Cummins Seeks Section 301 Exclusion for Turbocharger Housings in CIT Complaint

Engine manufacturing giant Cummins Inc. launched a challenge to CBP's denial of its protest claiming its turbocharger housings qualify for a specific Section 301 tariff exclusion, in a Sept. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The challenge seeks to prove that Cummins' imported "housings" or "covers" that are assembled into turbochargers quality for the compressor housings exclusion laid out by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Cummins Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00517).

The relevant exclusion notice particularly claims that Section 301 duties won't apply to "Compressor housings designed for turbochargers (described in statistical reporting number 8414.90.4165)." To prove to CBP that the exclusion applies to the turbine housings, Cummins sent pictures of a side-by-side comparison of its turbine housings and its compressor housings, showing that they are "physically and functionally equivalent." Either by looking at the pictures or reading through Cummins' description of the goods, the court can ascertain that the merchandise is a compressor housing designed for turbochargers, as the exclusion describes, Cummins said.

Cummins pointed to other various points of evidence in the complaint in its bid to get the Section 301 exclusion. For instance, the plaintiff said that the turbocharger housings have been the subject of previous CBP rulings that found that the housings are "compressor housings." The complaint also turned to the words of the USTR to vie for the exclusion. USTR based the exclusion language on several requests for the exclusion wherein the submission used the same language as Cummins did in describing the exclusion as being for a "turbine housing," the complaint said.

"USTR itself has determined that 'turbine housings' meet the corresponding product description provided in the Annex of the Exclusion Notice, and CBP has addressed these housings before and confirmed that 'turbine housings' are the very same product covered by the Exclusion Notice," the complaint said.