OT:RR:CTF:VS H275827 YAG/JMV
Mr. James Reichert
Import-Export Compliance Specialist
Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.
5160 Hacienda Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568-7562
RE: Modification of NY N249825 and NY N246385, and Revocation of HQ 561801 and HQ 561940; Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS; Surgical Microscopes
Dear Mr. Reichert:
This is in reference to New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N249825, dated February 19, 2014, issued to Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (the “Company”), via the Company’s counsel. In NY N249825, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) determined, in relevant part, that a surgical microscope was eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
We have reviewed NY N249825 and found that it is partially incorrect. We have additionally reviewed NY N246385, dated October 29, 2013; Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 561801, dated February 28, 2002; and, HQ 561940, dated February 7, 2001, which involved various types of the Company’s surgical microscopes that were also found to be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS. As with NY N249825, we determined that NY N246385 was partially incorrect, and that HQ 561801 and HQ 561940 were incorrect. For the reasons set forth below, with respect to the eligibility of the subject surgical microscopes for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, we hereby modify NY N249825 and NY N246385, and revoke HQ 561801 and HQ 561940.
The tariff classifications of the subject surgical microscopes under subheadings 9011.10.40 or 9011.10.80, HTSUS, as determined in NY N249825 and NY N246385, are unaffected.
On July 19, 2017, CBP published its proposed modification of NY N249825, NY N246385, and revocation of HQ 561801 and HQ 561940 in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 51, Number 29, pursuant to section 625(c), Tariff Act of 1930, (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2186 (1993). Two (2) comments were received in response to proposed modification and revocation of the above referenced rulings. Both comments disagreed with the proposed modification and revocation and the analysis of the proposed ruling letters. A discussion of the comments and CBP’s reasoning are found in the “Law and Analysis” section below.
FACTS:
NY N249825 concerned the OPMI® PROergo (“PROergo”), a surgical microscope for dental microsurgery, used to perform a variety of treatments, including root canal surgeries, gum graft surgeries, and tooth extractions/implants. NY N246385 concerned four ENT (ear, nose, and throat) surgical microscopes (i.e., the OPMI® Movena/S7 (“Movena”); the OPMI® Sensera/S7 (“Sensera”); the OPMI® 1 FC (“1 FC”); and, the OPMI® pico (ENT) (“pico ENT”)) and a dental surgical microscope (i.e., the OPMI® pico (S100) (“pico S100”)). NY N249825 and NY N246385 stated that the subject ENT and dental surgery microscopes: are capable of producing three-dimensional images through the use of double eyepiece and double objectives; are considered to be stereoscopic compound optical microscopes; and, may be imported with a means for photographing an image. NY N246385 explained that stereoscopic microscopes are used in ENT and dental microsurgery.
HQ 561801 concerned the OPMI® Neuro/NC 4 System (“Neuro”), a microscope for neurological microsurgery, used by surgeons in surgery on the brain and spine. HQ 561801 stated that while the Neuro could be used for different types of surgeries on the brain or spine, the principal use was for craniotomy procedures to resect brain tumors, which is a procedure intended to remove the tumor but not cure the underlying condition.
HQ 561940 concerned ophthalmic surgical microscopes used by surgeons in magnifying the area of the eye to be operated on in delicate and precise eye microsurgeries. HQ 561940 stated that these ophthalmic surgical microscopes are mainly used for cataract surgeries and internal occular lens implantations, but also for glaucoma surgery, keratoplastic, refractive surgery, vitreous surgery and retinal surgery.
In NY N249825, NY N246385, HQ 561801, and HQ 561940, CBP found that the subject surgical microscopes were all eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, because these surgical microscopes were considered specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons, and, without the ability to heal or cure the underlying respective conditions of the patient, such microscopes were not excluded as therapeutic articles.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject surgical microscopes are eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, came into effect in the United States through a series of international agreements and acts of Congress. Its basis is in the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, opened for signature Nov. 22, 1950, 17 U.S.T. 1835, 131 U.N.T.S. 25, or “Florence Agreement,” drafted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials (“UNESCO”) in July of 1950. In 1976, UNESCO adopted the Nairobi Protocol to the Florence Agreement, which expanded the scope of products to include materials specially designed for handicapped persons. See Protocol to the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific, or Cultural Materials, opened for signature 1 Mar. 1977, 1259 U.N.T.S. 3.
Congress ratified the Nairobi Protocol and enacted it into law in 1983. Pub. L. 97-446, § 161, 96 Stat. 2329, 2346 (1983). The Senate stated in its Report that one of the goals of this law was to benefit the handicapped and show support by the United States for the rights of the handicapped. The Senate was concerned, however, that people would misuse this tariff provision to avoid paying duties on expensive products. As a result, it stated that it did not intend “that an insignificant adaptation would result in duty-free treatment for an entire relatively expansive article . . . the modification or adaptation must be significant so as to clearly render the article for use by handicapped persons.” S. Rep. (Finance Committee) No. 97-564, 97th Cong. 2nd Sess., Sept. 21, 1989.
Section 1121 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107) and Presidential Proclamation 5978 implemented the Nairobi Protocol by inserting permanent provisions—specifically, subheadings 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96—into the HTSUS. These tariff provisions provide that “[a]rticles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons” are eligible for duty-free treatment.
Notes in subchapter XVII of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS define the terms “blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons” and limit the classification of certain products under subheadings 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96, HTSUS. U.S. Note 4(a), subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS, defines the term “blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons” as “any person suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working.” U.S. Note 4(b), subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS, excludes four categories of goods from subheadings 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96, HTSUS: (1) articles for acute or transient disability; (2) spectacles, dentures, and cosmetic articles for individuals not substantially disabled; (3) therapeutic and diagnostic articles; and, (4) medicine or drugs.
To summarize, for the subject surgical microscopes to qualify for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, the following must be true:
Patients undergoing surgery or other treatments with the subject surgical microscopes are considered blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS;
The subject surgical microscopes are specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of such patients considered blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS; and,
The subject surgical microscopes are not articles within the excluded categories listed in U.S. Note 4(b), subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS (e.g., therapeutic articles, etc.).
In NY N249825, NY N246385, HQ 561801, and HQ 561940, CBP found that the subject surgical microscopes were not therapeutic articles because the microscopes did not heal or cure the underlying condition of the patient. To support this position, all four rulings cited to HQ 961705, dated August 25, 1999, which stated that “that therapeutic articles within the context of this provision are those articles that heal or cure a condition.” See also Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. U.S., 17 CIT 69 (1993); T.D. 92-77, 26 Cust. B. 240 1992 (implementing the duty-free provisions of the Nairobi Protocol); and, HQ 952465, dated January 27, 1993.
The evidence for the claims that the subject surgical microscopes were not therapeutic articles is mostly limited to the Company’s statements that the types of surgeries that the microscopes are used for concern permanent and chronic conditions. From these facts alone, it is not entirely clear whether these articles are not considered therapeutic. However, we note that merely because an article is not considered therapeutic does not mean it is not an article for an acute or transient disability or another article within the excluded categories. Similarly, demonstrating that an article is not within the excluded categories alone does not equate to qualification for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS. These issues were never addressed in NY N249825, NY N246385, HQ 561801, and HQ 561940, and, thus, it was not clear whether the requirements for eligibility under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, were satisfied.
In the proposed modification of NY N249825, NY N246385, and revocation of HQ 561801 and HQ 561940, CBP addressed the issues pertaining to the eligibility of the subject microscopes under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS. In response to the proposed notice, CBP received two (2) comments disagreeing with the proposed modification and revocation (and the analysis of the proposed HQ H275827). Both commenters argue that the surgical microscopes in issue are specifically designed, marketed, and used to perform microsurgeries to treat conditions that render individuals physically handicapped. We disagree.
Whether patients undergoing surgery or other treatments with the subject surgical microscopes are considered blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS?
As noted above, U.S. Note 4(a), subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS, defines the term “blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons” as “any person suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working.” T.D. 92-77 provides further guidance for interpreting this term as follows:
The only ruling by Customs on the issue of what constitutes a “handicapped” person under this statute was HQ 556090, dated November 8, 1991. In this ruling, Customs held that individuals who suffer from chronic arthritis, scoliosis, severe hernia problems and post-polio syndrome and who need heavy-duty support corsets, are “handicapped” within the meaning of the Nairobi Protocol, and therefore, the corsets are eligible for duty-free treatment. However, Customs also held in this ruling that brassieres designed for women who have mastectomies are not eligible for duty-free treatment. Customs determined that women with mastectomies are not substantially limited in any major life activity. The focus of post-operative therapy for women who have had mastectomies is the reassurance that they are fully capable of leading full, productive lives after the operation.
Other physical ailments that CBP has considered to be physical handicaps that limit one or more major life activities include: people who cannot walk (see HQ H024976, dated March 23, 2009 (concerning a wheel chair securement system for motor vehicles)); diabetes (see HQ 561020, dated October 14, 1998 (concerning a diabetes organizer)); hearing loss/impairment (see HQ 563415, dated January 25, 2006 (concerning a carrying case for a hearing aid and its components)); chronic incontinence (see HQ 560278, dated April 7, 1997 (concerning adult pull-on pants)); permanent or chronic pain (see HQ 563002, dated May 26, 2004 (concerning a pouch for holding a pump that would be implanted into the body and deliver medication)); arrhythmia and other heart problems (see HQ 563125, dated December 27, 2004, and HQ 557302, dated March 17, 1993 (concerning pacemakers, defibrillators, and accessories to such medical equipment)); and, people with speech defects (see HQ 088503, dated May 3, 1991 (concerning a speech synthesizer that converted typed words into a synthesized voice)).
On the other hand, CBP has noted that certain conditions are not physical handicaps for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS. For instance, in HQ H121544, dated October 6, 2014, CBP held that metabolic disorders or severe food allergies, which limit the capacity to digest, metabolize, or ingest certain foods, requiring avoidance of such foods, do not impair the actual physical act of eating. HQ H121544 noted that in the other CBP rulings regarding classification under heading 9817, HTSUS, the conditions or diseases directly impaired one’s physical ability to perform one or more major life activities. Similarly in HQ H131516, dated March 1, 2011, CBP differentiated the pain from swollen, itchy, or aching feet that may render an individual “unable to stand on their feet for an entire shift or too tired to stop at the grocery store on their way home from work” from those individuals with little or no mobility “unable to perform one or more major life activities.” See also HQ H092454, dated April 28, 2010 (differentiating light incontinence from a condition that CBP considers a physical handicap, chronic incontinence). See generally HQ 559916, dated May 8, 1997; and, HQ 087669, dated November 16, 1990 (holding that broadly used medical supplies (e.g., hospital gowns and medical bed pads) did not qualify for treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, because the evidence showed that various conditions requiring use of the supplies were not chronic or permanent conditions and no evidence specifically showed that the conditions were physical handicaps).
Both commenters state that the term “handicapped” is broad and encompasses a number of conditions. Both submissions argue that the definition of handicapped persons should be interpreted liberally and that a condition qualifies as a handicap under 9817.00.96, HTSUS, as long as some individuals with the condition are physically impaired to such a degree that their ability to perform a major life activity is substantially limited. However, both commenters failed to grasp the difference between the actual physical handicap and the transient impairment that might render the person handicapped. In order to qualify for treatment under 9817.00.96, the impairment must be actual and not theoretical or potential. The subchapter note specifies that the subheading does not cover “. . . articles for acute or transient disability . . .” U.S. Note 4(b), Subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS. Therefore, the impairment must be permanent as opposed to transient, and chronic as opposed to acute.
The subject surgical microscopes are used for patients undergoing various types of dental, ENT, neurological, and ophthalmic microsurgeries. It is indicated that the dental surgical microscopes (i.e., the PROergo and the pico S100) are used to perform a variety of treatments, including root canal surgeries, gum graft surgeries, and tooth extractions/implants. In NY N249825 and NY N246385, the Company stated that these dental surgical microscopes are “an important and indispensable aid to medical personnel in treating/alleviating predominantly permanent or chronic conditions, which, if left untreated, would substantially limit a major life activity.” Other than NY N249825 and NY N246385, CBP has no other ruling on whether conditions requiring “root canal surgeries, gum graft surgeries, and tooth extractions/implants” are considered a physical handicap for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS. To this extent, we find the analysis in these rulings for eligibility under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, erroneous because there is no evidence to corroborate the validity of the Company’s statements about the types of permanent and chronic conditions requiring these dental surgeries. Particularly, there is no evidence that the patients undergoing these dental surgeries are physically handicapped.
In this instance, surgical tooth extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures provided in the United States, and wisdom teeth are often removed through surgical extraction. It is also approximated that 85 percent of adults have or will have their wisdom teeth removed. The commonality of this procedure (tooth extractions) to a condition that would be difficult to consider a physical handicap (wisdom teeth) indicate that various patients undergoing dental surgery are not physically handicapped.
Similarly, we find no evidence in NY N246385 and HQ 561801 that patients undergoing surgery with ENT (i.e., the Movena, the Sensera, the 1 FC, and the pico ENT) and the ophthalmic surgical microscopes are physically handicapped. ENT surgery is practiced by otorlaryngologists, which are medical doctors specializing in the ear, nose, throat, and related structures of the head and neck, which includes certain cosmetic surgeries. Cosmetic surgery is an elective surgery for purposes of enhancing appearance. To this extent, the cosmetic purpose for undergoing ENT surgery is not a condition that would be considered a physical handicap. Likewise, ophthalmic surgical microscopes are used for refractive surgeries, and the most widely performed type of refractive surgery is laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis surgery, commonly referred to as LASIK. The American Academy of Ophthalmology states that LASIK and other types of refractive surgery may be a good option for patients that want to decrease their dependence on glasses or contact lenses and are free of eye disease. It is difficult to consider a condition that is not an eye disease, but merely wanting less dependence on glasses, to be a physical handicap for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS.
As noted in HQ H121544, HQ 559916, and HQ 087669, along with the dental, ENT, and ophthalmic surgical microscopes, these instruments treat various conditions that do not directly impair one’s physical ability to perform one or more major life activities. In contrast, with the rulings where CBP has considered physical ailments to be a physical handicap limiting one more major life activity, there has been evidence directly connecting the use of the product with a specific condition (e.g., diabetes, chronic incontinence, arrhythmia, etc.) that is considered a physical handicap. Even when certain products could treat physical handicaps such as chronic incontinence, the fact that evidence showed otherwise without persuasively showing use for conditions considered physical handicaps, weighed against finding that the product qualified for treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS. Similarly, we find no persuasive evidence in HQ 561801 directly connecting the use of the Neuro to a specific condition that is considered a physical handicap. Rather, HQ 561801 notes the various and broad neurological microsurgery uses for the Neuro. To this extent, it is not clear which of the various types of surgeries on the brain and spine would be considered physical handicaps, and which would not. Accordingly, we do not have enough evidence in HQ 561801 to substantiate the claim that all, most, many, or any of the patients undergoing surgery or other treatments with the Neuro are considered physically handicapped for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS.
Whether the subject surgical microscopes are specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of such patients considered blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons for purposes of Chapter 98, HTSUS?
The meaning of the phrase “specially designed or adapted” with regard to imported articles has been decided on a case-by-case basis. In HQ 556449, dated May 5, 1992, CBP set forth five factors it would consider in making this case-by-case determination. The same factors are relevant in determining whether a part is “specially designed or adapted” for an article for the use or benefit of handicapped persons. These factors include: (1) the physical properties of the article itself (i.e., whether the article is easily distinguishable by properties of the design, form, and the corresponding use specific to this unique design, from articles useful to non-handicapped persons); (2) whether any characteristics are present that create a substantial probability of use by the chronically handicapped so that the article is easily distinguishable from articles useful to the general public and any use thereof by the general public is so improbable that it would be fugitive; (3) whether articles are imported by manufacturers or distributors recognized or proven to be involved in this class or kind of articles for the handicapped; (4) whether the articles are sold in specialty stores which serve handicapped individuals; and, (5) whether the condition of the articles at the time of importation indicates that these articles are for the handicapped.
With regard to the first factor, a product’s compliance with the ADA has been an important consideration in CBP’s determination under this factor. For example, in HQ H230457, dated July 19, 2013, CBP found that certain bathroom fixtures satisfied this factor because they were “easily distinguishable as designed for the handicapped since they met or exceeded the standards under the ADA and were prominently marked as ADA-compliant.” In this case, there is no indication that the surgical microscopes are ADA-compliant or designed to a certain standard that specifically benefits physically handicapped individuals. Furthermore, the subject surgical microscopes have physical properties that permit them to be used for various conditions, many of which would not be considered a physical handicap per Chapter 98, HTSUS. Therefore, we do not find that the physical properties of the subject surgical microscopes are readily distinguishable from articles useful to non-handicapped individuals.
With regard to the second factor, CBP ruled in HQ 556449, dated May 5, 1992, that duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, was precluded for a two-handed mug, which was designed with a low center of gravity and a corresponding top to help reduce spillage, since this article was commonly used by children and the design was common in traveling mugs used by the general public. In HQ 560114, dated October 9, 1997, CBP held that a reading assistance machine that magnifies an image from 5 to 25 times was specially designed and adapted for the use or benefit of handicapped persons. The machine displayed magnified written and pictorial material on a large television screen transmitted by a video camera. CBP concluded that while the machine “may be used to magnify images for non-handicapped persons, Customs believes such a use would be an atypical use” due to its special design features, which included its capacity to magnify images, yellow oversize control knobs, and the product's dark color used to minimize glare and maximize contrast. However, in HQ 562329, dated April 26, 2002, CBP noted that while lenses incorporated into video magnifiers were similar to the product involved in HQ 560115, there was no evidence presented to show that lenses were specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of physically handicapped individuals. Absent evidence that the lenses were specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of physically handicapped individuals and that the lenses were not suited for many general uses, CBP was unable to conclude that the lenses in HQ 562329 were eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
The commenters state that the physical properties of surgical microscopes indicate that they are designed to benefit the handicapped because the microscopes generally possess several features that make them invaluable aids for microsurgeries that treat conditions affecting teeth, inner ear structures, eyes, and brain tissue. The commenters cite high-definition optics that magnify very small, delicate tissues; bright illumination that provide focused visualization of very small structures with increased depth of field; ergonomic and adjustable arms and binocular tubes that provide proper line of sight during inner ear or brain surgeries; and automatic focus and adjustment features that avoid interruptions to the surgical procedure. These physical characteristics, according to the commenters, indicate that surgical microscopes are designed for and are intended to be used to perform microsurgeries that treat conditions that render individuals handicapped, and not for purposes of general exams or procedures that do not treat conditions that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The commenters also cite the cost of the surgical microscopes, which, according to them, make it economically impractical for medical professionals to invest in these microscopes to perform primarily routine examinations and procedures that do not require powerful magnification and illumination, particularly where less costly options would suffice. However, none of this information suggests that surgical microscopes could not be used for procedures that would appeal to the general population. While one commenter provided affidavits from two marketing executives stating that the subject microscopes are used in procedures used to treat conditions that would leave a person handicapped if left untreated, they did not state that these microscopes would likely not be used in procedures that would appeal to the general population.
In this case, the subject surgical microscopes are used for a variety of conditions, many of which would benefit the general public (e.g., wisdom tooth extraction, cosmetic surgery, LASIK, etc.). Furthermore, no evidence has been presented to show that these surgical microscopes were specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of physically handicapped individuals and that they were not suited for many general uses. Therefore, we do not find that the subject surgical microscopes have characteristics that create a substantial probability of use by the chronically handicapped.
The commenters assert that these surgical microscopes would not be used in surgeries for the general population such as wisdom tooth extraction, cosmetic surgery or Lasik. Instead, the commenters cite surgical root canals, dental implants, and tonsillectomies as common surgeries for which the microscopes would be used. All of these procedures, the commenter notes, treat conditions that may lead to a handicap if left untreated. However, if we follow this line of reasoning, the microscopes would be considered therapeutic articles, which are excluded from 9817.00.96 treatment. For example, surgical root canal saves the natural tooth from infection so that the tooth is restored and able to function like any other tooth. Tonsillectomies, another procedure the commenters cite and commonly performed by the subject microscopes, may be performed to treat difficulty of breathing during sleep, which causes snoring, or to prevent the reoccurrence of tonsillitis. Thus, according to the commenters’ submissions, the purpose of these procedures is to eliminate infection or treat an underlying condition. The courts and CBP have consistently held that therapeutic articles are articles whose purpose is the “complete or partial elimination of disease.” Since the microscopes are, as the commenter notes, used to eliminate various conditions, they are therapeutic articles, and thus excluded from 9817.00.96 treatment.
With regard to the remaining factors, the subject surgical microscopes are manufactured and sold by the Company, which is an entity that has established itself as a manufacturer of microscopes in the medical field. However, microscopes for the medical field are not necessarily articles for the handicapped, as there are many medical needs for the general population. Furthermore, no evidence is found showing that the condition of these surgical microscopes upon importation to the United States indicates that they are for the benefit of physically handicapped individuals. Therefore, these factors were not satisfied based on the evidence provided for the subject rulings.
Given the foregoing, we find that the subject surgical microscopes do not qualify for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
Based on the information presented, the subject surgical microscopes described in NY N249825, NY N246385, HQ 561801, and HQ 561940 are not eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS:
NY N24982, dated February 19, 2014, and NY N246385, dated October 29, 2013, are hereby MODIFIED in accordance with the above analysis.
HQ 561801, dated February 28, 2002, and HQ 561940, dated February 7, 2001, are hereby REVOKED.
In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Customs Bulletin.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division