OT:RR:CTF:ER H234076 EGJ
Mr. Eduardo Franco
Geodis Wilson USA, Inc.
485C Route One South, Suite 410
Iselin, NJ 08830
Re: Eligibility of an Unassembled Combi Machine to Be Entered Under a Single Entry if Imported Aboard Two Separate Carriers
Dear Mr. Franco:
This is in response to your September 14, 2012, request on behalf of Sidel Canada, Inc. (Sidel) for a ruling as to whether a Combi machine is eligible to be entered under a single entry if the two halves of the machine arrive at the Port aboard two separate carriers. If the two halves of the Combi machine are not eligible to be entered under a single entry, you have asked for an explanation of the relevant entry procedures for these two halves.
FACTS:
The subject merchandise is the Combi machine. It is a stainless steel, integrated blow molding, filling and capping machine used to bottle beverages and other liquids in plastic containers. This machine fills the finished bottles it molds from plastic bottle blanks with a beverage or other liquid, and then caps the bottles.
In a November 13, 2012 telephone conversation, you stated that the one of the halves is usually transported across Europe so that the two halves can be joined and shipped together. This information corresponds with the tariff classification ruling request that Sidel filed with CBP in 2007. Sidel requested a ruling on the tariff classification of the entire Combi machine, and not for each half of the machine. However, transporting one of the halves across Europe creates a logistical and regulatory burden that Sidel hopes to avoid in the future.
In your ruling request, you state that half of the Combi machine is manufactured in France and half of the machine is manufactured in Italy. Due to the nature, size and transportation restrictions on the Combi machine, Sidel would like to ship each half from its place of manufacture. The two shipments will arrive at the Port of New York within ten days of each other.
ISSUE:
1. Are the proposed separate shipments of the Combi machine eligible to be entered under a single entry?
2. If not, what are the entry procedures for the two separate shipments?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The Combi machine is not eligible for a single entry as it can be shipped assembled to the United States. Single entries for separately arriving parts of unassembled goods are controlled by 19 U.S.C. § 1484(j), which states that:
Treatment of multiple entries of merchandise as single transaction
In the case of merchandise that is purchased and invoiced as a single entity but-
(1) is shipped in an unassembled or disassembled condition in separate shipments due to the size or nature of the merchandise, or
(2) is shipped in separate shipments due to the inability of the carrier to include all of the merchandise in a single shipment (at the instruction of the carrier)
the Customs service may, upon application by an importer in advance, treat such separate shipments for entry purposes as a single transaction.
Such transactions are also controlled by 19 C.F.R. § 141.58, which states that:
Single entry for separately arriving portions of unassembled or disassembled entities.
(a) At election of importer of record. At the election of the importer of record, an unassembled or disassembled entity arriving on multiple conveyances as contemplated under section 484(j)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(j)(1)), may be processed as a single entry, as prescribed under the procedures set forth in this section.
(b) Unassembled or disassembled entities covered. An unassembled or disassembled entity for purposes of this section is an entity which:
(1) Cannot, due to its size or nature, be shipped on a single conveyance, and is thus imported in an unassembled or disassembled condition;
(2) Is ordered, invoiced and is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as a single entity and is consigned to one person in the United States;
(3) Is imported on more than one conveyance to the same port of entry in the United States; and
(4) Involves the first portion and all succeeding portions arriving at the same United States port of entry within either:
(i) 15 calendar days after the unlading of the first portion or arrival at the destination port if transported in bond for entities entered under the “hold all” method permitted in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or
(ii) 10 calendar days after the release of the first portion under special permit procedures for entities released incrementally as permitted in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
Under 19 C.F.R. § 141.58(b), an unassembled entity that is imported on more than one carrier is eligible to make entry under a single entry if it “cannot, due to its size or nature, be shipped on a single conveyance” (emphasis added). As stated above, the Combi machine is currently being imported aboard a single carrier. While it may not be convenient to ship the entire Combi machine on one carrier, it is not impossible. As such, the Combi machine is not eligible to make entry under a single entry if imported in two halves aboard separate carriers.
Further, you have asked if the Combi machine halves can be shipped from separate ports. In the final rule published to add section 141.58 to the regulations, CBP contemplated this possibility. CBP stated that:
A large turbine generator that could be accommodated on one vessel but the parts of which are made in different locations would not qualify … CBP believes that the legislation was intended to apply to the components of articles with a single point of origin which are shipped from the same port of export at approximately the same time. Similarly, an entity, such as an industrial installation, would not qualify for single entry treatment on the basis of construction reasons. CBP believes that the legislation was not intended to act as a means to control an importer's inventory or manufacturing processes. An example of an article which may be entered under the regulations due to its nature is an article which, because of safety concerns, must be shipped in an unassembled or disassembled state. In addition, an importer may enter an article which, because of the nature of the article, must be shipped by more than one mode. 71 Fed. Reg. 31921, 31922 (June 2, 2006) (emphasis added).
Therefore, this exception to normal entry procedures applies to components shipped from the same port of export at approximately the same time. Further, CBP specifically contemplated Sidel’s situation and expressly rejected it when promulgating this regulation. Sidel proposes an altogether different scenario, where the halves are manufactured and shipped from different places. For all of the aforementioned reasons, we find that the Combi machine is not eligible to make entry under a single entry if the halves arrive aboard two separate carriers.
Next, you have requested that we provide you with entry procedures in the event that the two halves of the Combi machine cannot be entered under a single entry when imported on different carriers. Entry requirements are fact-specific and there is not enough information about the entry transaction, such as the value of the two halves of the Combi machine at time of importation, to provide specific information on entry procedure. Please refer to Parts 141 and 142 of Title 19 of CBP’s regulations for guidance on entry procedures.
HOLDING
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1484(j) and 19 C.F.R. § 141.58(b), the Combi machine is not eligible to be entered under a single entry if the two halves of the Combi machine arrive aboard two separate carriers.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. §177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and incorporated in the ruing letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a Customs Service field office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.”
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division