us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-082805•HQ 082805: Tariff classification of rectangular boards which have been cut to certain sizes, surfaced, eased and square cut.
HQ 082805: Tariff classification of rectangular boards which have been cut to certain sizes, surfaced, eased and square cut.
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-082805HQ 082805: Tariff classification of rectangular boards which have been cut to certain sizes, surfaced, eased and square cut.Guidance
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 082805
January 13, 1989
CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 082805 JLJ
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: TSUS 202.03; 202.09; 202.18; 4407.10.00
Mr. Joseph Kaplan, Esquire
Ross & Hardies
529 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017-4609
RE: Tariff classification of rectangular boards which
have been cut to certain sizes, surfaced, eased and
square cut.
Dear Mr. Kaplan:
In your letter of September 15, 1988, you requested a
reconsideration of New York letter 828524 of April 26, 1988,
concerning certain softwood boards imported from Canada by your
client, National Frame Company. New York letter 828524
classified the boards under the provisions for softwood lumber in
items 202.03, 202.09, and 202.18, Tariff Schedules of the United
States (TSUS), depending upon the species of the wood, and under
the provision for coniferous wood sawn or chipped lengthwise in
item 4407.10.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Annotated (HTSUSA).
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue consists of various size boards,
e.g, 3/4 inch by 1-1/2 inches, 3/4 inch by 2-1/2 inches, and 3/4
inch by other widths up to 5 1/2 inches, in varying lengths up to
7 feet. The boards are of spruce, pine or fir (i.e, softwood).
The samples submitted have square cut ends. They have been
surfaced and eased on one or both edges.
ISSUE:
Is the instant merchandise classified under the provisions
for lumber, rough, dressed, or worked, softwood, in items 202.03,
202.09, and 202.18, TSUS, or it is classified under the provision
for wood blocks, blanks, or sticks, rough shaped by boring,
-2-
hewing or sawing so as to be dedicated to finishing into specific
items such as gunstocks, lasts, heels, handles, oars, shuttles,
archery bows, or billiard cues, other, in item 200.55, TSUS? How
is the instant merchandise classified under the HTSUSA?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Headnote 2(a) of Subpart 1B, Schedule 2, TSUS, defines
"lumber" as follows:
A product of a sawmill or sawmill and planing mill derived
from a log by lengthwise sawing which in its original
sawed condition has at least 2 approximately parallel
flat longitudinal sawed surfaces, and which may be rough,
dressed, or worked, as set forth below:
(i) rough lumber is lumber just as it comes
from the saw, whether in the original
sawed size or edged, resawn, crosscut,
or trimmed to smaller sizes;
(ii) dressed lumber is lumber which has been
dressed or surfaced by planing on at
least one edge or face; and
(iii) worked lumber is lumber which has been
matched (provided with a tongued-and-
grooved joint at the edges or ends),
shiplapped (provided with a rabbetted
or lapped joint at the edges), or
patterned (shaped at the edges or on
the faces to a patterned or molded form)
on a matching machine, sticker, or
molder.
While softwood lumber from Canada classified in items
202.03, 202.09, and 202.18, TSUS, is free of duty, since
January 8, 1987, it has been subject to a 15 percent export
charge levied by the Canadian Government under the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) of December 30, 1986.
You argue that the instant merchandise should be classified
as wood blanks, rough shaped by boring, hewing or sawing so as to
be dedicated to finishing into specific items like gunstocks,
lasts, heels, handles, oars, shuttles, archery bows, or billiard
cues, in item 200.55, TSUS. You claim that the instant boards
are dedicated to use as bed rail frames and slats and cannot be
-3-
used for anything other than box spring frames because they have
been cut to certain dimensions. You cite United States v. F. B.
Vandegrift & Co., Inc., 44 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 628 (1956), in support
of your position. You maintain that additional processing,
including precision cutting and radiusing, removes the instant
boards from the lumber provisions. Finally, you contend that the
boards are more specifically described as wood blanks shaped by
sawing so as to be dedicated to finishing into specific items
than as lumber, citing General Interpretative Headnote 10(c),
TSUS.
Initially we note that the final cutting (i.e, cutting to
the exact size needed), radiusing (i.e, cutting some of the ends
in a curve to make them in the shape of the bed frame), and
finishing are done after the instant merchandise is imported, as
stated in National Frame Company's affidavit of July, 1988.
Prior to importation, the instant boards have been kiln dried,
cut to rough sizes, surfaced, square cut on the ends and eased
(i.e, rounded slightly on the edges). None of these operations
would serve to remove the instant boards from the category of
"lumber" as defined in Headnote 2(a), supra.
You cite United States v. F.B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.,
supra, for the proposition that if an article has been designed
and processed with a single purpose in mind and made to
specifications which peculiarly adapt it to that end, it may be
considered dedicated to that purpose.
In A.N. Deringer v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 66, C. D.
3530 (1968), the court held that "horse feathers," articles of
wood which were made by sawing logs into boards, resawing the
boards longitudinally, and then bevel cutting the resawn boards,
were lumber notwithstanding the fact that they were known by a
different name than lumber and notwithstanding the fact that
their character was so changed that they were useful for only a
single purpose. The court observed that the horse feathers were
not so advanced as dressed or worked lumber. It concluded that
the classification of horse feathers as lumber was not precluded
by the fact that they could only be used for a definite purpose.
In Pacific Hardwood Sales Co., Judson Sheldon International
Corp. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 68, C.D. 3960 (1970), edge-
glued hardwood which had been cut, surfaced, eased and grooved
and which was further processed after importation by precision
cutting, sanding and dovetailing for use in making drawer sides
was held to be lumber even though it was "used for one thing
only." The court held that the merchandise at issue fit the
specific provision for hardwood lumber.
-4-
In C.T. Takahashi & Co., Inc. v. United States, 74 Cust. Ct.
38 (1975), the court held that plywood panels which had been V-
grooved, sanded and prefinished, were still classified as
plywood. The court also said that the mere fact that the plywood
panels had been cut and made suitable for a particular use would
not prevent their classification under the provision for plywood.
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held in B.A.
McKenzie & Co., et al. v. United States, 47 CCPA 42, C.A.D. 726
(1959), that plywood panels known as "doorskins," which were made
to the importer's manufacturing specifications as to quality,
finish, thickness and size and which were used extensively in the
manufacture of flush panel doors, not carried as stock items by
dealers, and ordered and manufactured according to the specifica-
tions of door manufacturers were still classified as plywood.
The court held that the evidence did not establish that the
dimensions of the imported plywood panels made them articles
distinct from plywood which could no longer be used for a large
portion of the potential uses of plywood. The court also held
that neither the importer's intent nor the actual uses of the
panels were alone determinative of the proper tariff
classification.
Customs has previously ruled on similar merchandise. In
Customs Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 040369 of May 29, 1975,
we held that similar merchandise imported from Canada, intended
for use in bed frames after additional processing in the United
States, was classified under the tariff provisions for softwood
lumber in items 202.03 through 202.30, TSUS. In HRL 079308 of
August 11, 1987, we held that Canadian softwood lumber used in
the manufacture of box spring frames was classified under the
softwood lumber provisions. HRL 079308 held that such lumber was
classified in subheading 4407.10.00, HTSUSA.
While it would be inappropriate for us to rule on the
applicability of the Canadian export charge, for your informa-
tion, we note that both item 200.55, TSUS, and items 202.03,
202.09 and 202.18, TSUS, are free of duty, but that the 15
percent export charge under the MOU applies only to the lumber
tariff provisions. However, the December 16, 1987, amendment of
the MOU explicitly includes "box spring mattress frame
components" in Appendix E, which amends Appendix B of the MOU.
Appendix B covers further manufactured products. Box spring
mattress frame components are defined in Appendix E as "Pre-cut
frame components...supplied to manufacturers of box spring
mattresses which use the components for side rails, end rails,
slats, etc., in box spring mattress frames. Such components are
supplied to customer specifications." Items covered by Appendix
B are subject to an export charge of 15 percent of the certified
-5-
value of the softwood lumber inputs used in the manufacture of
the items. Inasmuch as both softwood lumber and boxspring
mattress frame components are covered by the MOU, it would seem
clear that the intent behind the MOU was to cover this
merchandise.
HOLDING:
Following the cases and ruling letters cited above, we find
that the instant softwood boards are classified as lumber in
items 202.03, 202.09 and 202.18, TSUS, depending upon the species
of the wood involved. Effective January 1, 1989, the HTSUSA has
replaced the TSUS. The applicable subheading for the lumber
under the HTSUSA is 4407.10.00, which provides for wood sawn or
chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed,
sanded or fingerjointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 millimeters,
coniferous.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
cc: A.D. N.Y. (NIS-230-068)
cc: Chief, CIE
cc: O.T.O. Reg. Tra. Div.
cc: David Layton, Commerce
cc: Revenue Canada, Attn: Mr. Claude Hannan
(FAX 613/952-7815)
cc: John Durant
cc: Senator John Heinz of PA
JLJohnson:tj:typed 11/21/88
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.