Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings Jan. 11-16
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 11-16 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.
H331484: Tariff Classification of a “smart” shopping cart
| Ruling: The Caper Cart is classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8716, and specifically in subheading 8716.80.50, which provides for “Trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not mechanically propelled; and parts thereof: Other vehicles: Other.” The column one, general rate of duty for merchandise of this subheading is 3.2%. |
| Issue: Is the Caper Cart classified in heading 8470 as a cash register, or in heading 8716 as a vehicle? |
| Item: The Caper Cart is a mobile point-of-sale (POS) device that will enable shoppers to scan items they select off grocery store shelves and pay for them directly. The Caper Cart uses a series of built-in computer vision (CV) cameras and a scanner, along with an artificial intelligence (AI) unit with built-in machine learning algorithms, to identify products as customers put them in the cart. A built-in scale measures items sold by weight. A touchscreen LCD display mounted on the cart, provides an interactive in-store experience. On the touchscreen, shoppers can see items in their basket as well as basket-based recommendations, available deals, and use an interactive guide to locate where the items are in the store. The cart also allows retailers to collect data about shopper’s behavior, including identifying high traffic areas in store and out of stock items. |
| Reason: The Caper Cart is a manually propelled vehicle that transports goods. It functions as a cart regardless of whether the POS function is enabled. It is, therefore, classified in heading 8716. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 12, 2024 |
H334472: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1124; Certain Powered Cover Plates
| Ruling: AmerTac hasn't met its burden to establish that the articles at issue -- the Lumicover Nightlight Wallplate, the Lumicover Power Failure Light, the Lumicover USB Charger Wallplate, the GloCover Nightlight Wallplate, and the GloCover Motion Activated Light -- don't infringe on claim 13 of the ’324 patent or claims 1, 2 and 3 of the ’430 patent. |
| Issue: Whether or not AmerTac has met its burden to show that the articles at issue don't infringe on the ’324 or ’430 patents, and thus aren't subject to the GEO issued in the No. 337-TA-1124 investigation. |
| Item: The products are the Lumicover Nightlight Wallplate, the Lumicover Power Failure Light, the Lumicover USB Charger Wallplate, the GloCover Nightlight Wallplate, and the GloCover Motion Activated Light. These products are active cover plates which consist of a face plate, an electrical load, a clip extending rearward from the face plate to interface with screw terminals of a receptacle body. The clip includes a contact, a conductor connected to the contact, a front insulator, and a rear insulator, where the conductor is sandwiched between the front insulator and the rear insulator, an electrical connection between the contact and the electrical load. |
| Reason: The standards were misapplied for both the sandwiched limitation (the ’324 patent) which does not allow for an air gap, and the prong limitation (’430 Patent) by failing to read the three claims for what prong means in this case properly. Despite numerous references to the specification and prior art regarding claim construction, AmerTac fails to propose an express construction or legal basis for departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation at issue. AmerTac has misapplied the standards regarding claim construction and the relevant precedent, most notably in arguing that the specification is controlling for purposes of claim construction. |
| Ruling Date: Dec. 20, 2023 |