CLA-2-RR:CTF:TCM 967688 RSD
TARIFF No. 8485.90.00
Ms. Shelley Vybiral
Lord Corporation
2000 West Grandview Blvd.
Erie, Pennsylvania 16509
RE: Tariff classification of two-piece leveling machinery mounts made of metal and rubber
Dear Ms. Vybiral:
This is in response to your letter received April 8, 2005, requesting reconsideration of ruling NY L82606, dated March 11, 2005, regarding the tariff classification of two-piece leveling machinery mounts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Your letter was addressed to Customs and Border Protection’s Office (CBP) in New York and was forwarded to this office for a response. A sample of a leveling machinery mount has been received. On May 4, 2005 and July 27, 2005, you submitted additional information by email regarding the product under review.
FACTS:
The merchandise under consideration is leveling mounts for machinery. The leveling machinery mounts are designed to support and to level various equipment and machinery. These leveling mounts offer a vertical natural frequency under maximum load of 12 Hz. They are constructed of a neoprene elastomer, which resists oil, ozone and caustic materials, and a high-visibility yellow housing made of high strength steel. The sample leveling mount has a metal threaded bolt, which can be screwed into a piece of equipment or a machine. You indicated in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff that in most cases, machine manufacturers do not include leveling mounts with the machines that they sell when they deliver them to their customers. Instead, although there may be exceptions, in most cases, the end user of a machine will obtain the leveling mounts on their own in order to enhance the efficient operation of their machine.
In NY L82606, CBP classified the leveling mounts in subheading 8485.90.00, HTSUS, as machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils, contact or other electrical features and not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 84. You maintain that the classification of the leveling mounts in subheading 8485.90.00, HTSUS, is not correct. Your contention is that people purchase the leveling mounts for the function provided by their rubber element. Because you believe the rubber element imparts the essential character to the product, it is your position that they should be classified in subheading 4016.99.60, HTSUS, as other rubber articles. Consequently, you request that CBP reconsider the holding of NY L82606 that the leveling mounts are classified in subheading 8485.90.00, HTSUS.
ISSUE:
Whether the machinery leveling mounts are classified in heading 4016, HTSUS, as other articles of rubber or in heading 7326, HTSUS, as other articles of iron or steel, or in heading 8485, HTSUS, as machinery parts not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 84 of the HTSUS.
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 GRIs may then be applied.
The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:
4016 Other articles of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber:
Other:
* * *
4016.99 Other:
* * *
4016.99.60 Other.
* * *
7326 Other articles of iron or steel:
* * *
7326.90 Other:
* * *
7326.90.85 Other.
* * *
8485 Machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils,
contacts or other electrical features, and not specified or included
elsewhere in this chapter:
* * *
8485.90.00 Other.
* * *
In NY L82606, CBP found that the leveling mounts are classified in heading 8485, HTSUS. Heading 8485, HTSUS, is a provision for parts, which means that in order for the leveling mounts to be classified in that heading its status as a part must first be established. We note that heading 8485, HTSUS, does not include accessories.
In Bauerhin Technologies Limited v. United States, 19 CIT 1441, 914 F.Supp. 554 (1995), aff’d 110 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court pointed out that there are two distinct lines of cases defining the word "part" in the tariff. Starting with U.S. v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 CCPA 322, 324, (1933) T.D. 46075 (1933), cert. denied, 292 U.S. 640 (1934), this line of cases holds that a part of an article "is something necessary to the completion of that article without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article." Another line of cases evolved from United States v. Antonio Pompeo, 43 CCPA 9, C.D. 1669 (1955), which held that a device may be a part of an article even though its use is optional and the article will function without it, if the device is dedicated for use upon the article, and, once installed, the article will not operate without it.
The definition of "parts" was also discussed in Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (CIT 2000), aff’d, 282 F.3d 1349 (CAFC 2002). In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, defined parts as "an essential element or constituent; integral portion which can be separated, replaced, etc." Id. at 1353 (citing Webster’s New World Dictionary 984 (3d College Ed. 1988)). The court also noted that a "part" must also bear a direct relationship to the primary article.
In applying this analysis, CBP generally will consider an article to be a part if: it is combined with other articles to be used; or it is an integral, constituent or component part, without which the article to which it is joined could not function; or it aids in the safe and efficient operation of the main article; or it is identifiable by shape or other characteristics as an article solely or principally used as a part. In contrast, CBP generally will consider an article to be an accessory if: it facilitates use or handling; or it widens the range of uses of the main article; or it is not needed to enable the goods with which it is used to fulfill its intended function; or it is identifiable as being intended solely or principally for use with a specific article. See HQ 962634, dated October 25, 2001.
Because they clearly enhance the safe and efficient operation of machines to which they are attached, we believe that the leveling mounts are necessary for the operation of the machines. The leveling mounts are designed to stabilize heavy machinery and diminish vibrations that a machine produces. If a machine is unstable, it could be very difficult to use and potentially dangerous. Although a machine can be turned on and off and thus theoretically operate without the leveling mounts being attached, as practical matter, we believe that it is highly unlikely that a machine operator would want to run and operate highly unstable heavy machinery. In addition, excessive vibrations could cause serious damage to a floor or other surfaces that a machine is mounted on, affect any readings from instrumentation contained on machines and also make it very difficult to operate machinery. Therefore, we doubt that a machine operator would choose to run a machine without the leveling mounts being attached to it. We recognize that most machine manufacturers generally do not include leveling mounts when they sell and deliver machines to their customers. However, this information does not necessarily mean that the leveling mounts cannot be considered as parts. Because of the difficulty of operating unstable and vibrating machinery, we believe that machine owners will obtain the leveling mounts in order to facilitate the safe and efficient operation of their machines when they use them. Consequently, in our judgment, the leveling mounts are integral constituent components of a machine and thus they constitute parts.
Goods that qualify as parts in a tariff sense but are either not covered in a specific heading in chapter 84 or 85 or are not found to be suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading, are to be classified in heading 8485, if non-electrical, or in heading 8548 if electrical. Section XVI, Note 2(c), HTSUSA. Because of its design and function, the leveling mounts are an integral, constituent and component part necessary to the proper functioning of any machine which with it may be used. However, there is no evidence of principle use with a particular kind of machine or with machines of one heading. See NY 088062, dated December 28, 1990. Accordingly, we conclude the leveling mounts are classified in heading 8485, HTSUS, as machinery parts not included elsewhere in chapter 84 of the HTSUS.
This determination is consistent with a Harmonized System Committee decision to classify vibration absorbing mountings in subheading 8485.90, HTS (Com/AS –February 1999). (See also NY K83989 dated March 29, 2004). Since the leveling mounts can be classified based on GRI I, in heading 8485, HTSUS, there is no need to apply the remaining GRIs and consider the alternative headings which would classify the leveling mounts based on their components.
HOLDING:
Pursuant to GRI 1, the leveling mounts described in NY L82606 are classified in heading 8485. They are specifically provided for in subheading 8485.90.00, HTSUS as “Machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils, contacts or other electrical features, and not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter: Other.” Therefore, NY L82606 is affirmed.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division