CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086733
Mr. Arcelio V. Gerardo
Import Supervisor
Tasco Sales, Inc.
7600 Northwest 26 Street
Miami, Florida 33122-1494
RE: Telescopic Sight for Bow
Dear Mr. Geradro:
Your letter of February 15, 1990, requesting a tariff
classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA), has been referred to this office for
reply.
FACTS:
The telescopic sight in question is called the bow scope.
It is mounted on a bow and possesses a high technology design
which makes it marketable for sportsmen and hunters. The scope
is used with visible light, as opposed to infrared light.
ISSUE:
Whether the bow scope in question is classifiable within
subheading 9013.10.10, HTSUSA, which provides for telescopic
sights for rifles not designed for use with infrared light; or
within subheading 9013.10.40, HTSUSA, which provides for other
telescopic sights for fitting to arms; or within subheading
9506.99.05, HTSUSA, which provides for archery articles and
equipment and parts and accessories thereof.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is governed
by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides
-2-
that classification is determined first in accordance with the
terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative section or
chapter notes.
In ruling letter HQ 086740 (May __, 1990), Customs addressed
the issue of the classification of telescopic sights for fitting
to shotguns, pistols, and airguns. We rejected the classifi-
cation of these articles as telescopic sights for rifles based on
the fact that they were not described by the terms of subheading
9013.10.10, HTSUSA. Instead, these articles were classified
within subheading 9013.10.40 as other telescopic sights for
fitting to arms. This ruling was based on the conclusion that
shotguns, pistols, and airguns are not rifles within the meaning
of subheading 9013.10.10, but instead arms within the meaning of
subheading 9013.10.40. However, the text of the HTSUSA does not
support the inclusion of archery equipment within the meaning of
the term "arms".
The Court of International Trade (CIT) recently affirmed
the well settled principle of tariff interpretation that tariff
acts must be construed to carry out the intent of Congress.
Clipper Belt Lacer Co., Inc. v. United States (Clipper), Slip Op.
90-22 at 9 (Ct. Int'l Trade, decided March 13, 1990). Further-
more, the CIT stated that the first place to look to establish
the intent of Congress is the language of the statute itself.
While, the text of the HTSUSA does not specifically define the
term "arms", it does however deal specifically with the
classification of arms in chapter 93. The language of this
chapter specifically excludes bows and arrows from classifi-
cation as arms. Chapter 93, Note 1(e). Instead, the HTSUSA
specifically provides for bows in chapter 95 within the
subheading for archery articles and equipment. In Clipper, the
CIT also stated that to give effect to Congressional intent
requires the reading of all parts of the tariff statute together.
The reading of the language of chapters 90, 93 and 95 together
leads to the conclusion that Congress intended to exclude archery
articles and equipment from the meaning of the term "arms".
Accordingly, telescopic sights for archery equipment are
precluded from classification as telescopic sights for fitting to
arms.
Bows are enumerated within subheading 9506.99.05, HTSUSA,
which provides for archery articles and equipment as well as
parts and accessories thereof. The bow scope is designed for
and principally used with archery articles and equipment.
Therefore, the bow scope is accurately described by the terms of
subheading 9506.99.05.
-3-
HOLDING:
The bow scope in question is classifiable within subheading
9506.99.05, HTSUSA, which provides for archery articles and
equipment and parts and accessories thereof, dutiable at 3.4
percent ad valorem.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division