CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 555743 RA
District Director of Customs
P.O. Box 916
El Paso, Texas 79985
RE: IA 57/90 concerning applicability of subheading
9802.00.80, HTSUS, to glass reflectors for sealed beam
lamps aluminized before assembly; 553675
Dear Sir:
This is in reference to your memorandum dated August 8,
1990, forwarding a Request for Internal Advice from Rudolph Miles
& Sons Customhouse Brokers, on behalf of Philips Lighting Co.,
regarding the applicability of subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to reflectors which
are aluminized before being assembled in Mexico.
FACTS:
Glass reflectors of U.S. manufacture are exported to Mexico
for assembly into automobile sealed beam lamps. The first
foreign processing step is the aluminizing process which consists
of the application of an electric field in a vacuum chamber which
vaporizes aluminum metal and causes it to be deposited on the
inner faces of the reflectors. The aluminized reflectors are
then incorporated into the sealed beam lamps.
The importer's broker maintains that the aluminizing process
constitutes an acceptable assembly of two solids -- aluminum and
a glass reflector.
ISSUE:
Can the aluminizing of the reflectors be considered an
assembly or an operation incidental thereto which renders the
reflectors eligible for a duty allowance under subheading
9802.00.80, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, provides a partial duty
exemption for articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of
fabricated components of U.S. origin with no operations performed
- 2 -
thereon except the joining of the components and operations
incidental thereto. The U.S. components must be exported in
condition ready for assembly without further fabrication, and
cannot lose their physical identity in the assembled article by
change in form, shape, or otherwise. Duty is assessed on the
full appraised value of the imported merchandise less the cost or
value of the U.S.-made components, upon compliance with the
documentation requirements of section 10.24, Customs Regulations
(19 CFR 10.24).
Section 10.16(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(a)),
states that the assembly operations may consist of any method
used to join or fit together solid components and may be
preceded, accompanied, or followed by operations incidental to
the assembly process. This provision further provides that the
combining of liquids, gases, chemicals, food ingredients, and
amorphous solids with each other or with solid components is not
regarded as an assembly. Moreover, 19 CFR 10.16(a) provides that
any significant process, operation, or treatment other than
assembly whose primary purpose is the fabrication, completion, or
physical or chemical improvement of a component shall not be
regarded as incidental to the assembly and shall preclude the
application of the exemption to such component.
In support of its claim that the aluminizing process
involves the joining of two solid materials, the importer's
broker cites the holdings in C.J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc.
v. U.S., 62 Cust. Ct. 643, 304 F.Supp. 1187, C.D. 3840 (1969),
Sigma Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 2 Fed. Cir. 24, 724 F.2d
930 (1984), and Carter Footwear, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT
554, 669 F.Supp. 439 (1987). In these cases, the courts held
that an operation involving the heating of a substance such as
plastic and attaching it while in a transitory molten state to a
U.S.-origin solid component may constitute an acceptable assembly
operation under this tariff provision where the molten substance
solidifies upon cooling. "Nothing in the statute requires that
whether a component is a solid be determined as of the instant of
initial contact." Sigma Instruments, 724 F.2d at 931-932.
We believe that the aluminizing process in the instant case
is distinquishable from the fact situations in the above court
cases. The joinder of the components in those cases was found by
the courts to constitute more than a mere coating operation,
while the aluminizing process in this case clearly results in the
uniform application of an aluminum coating on the inner face of
the reflector. In our opinion, the aluminizing operation is
analagous to painting and is not a valid assembly of solid
components.
- 3 -
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 553675 dated August 6,
1985, we held that the aluminizing of a glass reflector for an
automative sealed beam lamp was a operation which could not be
considered incidental to assembly. The procedure, which was
similar to that involved in this case, was described as follows:
The alumimum coating of the reflector is next accomplished
by flashing an aluminum form in a vacum. This vaporizing
deposits a coating of aluminum on the inner wall of the
reflector.
We stated in HRL 553675 that the reflector without the coating
was not a fabricated component ready for assembly, and the
aluminizing operation was too substantial to be considered
incidental to the foreign assembly operation.
In view of above, we are of the opinion that the
aluminizing of the glass reflectors in the instant case is
neither an acceptable assembly of solids nor an operation
incidental to the assembly process under subheading 9802.00.80,
HTSUS.
HOLDING:
The aluminizing of glass reflectors for sealed beam lamps by
a vaporizing process is not considered to qualify as an assembly
of solids or incidental thereto under subheading 9802.00.80,
HTSUS. Therefore, no allowance in duty may be made under this
tariff provision for the cost or value of the U.S.-origin glass
reflectors.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division