HQ 957180: Robotic Video Inspection System; Section XVI, Note 4

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 957180
                        November 7, 1994


CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 957180 DWS

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 8528

Mr. Henri J. Noebes
Vice President & Treasurer
Visitech U.S.A.
1374 E. Boot Road
West Chester, PA 19380-5958

RE: Robotic Video Inspection System; Section XVI, Note 4

Dear Mr. Noebes:

     This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1994, to the
Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport, concerning the
classification of a robotic video inspection system under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  Your
letter was referred to this office for a response.

FACTS:

     The merchandise consists of a robotic video inspection system
(Product I.D. Code 903180).  According to customer preference, the
system is configured with any combination of the following
components: a motorized mainline pipe inspection tractor with a
sonar transmitter; a battery operated sonar receiver; a motorized
pipe inspection tractor with a lighting source; three sets of four
tractor wheels; a tool and accessory case; a mainline color camera
with a lighting source and a 150 ft. coaxial cable; a cable spool
with up to 500 ft. of coaxial cable and a footage meter; and a
reinforced aluminum carrying case.  The case contains the
following: a nine inch color monitor; a video cassette
recorder/player; a video title/character generator; a video image
instant black and white printer; a hand-held speed, direction, and
light control, and a microphone headset.  

     The system is used for the visual inspection and video
recording of water, sewer, and other utility pipelines or  confined spaces.  The color camera is mounted onto the motorized
lighted tractor.  The tractor, which is attached to a cable, is
passed through an underground pipe, the camera sending an image of
the internal pipe to the video monitor, video cassette
recorder/player, and printer.  These recorded images are examined
to ascertain and locate damaged portions of the pipe.

ISSUE:

     Whether the robotic video inspection system is classifiable
as a functional unit under the HTSUS.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is in accordance
with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's), taken in order. 
GRI 1 provides that classification is determined according to the
terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.

     Section XVI, note 4, HTSUS, states that:

     [w]here a machine (including a combination of machines)
     consists of individual components (whether separate or 
     interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by       
      electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute 
      together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the 
     headings in chapter 84 or chapter 85, then the whole falls  
      to be classified in the heading appropriate to that        
       function.

     It is our position that the subject system does not constitute
a functional unit, as its components are not intended to contribute
together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the
headings in chapters 84 or 85, HTSUS.  Because there is not one
provision under the HTSUS which covers the function of the system,
its components must be classifiable under the HTSUS provisions
which specifically describe them individually.

HOLDING:

     Based upon section XVI, note 4, HTSUS, the robotic video
inspection system does not constitute a functional unit, and,
therefore, its components must be classifiable under the HTSUS
provisions which specifically describe them individually.

     If you need a binding ruling for the classification of these
items under the HTSUS, you may submit the information listed in  the enclosed leaflet entitled "District Rulings Program" to any
Customs District Director or to the Area Director of Customs.

                           Sincerely,



                           John Durant, Director
                           Commercial Rulings Division