CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088234 AJS
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
Port of Los Angeles
300 South Ferry St.
Terminal Island
Room 2017
San Pedro, CA 90731
RE: Protest No. 2704-87-002221; voice coil motors; item 682.25;
676.54; The Admiral Division of Magic Chef, Inc. v. United
States; Nootka Packing Co. v. United States; Tariff
Classification Study of 1960; Customs Cooperation Council,
Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature; Van Nostrand's
Scientific Encyclopedia; United States v. A.W. Fenton Company,
Inc.; Digital Equipment Corp. v. United States.
Dear District Director:
Protest for further review number 2704-87-002221 dated
07/01/87, was filed against the classification of certain voice
coil positioning devices.
FACTS:
The subject article is a voice coil positioning device, also
known as a voice coil motor, and is similar to a stepping motor.
Both motors are a type of linear motor used to raise and lower
the recording head of a hard disk drive. Voice coil motors are
used on 8 inch and 14 inch drives and on some high capacity 5 1/4
inch drives. Faster than stepper motors they allow closed loop
positioning of the head over the track where data is to be
written or read. Voice coil motors are under constant magnetic
force and require a dedicated close loop servo mechanism. That
system feeds back track location data from the dedicated servo
surface to position the read/write transducers in the heads.
-2-
ISSUE:
Whether the subject voice coil motor is properly
classifiable within item 682.25, Tariff Schedules of the United
States (TSUS), which provides for electric motors; or
classifiable within item 676.54, TSUS, as parts of magnetic disk
drives.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Item 682.25, TSUS, provides eo nomine for motors. The
subject voice coil motor is a type of linear motor used to raise
and lower the recording head of a hard disk drive. An eo nomine
designation includes all forms of the article, absent contrary
intent by Congress or some conflicting administrative practice or
judicial authority. The Admiral Division of Magic Chef, Inc. v.
United States, No. 86-10-01342, slip. op. 9 (CIT Dec. 12, 1990),
citing Nootka Packing Co. v. United States, 22 CCPA 464, 469,
T.D. 47464 (1935). Motors are not defined by the TSUS.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the legislative history
and other extrinsic sources to determine the common meaning of
the subject article. One source of legislative history of the
TSUS is the Tariff Classification Study of 1960, which does not
provide a definition of motors. Study at 303. Another source of
legislative history is the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels
Nomenclature, which includes linear motors within the description
of motors. Section XVI, 85.01(II)(B). Linear motors are also
described as a type of motor by extrinsic sources. Van
Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia (VN), 7th ed., vol. II, p.
1906, 2693 (1988). Therefore, linear motors come within the
common meaning of the term "motor". Accordingly, the voice coil
motor is properly classifiable within item 682.25, TSUS, as a
type of motor.
Counsel claims that item 682.25, TSUS, only covers rotary
motors, and cites United States v. A.W. Fenton Company Inc., 49
CCPA 45 (1962), in support of this claim. This case dealt with
the issue of whether a device was "more than" a motor. It did
not discuss the issue of whether a linear motor was a motor.
Accordingly, we do not find this case applicable in the
resolution of this protest.
Counsel additionally cites Digital Equipment Corp. v. United
States, Appeal No. 89-1438 (November 1989), in support of their
protest. This case held that a computer power supply which
possessed additional functions beyond that of a rectifier or
rectifying apparatus and could not be classifiable as such. In
this protest, however, the voice coil motors do not possess any
features or functions beyond that of a linear motor.
Accordingly, the rationale of Digital does not exclude the
subject voice coil motor from classification as a motor.
-3-
Item 676.54, TSUS, provides for parts of automatic data
processing machines. Counsel claims the subject motor is
properly classifiable within this item number. The subject motor
will be used solely or chiefly as a part of a hard disk drive.
However, a parts provision does not prevail over a specific
provision for such parts. General Interpretative Rule 10(ij).
Item 682.25, TSUS, is such a specific provision. Accordingly,
the subject motor is precluded from classification within item
676.54, TSUS.
HOLDING:
The subject voice coil motor is classifiable within item
682.25, TSUS, which provides for motors. The protest should be
denied in full and a copy of this letter should be attached to
the Customs Form 19 Notice of Action and forwarded to the
protestant.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division