August 19 CBP Bulletin Proposes to Revoke Rulings on Lithium Batteries, Polyester Pants
In the Aug. 19 issue of the CBP Customs Bulletin (Vol. 49, No. 33) (here), CBP published notices that propose to revoke or modify rulings and similar treatment for the tariff classification of lithium batteries and polyester pants.
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.
Comments on Proposals Due Sept. 18
CBP said consideration will be given to any written comments received by Sept. 18 before taking this action. In addition, any party who has received a ruling or decision on the merchandise that is subject to the proposed revocations or modifications, or any party involved with a substantially identical transaction, should advise CBP by the date that written comments on the proposed ruling are due. (An importer's failure to advise CBP of such rulings, decisions, or substantially identical transactions may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations subsequent to the effective date of the final decision in this notice.)
Proposals
CBP is proposing to revoke or modify the rulings below, and any rulings on these products that may exist but have not been specifically identified. CBP is also proposing to revoke any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions.
Lithium Batteries
| Item: Lithium battery, connectors, and a plastic cap attached to a printed circuit board. |
| Current: 8504.40.9540, 1.5%, (“Static converters: Other: Rectifiers and rectifying apparatus: Power supplies: Other) |
| Proposed: 8506.50.00, 2.7%, (Primary cells and primary batteries; parts thereof: Lithium.) |
| Reason: A review of the product literature and specifications indicates that the instant merchandise does not incorporate any converting elements, and is not used to convert electrical energy in order to adapt it for further use. The batteries qualify as composite machines that are to be classified as if consisting of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function. The principal function of the merchandise is to provide a source of current. Based on its description and function, the lithium battery is the source of the current. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY N093423 (2010) |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H192478 |
Polyester Pants
| Item: A pair of boy’s lounge pants constructed from knit polyester, piece dyed, brushed fabric. |
| Current: 6103.43.1540, 28.2%, (Men’s or boys’ trousers, breeches and shorts, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibers, trousers and breeches, boys’, other.) |
| Proposed: 6107.99.1030, 14.9%, (Men’s or boys’ underpants, briefs, nightshirts, pajamas, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles, knitted or crocheted: [o]ther: [o]f other textile materials: [o]f man-made fibers: [s]leepwear.) |
| Reason: CBP considered the consistency in the labeling of the knit pants as pajamas or sleepwear through the supply chain, e.g., the purchase orders (sleepwear), invoices (pajamas pants), the knit pants themselves (flame-retardant sleepwear hangtag), and the fact that the manufacturer primarily makes sleepwear, it said. The extrinsic evidence coupled with an examination of the physical characteristics of the sample support finding that the instant pants should be classified as sleepwear and not loungewear, said CBP. While the importer said the pants are better classified as unisex, CBP disagreed. "Although the importer did not include a catalogue for the type of pants at issue -- garments with college team logos -- one can deduce from the excerpts of the professional sports related sleepwear catalogues that there is an inconsistency on how the importer advertises similar garments to retailers in regard to being unisex versus boys’ wear," said CBP. |
| Proposed for revocation: NY N071298 (2009) |
| Proposed new ruling: HQ H140735 |