CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:811447 101
Mr. Joseph L. Giumentaro
Entry Supervisor
Ameri-Can Customhouse Brokers, Inc.
783 Busti Ave.
Buffalo, NY 14213
RE: The tariff classification of the Q'Straint automotive safety
seat belt restraint system from Canada, the U.S. and Taiwan.
Dear Mr. Giumentaro:
In your letter dated May 15, 1995 you requested a tariff
classification ruling.
The item concerned is the Q'Straint Restraint System. The
parts which can comprise the various models of this wheelchair
safety seat belt device at it's widest range are velcro strips,
an aluminum belt holder, a polypropylene hinge, screws, a nylon
spacer, a belt cutter, channels, a wall rack, a riser, a bolt, a
nut, a rubber insert, adhesives, rear belts, front belts, a lap
belt, a shoulder belt, a floor pocket, washers and an S/Belt
bracket.
The applicable subheading for the Q'Straint Restraint System
will be 8708.21.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTS), which provides for Parts and accessories of . . .
motor vehicles: Other parts and accessories of bodies (including
cabs): Safety seat belts. The rate of duty will be 3% ad
valorem.
The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every
article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the
U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly
and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container)
will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate
purchaser in the U.S., the English name of the country of origin
of the article.
Section 134.1 (b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1 (b)),
defines "country of origin" as the country of manufacture,
production or growth of any article of foreign origin entering
the United States. Further work or material added to an article
in another country must effect a substantial transformation in
order to render such other country the "country of origin" within
the meaning of marking laws and regulations. The case of U.S. v.
Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 CCPA 267 (C.A.D. 98), provides that
an article used in manufacture which results in an article having
a name, character or use differing from that of the constituent
article will be considered substantially transformed.
The classification of an article does not control the
country of origin marking of the article. Courts have
acknowledged the reality that the application of differing laws
relating to the importation of goods into the U.S. can result in
differing origins for the same product. In discussing the
differences between the marking laws, drawback laws and the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the court in National
Juice Products Association v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628
F.Supp. 978 (1986), concluded, "Thus, although the language of
the tests applied under the three statutes is similar, the
results may differ where differences in statutory language and
purpose are pertinent."; National Juice, note 14, at 58-59. The
differing purposes of the marking laws compared with the
classification schedules justify different results in the present
instance; one for origin, one for duty assessment.
The pertinent statutory purpose involved in application of
the marking laws was explained in United States v. Friedlaender &
Co., 27 CCPA 297, C.A.D. 104 (1940):
Congress intended that the ultimate purchaser should be able
to know by an inspection of the marking on imported goods the
country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose
is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate
purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able
to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence
his will.
The classification of a wheelchair safety seat belt
restraint system does not control the country of origin marking
required on such article. The bringing together of the
components of such a system is not an assembly of a new and
different article for purposes of marking. The party packaging
the components, some manufactured in the country of packing, some
imported into the country of packing in a finished condition, is
not the ultimate purchaser of the components; the packing is not
a substantial transformation.
In the present case, the individual articles of the Q-Straint wheelchair restraint system need not be individually
marked, but marking on the container that will reach the ultimate
purchaser must indicate the origins of the components of the
system. A phrase such as "Components made in Canada, U.S. and
Taiwan" or words of similar meaning would be sufficient.
For invoicing purposes, the description "Automotive Safety
Restraints for Invalid Carriages" would be sufficient for U.S.
Customs classification determination.
This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section
177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry
documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the
documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be
brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the
transaction.
Sincerely,
Jean F. Maguire
Area Director
New York Seaport