CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088888 CMS
Frederick L. Ikenson, Esq.
1621 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
RE: HQ Ruling 087775, Reconsideration; Load Rollers; Fork
Lift Trucks; Parts; Wheels; Guide; Tires; Ball and Roller
Bearings; Antifriction; Mast; Subheading 8482.10.00
Dear Mr. Ikenson:
This is in response to your request on behalf of Federal-
Mogul Corporation, dated March 8, 1991, for the reconsideration
of HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991).
FACTS:
HQ Ruling 087775 held that certain products described as
"load rollers" were classified as parts of fork lift trucks in
Heading 8431, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS).
The products consist of steel tires into which assemblies
containing rolling elements are incorporated. The tires are
designed to turn in the channels of fork lift mast uprights.
The products are manufactured in two configurations. The
first configuration is comprised of a separate, reinforced tire
into which inner and outer rings containing rolling elements are
installed. The steel tire of the second configuration is
manufactured integrally with the outer ring section it
incorporates.
ISSUE:
Is the merchandise classified under the HTSUS as parts of
fork lift trucks in Heading 8431, or as ball bearings in Heading
8482?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Customs Treatment Of The Products
On November 3, 1983, Customs issued HQ Ruling 070878, which
held that the fork lift mast products with separate, reinforced
steel tires were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the
United States (TSUS) as parts of other lifting, handling, loading
or unloading machinery, and not as ball bearings. We found that
the products functioned as guide wheels.
In NY Ruling 841216 (June 8, 1989), Customs found under the
HTSUS that the products were not classified as ball bearings and
that the products were wheels. Because of interpretative changes
brought about by the Harmonized System, the products were held to
be classified as parts of fork lift trucks, instead of in the
more general provision for parts of other lifting and handling
machinery.
In NY Ruling 842150 (June 19, 1989), Customs ruled on the
integral tire variation of the product. This ruling was based
primarily on a physical observation of the product which was
held to be classified as a ball bearing. The National Import
Specialist who prepared the ruling subsequently acknowledged that
upon a closer examination of the article, including its function,
this determination was incorrect and the ruling should not have
been issued. This ruling did not reference NY Ruling 841216 or
HQ Ruling 070878, and had no legal effect on that line of
rulings.
HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991) resolved any question
which may have existed, by revoking the incorrect NY Ruling
842150 and bringing the classification of the integral tire
variation in line with the position Customs had maintained since
1983.
In your submission, reference is made to a letter from
Customs dated October 19, 1989, which discussed the product in
the context of the scope of an antidumping case. However, this
letter was not a classification ruling, and it has been
determined that antidumping scope matters do not affect Customs
classification determinations. Royal Business Machines, Inc. v.
United States, et al., 1 CIT 80, 87 (CIT, 1980), 507 F. Supp.
1007, aff'd. 669 F. 2d 692 (Fed. Cir., 1982).
-3-
Form and Function
HQ Ruling 087775 found that the products had the physical
and functional character of complete wheels. It is common
knowledge that many wheels incorporate and turn on bearing
components (e.g., roller skate wheels). The radial bearing
components (balls, grooved races, spacing cage) within a wheel
might themselves be described as bearings, but the wheels as a
whole are not mere bearings. Many lifting and handling machines
use wheels that turn on tracks and are considered by the HTSUS
and lexicographic authority to be "wheels" or "rollers" and not
"bearings".
It is contended that the products have the form and function
of bearings and that Customs did not look to lexicographic
sources it ordinarily relies on in deciding bearing issues.
While Customs routinely looks to lexicographic authorities,
we do not always quote from or cite every authority used when
deciding every ruling.
In many instances, Customs looks to the McGraw-Hill
Encyclopedia of Science and Technology for descriptions of
products that go beyond dictionary definitions. In Vol. 1, p.
638 of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology,
6th Ed. (1987), bearings and wheels are discussed. It is stated
that wheels perform some antifriction function and that bearings
use this principle, but wheels and bearings are not equated and
some bearings are described that are used in wheels. It is
stated:
The wheelbarrow, the two-wheeled baggage truck, and
similar devices are striking examples of the reduction
in friction by the use of the wheel. ...This principle
is used in the rolling-element bearing which has found
wide use.
The first major application of these bearings was to
the bicycle...
The use of bearings in bicycles is also addressed in the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory
Notes to Heading 8482, the heading that describes ball bearings.
The Explanatory Notes to Heading 8482, p. 1325, provide that
"[t]he heading does not cover machinery parts incorporating
ball...bearings ...[including]...Bicycle hubs (heading 87.14)".
Thus, under the HTSUS, a bearing would not have to be assembled
with a complete wheel for the assembly to be classified as a
product other than a Heading 8482 bearing.
-4-
Even closer to the "load rollers" under consideration are
complete wheels or rollers, especially those that turn in the
guide rails or tracks of the lifting and handling machinery
described in Headings 8426 to 8428 (fork lift trucks are
described in Heading 8427 as works trucks fitted with lifting and
handling equipment). Such wheels and rollers are referenced in
the Explanatory Notes to Heading 8426, p. 1194 (e.g., "wheels,
rollers, pulleys, running or guide rails, etc."; see also
Explanatory Notes to Heading 8428, p. 1197).
The Explanatory Notes to Heading 8426, p. 1195, describe
transporter cranes that use hoisting trolleys running along
beams. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia, supra, Vol. 11, p. 376,
describes a materials handling machine that uses a hoisting
trolley travelling on an "I" beam. It is stated that the
circular articles that are mounted in the trolley and roll along
the beam are not ball bearings, but are "wheels". It is stated
that the "[w]heels mounted in trolleys ride on the flange of the
track..." (emphasis added).
Like the "I" beams of other lifting and handling machinery,
fork lift masts may also be of "I" beam construction, and fork
lift "load rollers" may be designed to turn on "I" beams. See
Exhibit 7, ruling requestor's March 8, 1991 submission, "Liftall"
literature; Exhibit 10, May 6, 1991 submission, documents 1 & 2).
Some materials handling systems with trolleys may use idler
wheels, drive wheels and guide wheels that roll on the side of
the track.
In connection with gravity conveyor machines for
transporting materials and objects, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia,
supra, Vol. 4, p. 397, describes the circular articles used to
handle "Rolling friction" not as bearings, but as: "Wheel,
Roller, Spiral Wheel, Spiral Roller" (emphasis added). Further,
wheels used in materials handling machinery are not limited to
those that turn on beams. For example, "[a]erial tramways and
cableways employ the use of a cab or carrier suspended by a
grooved wheel on an overhead cable" (emphasis added). McGraw-
Hill Encyclopedia, supra, Vol. 3, p. 101.
As previously noted, fork lift trucks are described in
Heading 8427 as works trucks fitted with lifting and handling
equipment. Articles that are classified as parts of fork lift
trucks are provided for in Heading 8431, where the "load rollers"
under consideration were classified. The Explanatory Notes to
Heading 8431, p. 1207, also describe rolling products that
frequently incorporate bearing elements (e.g., "rollers" for
conveyors).
-5-
Marketing Considerations
An extensive review has been made of marketing literature
and statements made by bearing and fork lift manufacturers and
suppliers, including the extensive materials provided with the
request for reconsideration. This review indicates that the
products are referred to by many names, including "load rollers",
"wheels", "bearings", "guide wheels", "mast guide bearings" and
"rollers".
This situation is similar to that in Rollix Bearing, Inc v.
United States, 757 F. Supp. 1412 (CIT, 1991), where a question
was whether certain products were classified as bearings. One
party noted that the products were referred to as bearings and
large diameter bearings, and the other party noted that the
products were also known as ring gears, turntable bearings,
swing gears, swing circles, turntables, rotation gears and
rotation circles. The Court noted the tariff classification
principle referred to by the plaintiff, that the marketing of a
product is not determinative of its tariff classification.
Venaire Shade Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 469, 472,
C.D. 4235 (1971).
In Rollix Bearing, Inc., supra, the products were similar in
physical construction to a radial ball bearing, having an outer
ring, rolling elements and an inner ring that was manufactured
with gear teeth. The Court found that antifriction was only one
of the functions of the products and the products were not
classified as bearings under the TSUS.
There may be no direct analogy between the products in
Rollix Bearing, Inc. and the "load rollers" under consideration.
However, the argument that the tires of the "load rollers" are
merely bearing races of special design, formed to allow the
product to function in the machines for which they are designed,
is not much different from asserting that a geared inner ring is
merely a bearing race of special design, formed to allow it to
function in the machine for which it was designed (a concept
rejected by the Court in Rollix Bearing, Inc.).
Although marketing may not be determinative of tariff
classification, it is interesting to note that in what might be
the most detailed name attached to the "load rollers" in company
literature, the product is referred to not as a ball bearing, but
as an assembly in which a bearing is just one component (i.e., an
"Integral Load Roller And Bearing Assembly", May 6, 1991,
submission, Exhibit 10, documents 1 and 2).
-6-
Miscellaneous Arguments
It is stated that Customs violated section 502(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1502(b)), because HQ Ruling 087775
was not issued in concurrence with the Attorney General, the
Court of International Trade or a certain binational panel.
In Joanna Western Mills Company v. United States, 311 F.
Supp. 1328 (Cust. Ct., 1970), the Court found that section 502(b)
was not intended to benefit any class of individuals or persons,
including the plaintiff. It was also found that the reference to
the concurrence of the Attorney General was directory, not
mandatory.
You also argue that Customs had a "fixation" on what is
described as the "wheel concept". The key element of the
argument is apparently that Customs had a "fixation" on the fact
that the outer part of the product rotated around the inner part.
May 6, 1991, submission, p. 7. Customs had no such "fixation".
All aspects of the product were considered, including their
similarity to articles used in lifting and handling machinery.
Several arguments are made in the context of the "wheel
concept" notion. Reference is made to "slide mechanisms" which
do not have an outer part rotating around an inner part. The
analogy between "slide mechanisms" and "load rollers, however, is
misplaced; the "slide mechanisms" are linear bearings which have
no rotating races and no separate or integral outer tires at all.
An extensive discussion is also provided regarding products
described as cam followers. Cam followers, however, primarily
follow the curved surfaces of cams in the wide variety of
machines that use cams (e.g., engines, manufacturing machinery,
packaging machinery, typesetting machinery, machine tools). The
"load rollers" are much more similar to the wheels, including
guide wheels, that turn on "I" beams and other beams, tracks and
channels, specifically in lifting and handling machinery.
Concerning antidumping, the May 6, 1991, submission, p. 17,
cites Diversified Products Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 155, 572
F. Supp. 883 (1983), a case that sets forth criteria used by the
Department of Commerce in making antidumping scope
determinations. It is suggested on p. 18 of the submission that
Customs use a "modified Diversified Products analysis" in the
course of its tariff classification determination.
-7-
As you are aware, antidumping scope and tariff
classification have fundamental differences. Antidumping scope
does not affect tariff classification. The Court of
International Trade has stated:
The Court distinguishes between the authority
of the Customs Service to classify according to tariff
classifications (19 U.S.C. 1500) and the power of the
agencies administering the antidumping law to determine
a class or kind of merchandise. The determinations
under the antidumping law may properly result in the
creation of classes which do not correspond to
classifications found in the tariff schedules or may
define or modify a known classification in a manner not
contemplated or desired by the Customs Service.
Royal Business Machines, Inc., et al. v. U.S., 1 CIT at 87,
n. 18
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all aspects of this issue, we
have concluded that under the classification system of the HTSUS,
the fork lift "load rollers" are not described or classified as
ball bearings in Heading 8482. Customs is unpersuaded that the
products should be classified in a provision other than the
Heading 8431 provision for parts suitable for certain materials
handling machinery, including the fork lift trucks of Heading
8427. HQ Ruling 087775 properly classified the merchandise in
Heading 8431, pursuant to Section XVI Note 2(b).
HOLDING:
HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991) properly classified the
merchandise as parts of fork lift trucks in subheading
8431.20.00, HTSUS, and is affirmed.
Sincerely,
Harvey B. Fox, Director
Office of Regulations and Rulings