CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H229983 RES
Port Director
Service Port-Minneapolis
320 2nd Ave. South
Suite 560
Minneapolis, MN 55401
ATTN: Kristi L. Johnson, Supervisory Import Specialist
RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3501-12-100064; Tariff classification of sprayer leg assemblies.
Dear Port Director:
This letter is in reply to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest number 3501-12-100064, filed May 23, 2012, on behalf of Graco Inc. (”Protestant”). The Protest is against U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) classification of aluminum sprayer legs (“leg assemblies”) as articles of aluminum under heading 7616 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
FACTS:
The articles at issue in this AFR are called sprayer leg assemblies which are made out of aluminum. There are seven different models of sprayer leg assemblies and they are attached to paint sprayer machines. All of the paint sprayer machines have their paint intake hoses facing down toward the floor. The sprayer leg assemblies keep the machines upright and elevated above paint containers so that the paint intake hoses can perform the function of drawing paint out of a container. The articles are not sold separately but with a paint sprayer machine.
The part numbers that are associated with the assemblies are the following: 257018, 257019, 257021, 257022, 16D686, 16D687, 16D694, 24C666, 24C667, and 24C674. Part numbers 257018 and 257019 are the left and right legs of one type of assembly that is used on two models of paint sprayer machines, which have molded plastic slot openings on the bottom of the sprayers facing downward that the legs specifically insert into. Part numbers 257021 and 257022 are the left and right legs of another type of assembly that is used on five models of sprayers, of which the paint sprayers are bolted onto a platform of a cart assembly that the legs are bolted onto as well. Part number 16D686 makes up the left and right legs of a third type of assembly that is used on four models of sprayers, of which the sprayer machines have molded plastic slot openings on the bottom side edges that the legs specifically fit into. Part 16D687 makes up a fourth kind of leg assembly used on one model of sprayer and the leg assembly is bolted directly onto the side of the paint sprayer housing so that it is elevated above a paint container. Part 16D694 makes up a fifth kind of leg assembly used on one model of sprayer, which has a protrusion on the bottom of the sprayer that the legs are bolted to. Part 24C666 makes up a sixth kind of leg assembly used on two models of sprayers, of which the sprayers are bolted on a cart platform that the legs are bolted onto as well. Parts 24C667 and 24C674 are the left and right legs of the seventh type of leg assemblies used on three models of sprayers, of which the sprayers are bolted to a cart platform that the legs are bolted to as well. The paint sprayer machines the sprayer leg assemblies are attached to are classified under heading 8424, HTSUS, as mechanical appliances that spray liquids.
The AFR involves fourteen entries for articles entered between the dates May 10, 2011, and August 8, 2011, inclusively, classified by the importer under subheading 8424.90.90, HTSUS, as “[m]echanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines; parts thereof: [p]arts: [o]ther.” CBP liquated all the entries between November 25, 2011, and May 11, 2012, inclusively, classified under subheading 7616.99.50, HTSUS, as “[o]ther articles of aluminum: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther.” Graco Inc. filed its Protest and AFR on May 23, 2012, asserting that the aluminum sprayer leg assemblies are classifiable under heading 8424, HTSUS, as parts of sprayer machines.
ISSUE:
Whether the aluminum sprayer leg assemblies are classified as other articles of aluminum under heading 7616, HTSUS, or as parts of sprayer machines under heading 8424, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Initially, CBP notes that the Protest was timely filed on May 23, 2012, which is within 180 days after the earliest liquidation date of November 25, 2011. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). Additionally, CBP’s classification of the merchandise is a protestable matter under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2).
Further Review of Protest No. 3501-12-100064 is properly accorded to Protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b). The Protestant asserts that CBP’s classification of the articles involves questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee or by the customs courts.
Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be “determined according to the terms of the headings 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 be applied in order.
The following HTSUS provisions are under consideration:
7616 Other articles of aluminum:
Other:
7616.99 Other:
7616.99.50 Other:
8424 Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines; parts thereof:
8424.90 Parts:
8424.90.90 Other:
In understanding the language of the HTSUS, the Explanatory Notes (ENs) of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which constitute the official interpretation of the harmonized system at the international level, may be utilized. The ENs, although not dispositive or legally binding, provide a commentary on the scope of each heading, and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127 (August 23, 1989).
The ENs to heading 7616, HTSUS, provide in pertinent part:
This heading covers all articles of aluminium other than those covered by the preceding headings of this Chapter, or by Note 1 to Section XV, or articles specified or included in Chapter 82 or 83, or more specifically covered elsewhere in the Nomenclature.
The articles at issue here are made of aluminum and are used with mechanical appliances classified under heading 8424, HTSUS. The importer asserts that the articles meet the definition of parts for classification purposes and should be classified under the parts provision in heading 8424. Thus, the two competing headings at issue here are headings 7616, HTSUS, and 8424, HTSUS. Heading 7616 is a residual basket provision encompassing all other articles of aluminum which, as indicated by EN 76.16, is used only when an item is not properly classifiable more specifically under some other heading. If the aluminum sprayer legs meet the definition of parts then they would be classified more specifically under the parts provision of subheading 8424.90.90, HTSUS, and would not be classified under heading 7616, HTSUS. Therefore, the threshold issue is whether the aluminum sprayer leg assemblies are classified as parts of an article of heading 8424, HTSUS.
There are two tests for determining whether an article is a part of an article for classification purposes elucidated by the courts in United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 C.C.P.A. 322 (1933) and United States v. Antonio Pompeo, 43 C.C.P.A. 9 (1955) and further refined by the progeny of those cases. See The Pomeroy Collection, LTD. v United States, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1260 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011).
The standard applied in Willoughby when analyzing whether an imported component is considered a “part” of another article, is to consider whether the imported component is essential to the functioning and use of the article which the component is said to be a part of. Willoughby, 21 C.C.P.A. at 326. The court in Pompeo clarified that the standard set out in Willoughby is applicable only in fact patterns that are similar to the facts in Willoughby. Pompeo, 43 C.C.P.A. at 11-12. The Pompeo court stated that it is not enough that a component is dedicated for a specific use with an article the component is said to be a part of, but rather what must be factored into consideration is examining the specific use of that component in the overall function of said article to determine the extent of the role the component plays in the overall function of the article. Id. at 14. Thus, the alternative standard expressed by the Pompeo court for fact patterns different than that of Willoughby is that when analyzing whether a component is considered a “part”, if such a component at the time of importation is dedicated to a specific use the primary consideration then is determining the nature of the component as it is applied to that use. Id. at 13-14. In other words, once the imported component is installed, integrated, or attached to an article it is alleged to be a part of, does the component become essential to the overall function of the article during its operation.
The court in Gallagher & Ascher Company v. United States, 52 C.C.P.A. 11 (1964), citing both Pompeo and Willoughby, further refined the Pompeo standard in holding that an analysis of whether an imported component is considered to be a “part” of another article turns on whether the component is both dedicated to a sole specific use with the other article and, once that component is attached or integrated with the other article, whether its function’s contribution is necessary to the efficient operation of the article it is asserted to be a part of. Id. at 16. See also Trans Atlantic Company v. United States, 48 C.C.P.A. 30 (1960) (inferring that a probative consideration in a “part” analysis is the function of the article in question in regard to the overall function of the machine it is alleged to be a part of).
The Court of International Trade in Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership and John V. Carr & Son Inc., v. United States, 19 C.I.T. 1441, 1450-51 (1995), noted that Willoughby and Pompeo represented two different line of cases as authority in the rule governing determination of when an article is a “part” and which analytical approach to use depends on the facts of the matter at hand. On appeal, the Circuit Court reviewing Bauerhin affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the rule in Willoughby was not applicable to the facts at issue and that the trial court’s application of the rule in Pompeo was the proper approach. Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership, et al v. United States, 110 F.3d 774, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The trial court and the Circuit Court in Bauerhin described the general rule in Willoughby as being whether an article is necessary to the completion of the article of which it is supposed to be a part, such that the article to which it is joined could not function without it. Bauerhin, 110 F.3d at 778-79; Bauerhin, 19 C.I.T. at 1449-50. The Bauerhin trial court stated that the general rule in Pompeo was first to decide whether an item is dedicated solely for use with another article and second, does the item satisfy a specific and integral need in the operation of the article to which is joined. Bauerhin, 19 C.I.T. at 1450 (finding that canopies qualified as parts because (1) they satisfy a specific and integral need when baby seats are used and (2) because the canopies have no other use than as a seat attachment).
Thus on the question of which rule is applicable to a specific set of facts, the Circuit Court in Bauerhin instructs that “if an imported item is dedicated solely for use with another article and is not a separate and distinct commercial entity”, then the rule in Pompeo is the precedent to follow. Bauerhin, 110 F.3d at 779. Because the sprayer legs are dedicated to be used solely with Graco’s paint spraying machines, the rule in Pompeo is applied.
In regard to the sprayer legs assemblies, there is no question that they are dedicated to be used solely with Graco’s paint sprayer machines as indicated by their design and function. None of the leg assemblies are sold separately from the paint sprayer machines and they do not work with any other company’s paint sprayer machines. The leg assemblies are designed to work only with the paint sprayer machines made by Graco as indicated by the slots integrated on the housing of some of the sprayer machines that the legs are meant to be inserted into or as indicated by bolt holes on housings that the legs are bolted directly onto (see part numbers 257018, 257019, 16D686, and 16D694) or as indicated by the fact the other leg assemblies are an integral part of a cart some of the sprayer machines are bolted to (see part numbers 257021, 257022, 16D687, 24C666, 24C667, and 24C674). The sprayer leg assemblies are also integral to the efficient function of the paint sprayer machines—the spraying of paint—as they elevate the machines to position them above the paint containers from which the paint is being drawn. The paint intake hoses on all of Graco’s paint sprayer machines are positioned facing the ground. If the paint sprayer machines were not elevated upright above the paint containers, the intake hoses would not fit into a paint container properly and thus not be able to effectively draw the paint out of the container.
In light of aforementioned analysis, the sprayer leg assemblies satisfy the test in Pompeo to be considered parts for classification purposes because they: (1) satisfy the specific and integral need of enabling the paint sprayer machines to properly and efficiently draw paint out of containers and (2) the leg assemblies have no other use than as legs to elevate and keep upright Graco’s paint sprayer machines.
Therefore, because the sprayer leg assemblies meet the definition of parts, they are classifiable as parts under heading 8424, HTSUS, as “[m]echanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines; parts thereof.” Pursuant to Rule 1(c) of the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (“ARI”) and EN 76.16, because the sprayer leg assemblies are more specifically provided for under heading 8424, HTSUS, classification under heading 8424, HTSUS, prevails over classification in the residual basket provision of heading 7616, HTSUS
HOLDING:
Pursuant to GRI 1, the sprayer leg assemblies are classified under subheading 8424.90.9080, HTSUSA, as “[m]echanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines; parts thereof: [p]arts: [o]ther: [o]ther.” The column one, rate of duty, is free.
The Protest should be ALLOWED. 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. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision.
Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Home Page 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