Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Nov. 27-28
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 27-28 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):
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.
H334090: Prospective Ruling Request; Regional Value Content of Meal and Product Delivery Robots under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA)
| Ruling: The Kiwibot version 4.2A qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA. |
| Issue: Does the subject the Kiwibot version 4.2A qualify for preferential tariff treatment under CTPA? |
| Item: Meal and product delivery robots from Colombia known as “Kiwibots.” The robots are aimed at universities, cities, and companies and that they circulate along the sidewalks to deliver meals and products. The subject robots were properly classified under subheading 8704.60.00 as “Motor vehicles for the transport of goods: Other, with only electric motor for propulsion.” The applicable rule of origin set forth in GN 34(o), Chapter 87, Rule 1 provides, “No change in tariff classification to headings 8701 through 8706 is required, provided that there is a regional value content of not less than 35 percent under the net cost method.” |
| Reason: Based on this method of cost allocation, the Bill of Materials provided provides that the value of non-originating materials is $3,030.10, the cost of all the components and assembly is $5,389.80, and the total packing costs are $10.25. Therefore, the RVC = (($5,379.55 - $3,030.10)/ $5,379.55) X 100 = 43.7%. Since the RVC is not less than 35%, the subject robots qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA. |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 27, 2023 |
H306804: Application for Further Review of Protest Number 520119100305; Section 301; Time of Entry; 19 C.F.R. § 141.68
| Ruling: The protest is granted. The legal entry date of the entry is July 27, 2018. This entry date predates the Aug. 23, 2018, effective date of the Section 301 duties. The entry should therefore be reliquidated without the assessment of Section 301 duties. |
| Issue: What is the legal date of entry of Structured Cable’s entry? |
| Item: An entry summary was filed and accepted on July 25, 2018, which is also the cargo release date. The goods arrived at the port on July 26, 2018. An entry summary date was subsequently assigned on Aug. 7, 2018, and Aug. 25, 2018. The Aug. 25, 2018, entry summary reflects the assessment of List 2 Section 301 duties, which took effect Aug. 23, 2018. The additional entry summary dates are dates on which CBP modified the existing July 25, 2018, entry summary. |
| Reason: The most important consideration is that ACE, CBP’s internal system of record, indicates that an entry summary was filed and accepted on July 25, 2018. It is of no consequence that ACE also lists two subsequent entry dates of Aug. 7, 2018, and Aug. 25, 2018, because there was an earlier entry summary filing in proper form and the merchandise arrived within port limits on July 27, 2018. Accordingly, the proper entry date is July 27, 2018, the date on which the merchandise arrived within port limits with the intent to unlade as established by ACE and the supporting documentation. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 29, 2023 |
H326941: Application for Further Review of Protest 390118100756; Antidumping Duties; Xanthan Gum from the People’s Republic of China; A-570-985; Liquidation Instructions
| Ruling: CBP must reliquidate Tate’s entries with Fufeng’s PRC supplier specific ADD cash deposit rate of 0% in accordance with Commerce Message Numbers 7275319, 7062303, 8271304 and 8045310. The protest should be granted in full. |
| Issue: Should CBP have liquidated Tate’s entries at the Chinese supplier rate granted to Fufeng, or at the China-wide rate? |
| Item: Xanthan gum manufactured by Fufeng in China and then sold to Hong Kong-based GHI, which exported the merchandise to Tate. The goods are subject to AD/CVD. The country of origin and country of export identified on the entry summaries is China. In email exchanges between Tate’s counsel and the Port, Tate’s counsel acknowledged that China was not the correct country of export and provided purchase orders, invoices, packing lists, and bills of lading to substantiate counsel’s claim that Hong Kong was the correct country of export. Tate argues that Hong Kong entity GHI is the exporter of the subject xanthan gum. |
| Reason: The relevant instructions from Commerce said, for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chninese exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. GHI is a Hong Kong exporter, i.e., a non-Chinese exporter, and Fufeng is the enumerated Chinese supplier of the subject xanthan gum, therefore Tate is eligible for Fufeng’s specific 0.00% cash deposit rate |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 29, 2023 |
H335463: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55102; Merchandise; Liquefied Natural Gas Release; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b.
| Ruling: The proposed transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas from Port A to Port B, a portion of which will be released as vapor for safety reasons at Port B, which will be directed to liquefaction trains for recapture ashore, by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C § 55102. |
| Issue: Does loading LNG in Port A, a portion of which will be released as vapor for safety reasons at Port B, by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C § 55102? |
| Item:The Company intends to use a non-coastwise qualified tanker to load two parcels of LNG in the U.S. and transport them to LNG terminal(s) outside the U.S. The first parcel of LNG will be loaded in Port A. After loading the LNG at Port A, the Vessel will transit to Port B. At Port B, the Vessel will load a second parcel of LNG. To keep the pressure of the LNG loaded in Port A at safe levels while loading the second parcel, the Vessel will open its vapor lines, where an amount of vaporized gas which was loaded as LNG at Port A may be released and reach the shore at Port B. LNG which reaches shore will be directed to liquefaction trains for recapture, after which it may be consumed by the operators of Port B or it may be liquefied and exported to future customers. Some of the recaptured vapor may go into onshore storage tanks. No vaporized gas will be released to the atmosphere. After the second parcel is loaded, the Vessel will leave U.S. waters and deliver the LNG to foreign locations, without any plan or intent to bring the LNG back to the U.S. |
| Reason: The LNG will be transported from Port A to Port B, both U.S. ports. At Port B, a portion of the LNG laden in Port A will be released as vapor and reach shore, where it will be either used by Port B, sold to other customers, or stored onshore. This would constitute transportation between coastwise points. While this release will be due to safety reasons, the Jones Act does not contain an exception for safety considerations, which would permit the transaction as described above. |
| Ruling Date: Nov. 14, 2023 |
H324283: Application for Further Review of Protest 280920106874; Antidumping Duties; Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; A-570-827
| Ruling: Collective Goods’ imported pencil sets are subject to the AD order in A-570-827. Accordingly, CBP properly assessed antidumping duties on Collective Goods' entries. The protest should be denied in full. |
| Issue: Did CBP properly assess AD on Collective Goods’ entries? |
| Item: Eight entries of pencil sets from China. According to the protestant, the pencil set contained fifty pencils in total: ten coloring pencils, ten drawing pencils, ten watercolor pencils, ten metallic pencils, and ten charcoal pencils. CBP liquidated the relevant entries on March 27, 2020, and April 3, 2020, in accordance with the liquidation instructions from Commerce. |
| Reason: Based on the Walgreen scope ruling, the charcoal pencils at issue here are within the scope of the AD order. There is no evidence that the charcoal pencils at issue are any different from those Commerce found within the scope of the order in Walgreen. Therefore, based on Commerce’s guidance in the scope ruling, the entire imported pencil set falls within the scope of and is subject to the AD order. Accordingly, CBP properly assessed AD on Collective Goods’ entries per the China cased pencils Order. If Collective Goods continues to believe that CBP has erred as a matter of fact, it must seek a scope ruling request from Commerce to determine whether the pencil set at issue is outside the scope of the AD order. |
| Ruling Date: Sept. 28, 2023 |