CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H015186 JER
Port Director
Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1400
Long Beach, CA 90802
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-07-101025; cast-iron parts for machine tools
Dear Port Director:
This is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-07-101025, timely filed on behalf of Mazak Corporation (“Mazak”), concerning the classification of cast-iron parts for machine tools under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
FACTS:
The subject merchandise consists of cast-iron components of machine tools including beds, head stocks and carriages (or bases). The castings are made by pouring molten iron into a mold. Once cooled and solidified, the casting is removed from the mold by a shakeout machine and then machined to remove fins, gates, sprues and risers. Finally, the castings are coated with a rust inhibitor that consists mainly of epoxy resin, pigment, impregnate and French chalk. According to the Protestant, the purpose of the coating is to prevent rust from forming on the casting during ocean transit. Absent the protective coating, the castings would oxidize as a result of exposure to moisture and salt water. The coating is permanent and is not removed after importation. The coating is applied to the casting by either spraying or dipping.
The merchandise was entered on February 11, 2006, and classified under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS. On October 2, 2006, the Port issued a Notice of Action notifying the importer that the merchandise has been reclassified and would be liquidated under subheading 8466.93.53, HTSUS. On October 27, 2006, the entry was liquidated under this subheading. The importer filed a protest and an Application for Further Review (“AFR”) on April 24, 2007.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject merchandise is precluded from classification under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Initially, we note that the matter protested is protestable under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely filed on April 24, 2007, within 180 days of liquidation of the first entry for entries made on or after December 18, 2004. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub.L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) (2006)).
Further Review of Protest No. 2704-07-101025 was properly accorded to protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24 because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee. Specifically, Protestant alleges the action of the Port is inconsistent with Customs Ruling TC 423.37, dated August 11, 1967, Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 95489, dated September 28, 1993, as well as with the decision in Ross Machine & Mill Supply, Inc. et al. v. United States, (“Ross Machine”) 69 Cust. Ct. 160 (1972), in which the court held that “painting” cast-iron rollers for machines to protect them against oxidation did not advance them beyond being cleaned.
Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). 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 2 through 6 may then be applied in order.
GRI 6 provides that the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only those subheadings at the same level are comparable.
The 2006 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:
8466 Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading 8456 to 8465, including work or tool holders, self-opening dieheads, dividing heads and other special attachments for machine tools; tool holders for any type of tool for working in the hand:
Other:
8466.93 For machines of headings 8456 to 8461:
Bed, base, table, head, tail, saddle, cradle, cross slide, column, arm, saw arm, wheelhead, tailstock, headstock, ram, frame, work-arbor support, and C-frame castings, weldments or fabrications:
8466.93.15 Cast-iron parts not advanced beyond cleaning, and machined only for the removal of fins, gates, sprues and risers or to permit location in finishing machinery…..
Other:
8466.93.53 Other….
The Port classified the machine tool castings in subheading 8466.93.53, HTSUS, which provides for, in relevant part, parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of headings 8456 to 8461, Other. Both the Protestant and the Port agree that the subject merchandise is classifiable under subheading 8466.93, HTSUS. At issue is whether the application of a rust preventative coating is a process which precludes classification of the castings under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS.
Protestant argues that the merchandise at issue should be classified under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, because:
(1) Customs (CBP) and the Courts have previously ruled that coating iron castings for preservation is not an advancement but rather is in the same category as is the removal of fins, gates, spruces or risers; and (2) the process of coating castings for preservation is integral to the casting process and can be likened to stress relieving of castings which is considered not to be an advancement in Customs Ruling HQ 954989 of September 28, 1993.
In HQ 954989, CBP determined that “stress relieving” of castings was not considered an advancement which would preclude classification in subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS. However, the stress relieving process occurs prior to the cooling process and prior to the coating process. As such, we do not view HQ 954989 as applicable to the facts of the present case.
In support of his position, counsel cites Ross Machine which concerned whether cast-iron rollers used in machines were properly classified under the Tariff Schedule of the United States (“TSUS”) item 680.60. Counsel notes the similarity of the language of that provision to subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, and is of the view that the Ross Machine court’s interpretation of TSUS item 680.60 is persuasive in the instant case. In Ross Machine, the Court found that the application of a coating to prevent oxidation is not a process that precludes the classification of cast-iron parts from the TSUS item 680.60. In reaching this decision, the Court examined the legislative intent behind item 680.60 by reviewing the relevant legislative documents, including Customs Ruling 423.37, issued by CBP’s predecessor, the Bureau of Customs. In that ruling Customs stated: “[w]e have decided that primer painting iron castings for preservation is not processing which removes an article from classification under item 692.24.” Based on this and other legislative documents, the Court found that: “the [process] of…painting [was] considered by the Bureau of Customs as being in the same category of advancing a casting as the removal of fins, gates, sprues or risers. It is therefore apparent that what the Bureau did not consider as advancement in its 1967 ruling was not an advancement at the time of importation.” Id. at 169.
Decisions by the Customs Service and the courts interpreting nomenclature under the TSUS are not deemed dispositive in interpreting the HTSUS. Nevertheless, on a case-by-case basis prior decisions should be considered instructive in interpreting the HTSUS, particularly where the nomenclature previously interpreted in those decisions remains unchanged and no dissimilar interpretation is required by the text of the HTSUS. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, P.L. 100-418, August 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1107, 1147; H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 549-550 (1988) 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1582-1583. See also, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. United States, 189 F. 3d. 1346; 22 Ct. Int’l. Trade 514 (1999). In this instance, we find the decision in Ross Machine to be persuasive in the classification of the machine tool parts at issue.
After a review of the information presented herein, we agree with the Protestant and find that the application of a rust preventative coating does not advance the subject castings so as to preclude classification under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
By application of GRI 1, through the provisions of GRI 6, the cast-iron parts for machine tools are classified under heading 8466, HTSUS. They are specifically provided for in subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, which provides for: “Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of headings 8456 to 8465, including work or tool holders, self opening dieheads, dividing heads and other special attachments for machine tools; tool holders for any type of tool for working in the hand: Other: For machines of headings 8456 to 8461: Bed, base, table, head, tail, saddle, cradle, cross slide, column, arm, saw arm, wheelhead, tailstock, headstock, ram, frame, work-labor support, and C-frame castings, weldments or fabrications: Cast-iron parts not advanced beyond cleaning, and machined only for the removal of fins, gates, sprues and risers or to permit location in finishing machinery.” The 2006 column one, general rate of duty is free.
Since reclassification of the merchandise as indicated above would result in a lower duty rate, you are instructed to ALLOW the protest in full. In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.
No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, the Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP homepage on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division