HQ 951057: Protest No. 2809-90-000719; Mainframe Computer Boards; Unfinished Computer

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 951057

                       February 1, 1994
     
CLA-2 CO:R:C:M  951057 MBR

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  676.15

District Director of Customs
555 Battery St.
POB 2450
San Francisco, CA 94126

RE:  Protest No. 2809-90-000719; Mainframe Computer Boards;
     Unfinished Computer

Dear District Director:

     This is our response to Protest No. 2809-90-000719, dated
April 25, 1990, concerning the classification of mainframe computer
boards, under the Tariff Schedules of The United States (TSUS).

FACTS:


     The imported merchandise includes four Sub-System Carriers
(SSCs) which are advanced design printed circuit boards (boards). 
The SSCs incorporate: (1) Central Processing Unit (CPU); (2) Memory
Control Unit (MCU) which controls communication and data transfer
between all SSCs; (3) Channel Subsystem Processor (CSP) which
contains Input/Output (I/O) circuits and provides connection to
peripherals; (4) Main Storage Unit (MSU) subsystem which consists
of at least one MSU SSC and from 32 to 128 memory array boards. 
One entry contained a CPU, a CSP, and a MSU.  The other entries
included a CPU, a CSP, a MSU, and a MCU.  None of the entries
contained an Service Processor ("SVP"), Channel Handling Unit
("CHU"), System Control Interface ("SCI"), or memory array boards. 
The SVP controls the power on/off, provides timing, and loads
microcode.  The SCI acts as an interface between the SVP and the
mainframe units.  The CHU provides input/output ("I/O") logic
capability.

ISSUE:

     What is the classification of mainframe computer boards
(SSCs), under the TSUS?  Are they classifiable, as appraised, under
item 676.15, TSUS, which provides for accounting, computing, and 


                               -2-

other data processing machines, or under item 676.54, TSUS, as
claimed, which provides for parts of automatic data-processing
machines?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     There is no disagreement that the chief use of each board at
issue, at the time of importation, is within a system dedicated to
automatic data processing, as that term is described by
lexicographical sources and is understood for purposes of tariff
classification.  Similarly, there is no dispute that the boards at
issue are of a type of which the chief use is within the broad area
of "doing work, concerning the writing, recording, sorting, filing,
mailing of correspondence, records, accounts, forms, etc., or for
doing other 'office work.'"

     The importer argues that Customs has incorrectly reclassified
the mainframe computer boards (SSCs) as an unfinished data
processing machine.  The importer states that the boards are parts
that are "incapable of fulfilling simultaneously" all of the
requisite functions of an ADP machine, and therefore, the SSCs
cannot be considered a digital processing machine. 

     The importer also argues that all of the entries lack an SVP,
a CHU and an SCI, without which "an operator cannot even turn the
5990 [system] on."  

     We agree that, in the condition as imported, the boards are
not capable of functioning.  The addition of wiring, power supply,
SVP, etc., is necessary in order for the mainframe to function as
designed.  However, the fact that each board requires the
attachment of another article in order to be capable of performing
its function does not render each board a "part," in that there is
no requirement that a machine must be "self-activating."  Nord
Light, Inc. v. United States, 49 CCPA 12, C.A.D. 786 (1961). 
Although, when imported, the boards are incapable of functioning
unless placed in a configuration with certain other boards and
devices, in their final use they nevertheless are in and of
themselves, data processing machines specifically provided for by
item 676.15, TSUS.  Westinghouse Electric International Co. v.
United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 209, C.D. 1411 (1952), cited with
approval by Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., Inter-Maritime
Forwarding Co., Inc. v. United States, 53 CCPA 122, 126, C.A.D. 887
(1966).  Similarly, the fact that they must be incorporated within
a system housing or chassis does not mandate their classification
as a part.  General Electric Company v. United States, 2 CIT 84,
(1981).

     The importer argues that: "Since each entry lacked the
critical SVP and memory array boards, no entry constituted a
'substantially complete article,' as required under the holding
of Daisy-Heddon."

                               -3-

     However, the importer's application of the criteria outlined
by the court in Daisy-Heddon, Div. Victor Comptometer Corp. v.
United States, 66 CCPA 97, C.A.D. 1128 (1979), is misplaced, in
that the analysis, or comparison, should be directed to a board in
its complete or finished form, not the ultimate "completed systems"
in which they will function.  In fact, the boards' utility and
marketability is such that the final magnitude, extent and purpose
of the ultimate system is unknown, and will most likely change due
to a user's desired modification necessitated by changing needs or
expanding requirements.  The boards are unfinished articles, but
for the most part only to the extent of their placement into a   
housing, rack, or chassis, which will always mandate their use
while placed on or fixed to a floor, desk, or similar place.  

     The importer argues that operations needed to put the
merchandise in a completed state require a significant amount of
manpower and technical "fine tuning."  Primarily, this extensive
fine tuning pertains to the timing functions that enable the boards
to communicate with each other.  However, this technical fine
tuning does not alter the specific identity of the merchandise at
importation.

     The importer also argues that without the cooling system,
memory cards, channel cards, and interface, the merchandise is not
classifiable as a substantially complete ADP machine.  We disagree. 
There has not been shown to be any significant parts omitted from
any of the boards which would preclude a determination that they
are substantially complete data processing machines classifiable in
item 676.15, TSUS.  The imported boards are the boards that
actually perform the data processing.  See HQ 554581, dated July 2,
1987, in which Customs held single board computers which may be
used as a host computer or may be used for CPU functions either in
a subsystem dedicated to facilitating a non-data processing
function or in a data processing system which has so-called
"decentralized" CPU functions, properly classifiable under 676.15,
TSUS.

HOLDING:

     The mainframe computer boards (SSCs), are properly
classifiable as appraised under item 676.15, TSUS, which provides
for accounting, computing, and other data processing machines,
since at least one CPU board is included with each entry.

     For the reasons stated above, this protest should be denied in
full.  In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, should
be mailed by your office to the protestant no later than 60 days
from the date of this letter.  Any reliquidation of the entry in
accordance with this decision must be accomplished prior to the
mailing of this decision.  Sixty days from the date of this

                               -4-

decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to
make this decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs
Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription
Service, Lexis, Freedom of Information Act and other public access
channels. 

                              Sincerely,





                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division