Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for Oct. 7
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Oct. 7 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
H313365: USMCA Eligibility of Starters for Heavy Trucks
| Ruling: When used as aftermarket parts, the starters will be eligible for USMCA preferential tariff treatment when imported from Mexico to the United States. When used as original equipment, the starters will be eligible for USMCA preferential tariff treatment only if they meet the RVC requirements in GN 11(k)(iii)(K). |
| Issue: Whether the starters will be eligible for USMCA preferential tariff treatment when they are imported from Mexico to the United States |
| Item: Heavy duty truck engine starters made in Mexico using both originating and nonoriginating materials, classified in subheading 8511.40.0000 |
| Reason: While the starter undergoes the relevant tariff shift, because the product-specific rule is underscored and the merchandise is for use in a motor vehicle of chapter 87 (namely, a heavy truck), the provisions of subdivision (k) may apply. Table D of the automotive appendix, entitled “Principal Parts for Heavy Trucks,” lists “8511.40 – Starter motors and dual purpose starter-generators of a kind used for spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines.” Since this is for use as original equipment, it must meet the RVC requirements in GN 11(k)(iii)(K) in order to qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 30, 2021 |
H316932: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-21-150962; Sale for Export; Apparel
| Ruling: Because a bona fide sale for export to the United States occurred between the Vendor and the Protestant, transaction value is based on the price actually paid or payable by the Protestant. The commissions and inspection fees do not constitute statutory additions and should not be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported merchandise. |
| Issue: Whether transaction value should be based on the alleged sale between the foreign vendor and the importer, rather than on the transaction between the importer and its U.S. customer: whether the payments for commissions and inspection services should be included in the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise or added as a statutory addition |
| Item: Various girls’ garments. The importer works with commissioned agents in the United States to solicit orders for various apparel products. The importer then contracts with a suitable vendor in China to procure the goods. |
| Reason: The shipping terms in the two transactions therefore establish that risk of loss passed from the Vendor to the importer when the merchandise was loaded onto the vessel in Shanghai, and subsequently from the importer to the U.S. customer when cleared through Customs and brought to the U.S. customer’s warehouse in Los Angeles. As a result, the importer retained risk of loss during the shipment from Shanghai to the destination in Los Angeles. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, title transferred from the Vendor to the importer on delivery of the property. The Vendor’s invoice to the importer clearly indicates that the merchandise was destined for Los Angeles, and the merchandise was shipped directly from Shanghai, China to Los Angeles. Bona fide buying commissions, however, are not included in transaction value as part of the price actually paid or payable or as an addition thereto. There is no evidence that the Vendor has any involvement in, or control of, the Agent’s activities. |
| Ruling Date: Aug. 5, 2021 |