used on tractors or agricultural
machinery. The Explanatory Notes, which constitute the official
interpretation of the Nomenclature at the international level,
contain several examples of the herringbone or similar tread
contemplated by heading 4011. Each of the exemplars has raised
ridges, placed diagonally across the face of the tire in a
"herringbone" pattern. The tread designs indicated on your
submission for the "R-4" tread pattern match to a significant
degree the examples set out in the Explanatory Notes. The tread
patterns designated as "F-3" do not. However, it is our
understanding that the tread pattern designated as "F-3" is
considered to be a herringbone or similar tread pattern, despite
the dissimilarity with the Explanatory Notes exemplars. We,
therefore, consider both styles of tire, designated "R-4" and "F-
3", to have the tread pattern indicated in subheading 4011.91,
HTSUSA.
HOLDING:
The tires at issue in this case are classified under
subheading 4011.91.1000, HTSUSA, as new pneumatic tires, of
rubber, having a "herringbone" or similar tread, designed for
tractors provided for in subheading 8701.90.1000, or for
agricultural or horticultural machinery or implements provided
for in chapter 84. Tires of that subheading are entered into the
United States duty-free under column 2 rates of duty.
NYRL 841567 is hereby revoked under the authority of 19 CFR
177.9(d)(1) (1989). It is not to be applied retroactively (19
CFR 177.9(d)(2) (1989)), and will not, therefore, affect past
transactions in the subject merchandise. However, for the
purposes of future transactions in merchandise of this type, NYRL
841567 will not be valid precedent.
Sincerely,
John A. Durant
Director
Commercial Rulings Division