CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 951939 MBR
Mr. Patrick C. Reed
Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider
90 John Street
New York, New York 10038
RE: Reconsideration of HQ 950411; General Electric Medical Systems
Multiformat Camera; Fixed Focus Camera
Dear Mr. Reed:
This is in reply to your letters of May 22, 1992, and
September 22, 1992, requesting reconsideration of HQ 950411, dated
March 2, 1992, regarding the classification of the General Electric
Medical Systems Multiformat Camera, under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
FACTS:
In HQ 950411, dated March 2, 1992, Customs held that the
"Multiformat Camera" was properly classifiable under the provision
for other "fixed focus" cameras.
The Multiformat Camera is an auto-loading cassetteless device
which consists of an internal video receiver (i.e., a monitor or
CRT), and a means to transfer a video image onto standard rapid
processing transluminated x-ray film. Its sole purpose is to
produce a hard copy of the x-ray radiograph. However, only a
trained maintenance technician on an inspection visit or special
call can change the focus of the Multiformat Camera. The focus is
not changed or even changeable for every picture.
ISSUE:
What is the classification of the General Electric Medical
Systems Multiformat Camera, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS)?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) to the HTSUS
govern the classification of goods in the tariff schedule. GRI 1
states, in pertinent part:
...classification shall be determined according to the terms
of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes...
In HQ 950411, dated March 2, 1992, Customs held that the
"Multiformat Camera" was properly classifiable under subheading
9006.59.40, HTSUS, which provides for: "[p]hotographic (other than
cinematographic) cameras: [o]ther: [o]ther: [f]ixed focus." HQ
950411 contained an extensive and in-depth legal analysis and set
forth, in great detail, Customs position regarding the G.E.
Multiformat Camera. We find nothing in your submission that merits
a change in our position.
You now argue that this provision encompasses only "box-type"
"Brownie" cameras. We disagree. We see nothing in the legislative
history to imply that the provision was intended to be limited in
such a manner, nor does the tariff language limit the scope of the
provision to such an exceedingly narrow extent. Even if the
Multiformat Camera was not in use at the time that this tariff
provision was drafted, "[i]t must also be remembered that the
tariff statutes were enacted 'not only for the present but also for
the future, thereby embracing articles produced by technologies
which may not have been employed or known to commerce at the time
of the enactment * * *.'" NEC America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT
184, 186 (1984), citing Corporacion Sublistatica, S.A. v. United
States, 1 CIT 120, 126, 511 F.Supp. 805, 809 (1981); See also
Davis Turner & Co. v. United States, 45 CCPA 39, 41, C.A.D. 669
(1957).
Furthermore, you insist that because a trained technician
inspects the focus every three months the Multiformat Camera is not
a "fixed focus" camera. We disagree. Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College Edition, (1988), defines "Fixed," as used
in the present context as "1 a) to make firm, stable, or secure
b) to fasten or attach firmly." The courts have stated that "[t]he
meaning of a tariff term 'is presumed to be the same as its common
or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary.'"
NEC America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT 186 (quoting Bentkamp v.
United States, 40 CCPA 70, 78). We find that the focus of the
Multiformat Camera is firm, stable, and secure, and is rarely, if
ever, adjusted.
HOLDING:
The General Electric Medical Systems Multiformat Camera is
classifiable under subheading 9006.59.40, HTSUS, which provides
-3-
for: "[p]hotographic (other than cinematographic) cameras: [o]ther:
[o]ther: [f]ixed focus." HQ 950411, dated March 2, 1992, is hereby
affirmed.
Sincerely,
Harvey Fox, Director