CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 954942 MBR
Mr. Allen T. Low
Hewlett-Packard
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
RE: Revocation of NY 863121; Automatic Data Processing Disk Drive
Motor Spindles; Parts of Motors; HQ 086832
Dear Mr. Low:
This is in reference to a ruling issued to you on May 10,
1991, (NY 863121) regarding the classification of ADP disk drive
motor spindles, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). As part of a recent review of the classification
of these goods we have reconsidered the opinion in NY 863121.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue consists of two models (97533-60030
and 97548-60030) of automatic data processing ("ADP") disk drive
motor spindles. The spindles are imported separately, and
incorporated with the disk drive motors in the United States.
ISSUE:
Is the ADP disk drive motor spindle classifiable under
subheading 8471.30.40, HTSUS, which provides for parts and
accessories of ADP machines, or under subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS,
which provides for parts of motors?
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...
-2-
In NY 863121, dated May 10, 1991, Customs classified the
instant ADP disk drive motor spindles under subheading 8473.30.40,
HTSUS, which provides for parts of ADP machines.
However, HQ 086832, dated May 21, 1990, held that ADP disk
drive motors with spindles were classifiable in subheading
8501.10.40, HTSUS, which provides for motors. Therefore, in light
of HQ 086832, which determined that the spindles were part of the
disk drive motors, the spindles themselves are prima facie
classifiable in subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS, which provides for
parts of motors.
HQ 086832 cited the Harmonized Commodity Description and
Coding System Explanatory Notes ("ENs"), EN 85.01(I)(A), page 1334,
which states in pertinent part:
Motors remain classified here even when they are equipped
with pulleys, with gears or gear boxes, or with a flexible
shaft for operating hand tools.
Thus, the ENs consider motor shafts, etc., to be essential to
the operational function of the motor. See for example American
Feldmuehle Corp. et al. v. United States, 64 Cust Ct. 462, C.D.
4021 (1970).
The spindles are also prima facie classifiable under
subheading 8471.30.40, which provides for parts of ADP machines.
However, A Manual of Customs Law, Ruth F. Sturm (1974), page 246
states that:
Merchandise is classifiable under the tariff provision
having requirements which are more difficult to satisfy.
Arthur J. Humphreys et al. v. United States, 56 CCPA 67,
C.A.D. 956, 407 F.2d 417 (1969); F.L. Smidth & Company v.
United States, 56 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 958, 409 F.2d 1369 (1969).
Thus, in the case first cited it was held that cabinets for
radio-phonograph combinations were classifiable as parts of
such combinations, rather than as parts of furniture because
the requirements for classification as the former were more
difficult to satisfy.
It is Customs position that the provision for "[p]arts of
motors under 18.65 W (other than commutators)," is more difficult
to satisfy than "[p]arts and accessories of the machines of heading
8471: [n]ot incorporating a cathode ray tube," which includes a
myriad of ADP parts and accessories. It is important to note that
Sturm, page 281, also states that:
Where a particular part of an article is provided for
specifically, a part of that particular part is more
specifically provided for as a part of the part than as a part
-3-
of the whole. C.F. Liebert v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct.
677, C.D. 3499, 287 F. Supp. 1008 (1968)(parts of clutches
which were parts of winches held dutiable as parts of clutches
rather than as parts of winches or parts of tractors); Foster
Wheeler Corp. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 166, C.D. 3556,
290 F. Supp. 375 (1968)(parts of converters, whether or not
converters were parts of machines, are classifiable as parts
of converters); Korody-Coyler Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust.
Ct. 337, C.D. 4212 (1971)(nozzles classifiable as parts of
fuel injection pumps rather than as parts of the internal
combustion engines of which the pumps are part).
Therefore, the spindle is classifiable as a part of the motor,
rather than as a part of the whole disk drive.
HOLDING:
The ADP disk drive motor spindles are classifiable in
subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS, which provides for: "[p]arts suitable
for use solely or principally with the machines of heading 8501 or
8502: [p]arts of motors of under 18.65 W (other than commutators)."
The rate of duty is 10% ad valorem.
This ruling should be considered a revocation of NY 863121,
pursuant to 19 CFR 177.9(d)(1). It is not to be applied
retroactively to NY 863121 (19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)) and will not,
therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of your
merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future
transactions in merchandise of this type, NY 863121 will not be
valid precedent. We recognize that pending transactions may be
adversely affected by this modification, in that current contracts
for importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision
will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation arises, you
may, at your discretion, notify this office and apply for relief
from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by
the circumstances.
EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS:
NY 863121, dated May 10, 1991, is revoked under authority of
Section 177.9(d), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(d)).
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director