HQ 954173
SEPTEMBER 22 1993
CLA-2:CO:R:C:M 954173 JAS
Marshall V. Miller, Esq.
Miller & Company P.C.
91 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64105
RE: Mule Utility Vehicle: Works Truck With Special Design
Features, Vehicle Used in Factories, Warehouses, Etc.,
for Short Distance Transport; Motor Vehicles Principally
Designed for the Transport of Persons, Heading 8703;
Motor Vehicles for the Transport of Goods, Heading 8704;
HQ 953715
Dear Sir:
In your letter of April 27, 1993, on behalf of Kawasaki
Motors Corp., U.S.A., you inquire as to the tariff classification
of the Mule utility vehicle from Japan.
FACTS:
The vehicles in issue are the Mule models 500, 1000, 2510
and 2520. Each is a wheeled vehicle with steel chassis and
frame, having the following dimensions and capacities:
Mule 500 Mule 1000 Mule 2510 Mule 2520
Length 98.4 in. 108.7 in. 112 in. 112 in.
Width 49.6 in. 51.8 in. 57.5 in. 57.5 in.
Weight 662 lbs. 1,065 lbs. 1,184 lbs. 1,105 lbs.
Wheelbase 59.8 in. 70.3 in. 73.6 in. 73.6 in.
Turn Radius 10.5 ft. 13.5 ft. 11.2 ft. 11.2 ft.
Max Speed 20 mph. 25 mph. 25 mph. 15 mph.
Fuel Tank 4.2 gal. 4.5 gal. 5.3 gal. 5.3 gal.
These vehicles have 4-stroke engines and 3-speed transmissions.
They have open cabs with protective roll bar frames, bench
seating to accommodate the driver and one passenger, no doors,
windows, windshield or roof, and a small cargo box in the rear.
It has no lifting or handling capabilities. You state that
because it lacks turn signals, hazard warning lights and rear
view mirrors, the Mule is an off-road vehicle which cannot be - 2 -
licensed for street or highway use. You state further that
standard street or highway tires are unavailable for this
vehicle.
You maintain that the Mule's unique dimensions dedicate it
for use as a small, agile work vehicle suitable for use in
warehouses, manufacturing plants and industrial applications.
You conclude that the Mule is a self-propelled works truck of the
type provided for in heading 8709.
The provisions under consideration are as follows:
8703.21.00 [m]otor vehicles principally designed
for the transport of persons: Other
vehicles, with spark-ignition, internal
combustion reciprocating piston engines:
Of a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,000
cc...2.5 percent
* * * * *
8704.31.00 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods:
Other, with spark-ignition internal
combustion piston engine: G.V.W. not
exceeding 5 metric tons...25 percent under
heading 9903.87.00
* * * * *
8709.19.00 Works trucks, self-propelled...of the type
used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or
airports for short distance transport of
goods: Vehicles: Other...Free
ISSUE:
Whether the Mule is a works truck of heading 8709.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 states in part
that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative section
or chapter notes, and provided the headings or notes do not
require otherwise, according to GRIs 2 through 6.
The Harmonized Commodity Description And Coding System
Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the Customs Cooperation
Council's official interpretation of the Harmonized System.
While not legally binding on the contracting parties, and - 3 -
therefore not dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the
scope of each heading of the Harmonized System and are thus
useful in ascertaining the classification of merchandise under
the System. Customs believes the notes should always be
consulted. See T.D. 89-80.
The provisions of heading 8709 are governed by "use." Group
Italglass U.S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-46, dated March
29, 1993, and related cases. The standard in this case is the
principal use of the class or kind of vehicles to which the Mule
belongs.
The submitted literature does not delineate the environs in
which the Mule can be used. However, relevant ENs at. p. 1433
state that the goods of heading 8709 are self-propelled vehicles
of the types used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or
airports for the short distance transport of various loads (goods
or containers) or, on railway station platforms, to haul small
trailers. The main features common to vehicles of heading 8709
which generally distinguish them from the vehicles of heading
87.03 or heading 87.04 are as follows: their construction and
design features make them unsuitable for the transport of
passengers or for the transport of goods by road or other public
ways; their top speed when laden is generally not more than 30 to
35 km/h.; their turning radius is approximately equal to the
length of the vehicle itself; they usually lack a closed driving
cab; they are fitted, for example, with a platform or container
on which the goods are loaded; and, certain types may be equipped
with a protective frame over the driver's seat.
Each of the four Mule utility vehicle models has a turning
radius from 22 to 54 inches longer than its length, and the top
speed of the models 1000 and 2510, when fully laden, is slightly
in excess of the 35 km/h maximum allowed. However, the ENs state
that these variables are only approximations. The vehicles
otherwise conform to the cited ENs.
The Mule vehicles here are to be distinguished from similar
vehicles with tracks instead of wheels which were the subject of
HQ 953715, dated July 16, 1993. This was a design feature which
we stated suggested substantial off-road uses in rocky and hilly
terrain such as farms, public lands, forests, golf courses, mines
or quarries above and below ground. In that case, we were unable
to document principal use in the environs encompassed by heading
8709.
HOLDING:
Under the authority of GRI 1, the Mule utility vehicle
models 500, 1000, 2510 and 2520 belong to a class or kind of
works trucks provided for in heading 8709. They are classifiable
in subheading 8709.19.00, HTSUS, entitled to entry free of duty. - 4 -
This ruling is based on the evidence available to us at this
time. As additional information on the use or uses of these
vehicles comes to our attention, we may have cause to reevaluate
our position.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division