Feb. 27 CBP Bulletin Revokes Rulings on Perforating Gun Assemblies
In the Feb. 27 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 47, No. 10), CBP published a notice of revocation of rulings and treatment regarding the tariff classification of perforating gun assemblies.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Revocations Are Effective April 29
CBP is revoking these rulings, as well as any treatment CBP previously accorded to substantially identical transactions, effective for merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after April 29
Perforating Gun Assemblies
| Item: Perforating gun assemblies. The assemblies are used to perforate oil wells and consist of a tube-like device called a charge holder with holes cut out to exact specifications which is then combined with perforating gun. Detonation of the gun then blows holes in rock. |
| New Ruling: HQ H053672, HQ H102845 and HQ H102847 (dated 01/16/13), revokes N012463 (2007), NY C83105 (1998), NY C82398 (1997) |
| Old HTS/Rate: 9303.90.8000, (Free) (Other firearms and similar devices which operate by the firing of an explosive charge) and 9305.90.4000, (Free) (Of shotguns or rifles of heading 9303) |
| New HTS/Rate: 7326.90.85, 2.9% (Other articles of iron or steel) |
| Reason: CBP previously ruled perforating gun assemblies as classified as a firearm or other devices, however CBP now states the perforated gun assemblies don't meet the definition of a firearm. CBP said it isn't a firearm because it does not use an internal firing or triggering mechanism to fire a projectile from a barrel nor is it capable of reuse, as are articles under heading 9303, and is used for oil drilling. |
(See ITT's Online Archives 12052132 for summary of the proposed revocation of this ruling.)