CLA-2 RR:CR:GC 963207 GOB
Ms. Shana Grossman
Gallagher Transport International, Inc.
2515 E. Evergreen Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98661-4322
RE: LCD Projectors
Dear Ms. Grossman:
This is in response to your letter of April 17, 1999, on behalf of Lightware, Inc., to the Customs National Commodity Specialist Division, requesting the classification of three styles of LCD (liquid crystal display) projectors under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). We regret the delay in responding.
FACTS:
You describe the projectors as follows:
The first is the Lightware L-1020 weighing 13.5 pounds, with a built in universal power supply, zoom lens, 3 panel polysilicon LCD, 2000 hour high intensity discharge lamp and two 3-watt speakers. It also has True XGA (1024 X 768) resolution, a 150:1 contrast and a data compatibility with VGA, SVGA, XGA, SXGA and Macintosh…
The second, The Scout, weighing 5.3 pounds, with built in universal power supply, a fixed focal projection lens, a 1.6” polysilicon LCD, 1000 hour 200 watt metal halide light source and two 2-watt speakers. It has a 100:1 contrast, a resolution of 800 x 600 SGVA with a XGA compatibility and a data compatibility with VGA, SVGA, XGA, and Macintosh…
The last LCD projector, the VP800 weighing at 9.3 pounds, with a built in universal power supply, a[n] upside-down and reverse imaging for ceiling mount and rear protection, a 6.4” active matrix color TFT LCD, with a 400-watt halogen bulb with bulb changer and two 3-watt speakers. It also contains 150:1 contrast, a resolution of 800 x 600 SGVA and a data compatibility with VGA, SVGA, and Macintosh. This LCD Projector also elevates the image up to 20 degrees, with variable keystone correction up to 25 degrees…
The product literature for the L-1020 and VP800 reflects video compatibility of “Auto senses different modes: NTSC, PAL and SECAM.” The literature for these models also reflects the presence of VCR jacks with these two models.
The product literature for the Scout reflects video compatibility of NTSC, PAL and SECAM.
All three projectors have flat panel screens.
You state that you believe the projectors are properly classified under subheading 8471.60.30, HTSUS.
ISSUE:
Are the above-described LCD projectors provided for in heading 8471, HTSUS, as automatic data processing machines, or in heading 8528, HTSUS, as video projectors?.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRI’s”). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied.
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (“EN’s”) constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level. While neither legally binding nor dispositive, the EN’s provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings. See T.D. 89-80.
Heading 8471 covers:
Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included[.]
Heading 8528 covers:
Reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and video projectors[.]
Legal Note 3 to Section XVI, HTSUS, provides:
Unless the context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function.
The projectors at issue here have two functions. They may be connected to a computer for the projection of computer-generated images. They may also be connected to video devices such as video cassette recorders, televisions, and video monitors for the projection of video images.
Customs has reconsidered the uses of projectors and the evidentiary requirements of Legal Note 3 to Section XVI. The courts have provided factors, which are indicative but not conclusive, to apply when determining whether merchandise falls within a particular class or kind. They include: general physical characteristics, expectation of the ultimate purchaser, channels of trade, environment of sale (accompanying accessories, manner of advertisement and display), use in the same manner as merchandise which defines the class, economic practicality of so using the merchandise, and recognition in the trade of such use. See U.S. v. Carborundum Co., 63 CCPA 98, 102, 536 F. 2d 373, 377 (1976), cert denied, 429 U.S. 979 (1976). We note that in Lenox Collections v. U.S., 19 CIT 345, 347 (1995) and Kraft, Inc. v. U.S., 16 CIT 483, 489 (1992) the court applied the Carborundum factors to principal use. See also G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. U.S., 14 CIT 614, 620 (1990).
Legal Note 3 to Section XVI does not resolve the classification at issue because no satisfactory documentary evidence has been submitted as to the principal function of the subject projectors.
Therefore, we are not able to classify the projectors based upon GRI 1. GRI 2 is not applicable here. GRI 3 provides as follows:
When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:
The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.
Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.
When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or 3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.
At GRI 3(a), neither of the two competing headings provides a more specific description than the other. Pursuant to GRI 3(b), the projectors are composite goods and there is no satisfactory documentary evidence as to their essential character. Accordingly, we proceed to GRI 3(c), i.e., the goods shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.
Pursuant to GRI 3(c), we determine that the three projectors are provided for in heading 8528, HTSUS. They are classified in subheading 8528.30.66, HTSUS as: “Video projectors: Color: … With a flat panel screen: … Other: With a video display diagonal not exceeding 34.29 cm.”
This determination is consistent with our determinations in HQ 964043 dated July 25, 2000, and HQ 964159 dated July 25, 2000. In those rulings we classified LCD projectors in heading 8528, HTSUS, based upon GRI 3(c) where there was no satisfactory documentary evidence with respect to the principal function of the projectors.
Our determination is also consistent with a recent decision on projectors published in the Compendium of Classification Opinions on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System where the classification of certain projectors whose principal function could not be determined was based upon GRI 3(c). See Opinion No. 8528.30/2 of the WCO’s Compendium of Classification Opinions, Amending Supplement No. 24 (August 1999). As we stated in T.D. 89-80, decisions in the Compendium of Classification Opinions should be treated in the same manner as the EN’s, i.e., while neither legally binding nor dispositive, the they provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings. T.D. 89-80 further states that EN’s and decisions in the Compendium of Classification Opinions “should receive considerable weight.”
HOLDING:
The three subject projectors are provided for in heading 8528, HTSUS. They are classified in subheading 8528.30.66, HTSUS, as: “Video projectors: Color: … With a flat panel screen: … Other: With a video display diagonal not exceeding 34.29 cm.”
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division