us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-080045•HQ 080045: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No: 3401-6-000027
HQ 080045: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No: 3401-6-000027
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-080045HQ 080045: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No: 3401-6-000027Guidance
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 080045
August 8, 1988
CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 080045 DC
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 727.35
District Director of Customs
P.O. Building
Pembina, North Dakota 58271
RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of
Protest No: 3401-6-000027
Dear Sir:
This protest was filed against your decisions in the
liquidations on May 9, 1986, of various entries covering modules
and components of modular furniture systems manufactured in
Canada.
FACTS:
The merchandise involved may be described as modular
furniture modules, supporting panels, lamps, electrical
connectors and installation hardware shipped together which after
importation will be assembled to create desks and tables that are
free standing, desk add-on units, desk shells, storage cabinets,
other furniture accessories and enclosing partitions. The
supporting panel units are in chief value of metal and the
furniture modules are in chief value of wood.
In Canada the modules are brought to an unfinished state and
held in inventory until required for the completion of a specific
installation. Those required for the installation are then
stained or colored and brought to a finished condition ready for
installation. The support panels are manufactured to order with
appropriate customer selected wood and fabric finishes. When
they leave the factory, each module or support panel is dedicated
to use as an element of a complete system and is shipped together
with all the remaining elements of the system.
-2-
Each of the twenty-two entries covered by the protest
contains one or more complete, unassembled modular furniture
systems. When assembled, each will constitute a complete modular
office. Upon entry the supporting panel units were classified
under the provision for other articles of iron or steel, not
coated or plated with precious metal in item 657.25, Tariff
Schedules of the United States (TSUS). Those components of the
modules which are free standing were classified under the
provision for furniture other than chairs in item 727.35, TSUS.
Those components of the modules which need a wall for support or
may sit on another piece of furniture were classified under the
provision for other parts of furniture in item 727.40, TSUS.
The protestant claims that the modular furniture system is
classifiable as an entirety under the provision for furniture
other than chairs in item 727.35, TSUS. Alternatively, it is
claimed that the modules are provided for in item 727.35, TSUS,
while the supporting panel units are classifiable under item
727.70, TSUS, as other furniture.
You have taken this occasion to raise again the issue as to
the classification of furniture which attaches to screens or may
stand on other furniture. It is your position that all sections
of furniture are classifable as wood furniture and not as parts
of furniture. This would be so unless a part was needed to
complete a functional section of furniture.
ISSUE:
1. Are the modular furniture systems consisting of load
bearing panels, work surfaces, shelving units and
cabinets classifiable as tariff entities pursuant to the
doctrine of entireties?
2. Are those pieces of furniture that need a wall for
support or sit on another piece of furniture within the
purview of the term "furniture" for tariff purposes?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The court in the case of Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 8
CIT 323 (1984), discussed the doctrine of entireties and
enumerated certain principles as follows:
Under the relevant case law pertaining to the doctrine
of entireties, a few guiding, though somewhat discordant,
principles emerge. First, if the imported articles, when
combined, nevertheless retain their individual identities
and do not become subordinated to the whole, then the
articles are not dutiable as an entirety. Donalds, Ltd.,
Inc. v. United States, 32 Cust. Ct. 310, 315 (1954). Also,
-3-
if the articles, in combination, form a new article with a
different character or use from the parts, an entirety
results. E.M. Stevens Corp. v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct.
203, 204 (1962), appeal dismissed, 53 CCPA 155 (1966).
Further, if one part is 'merely incidental to the
predominant part insofar as the character or use of the
combination is concerned,' the parts will be considered an
entirety. Id.
Other cases have noted that if articles have a "natural
affinity or relation" to each other, or if one article is
"essential to the completeness" of the other, then the
articles should be considered an entirety. United States v.
John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, Inc., 20 CCPA 367, 369 (1933).
An early leading case, Altman & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct.
Cust. Appls. 315 (1925), seems to endorse a less rigorous
standard. There, the court simply stated that if the parts
are designed to be joined and form a "complete article of
commerce," they should be treated as entireties. Id. at
318.
Finally, courts must be wary of the fluid nature of the
doctrine. Other decisions repeatedly have cautioned that
analogies to past cases may be unreliable and that multiple
fact patterns possible under the doctrine make mechanical
application unwise. See Charles Garcia & Co. v. United
States, 37 Cust. Ct. 117, 119 (1956), aff'd, 45 CCPA 1
(1957). Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
(now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) has
stated that "the doctrine of entireties, because of its
scope, can lead to two contrary conclusions depending on
what criteria are given controlling effect." Miniature
Fashions, Inc. v. United States, 54 CCPA 11, 17 (1966). The
Miniature Fashions court also placed the doctrine in its
proper perspective. It is merely an aid in the construc-
tion of the tariff laws. The intent of Congress is the one
controlling criterion. See id. at 16.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 041619 dated
November 24, 1975, Customs held that certain furniture consisting
of shelves, cabinets, panels, and desks which attach to and are
supported by poles extending to the ceiling were classified as
separate articles and not as entireties because the importation
did not include all the components necessary to comprise a
complete unit. We may infer here that had the importation
included all the components necessary to comprise a complete unit
then classification as entireties would have been appropriate.
-4-
In T.D. 71-35 certain modular furniture sections which could
be arranged into different units, including a bed unit with
mattress, the mattress not being the usual or standard size but
specially made in size and design to fit modular units were
classified as furniture.
It is stated by the protestant that each unassembled modular
furniture system as imported is a complete unit ready for
assembly. The modular and supporting panel units are not
purchased or used as individual units but are designed to be used
together in a specific configuration.
Inasmuch as the panels and modules are designed to fit when
joined together a complete article of commerce e.g., a modular
furniture system, it is our view that such a combination
constitutes an entirety for tariff purposes.
Concerning the second issue, in the past this office has
taken the position that certain pieces of furniture that may need
a wall for support or may sit on another piece of furniture are
classifiable as a part of furniture. The rulings which are
relevant to this issue are as follows:
(1) Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 041619 NM dated
November 24, 1975, held that a shelf or desk that could
not stand alone and have utility by itself would be
classifiable as a part.
(2) HRL 043860 c dated April 29, 1976, held that 36 inch
unfinished desk units which were not free standing units
in themselves and were not used independently of the
free standing units (bookcase units) were classifiable
as parts of furniture. Our rationale for this ruling
was that a desk which is in need of a screen for support
does not meet the tariff definition of furniture because
it is not "designed to be placed on the floor."
(3) HRL 076297 JLJ dated October 25, 1985, held that hutches
are classifiable as parts of furniture because the
absence of an essential part i.e., a buffet or other
piece of furniture for the hutches to stand on precludes
classification as furniture.
Schedule 7, Part 4, Subpart A, Headnote 1, TSUS, provides as
follows:
-5-
1. For the purpose of this subpart, the term "furniture"
includes movable articles of utility, designed to be
placed on the floor or ground, and used to equip
dwellings, offices, restaurants, libraries, schools,
churches, hospitals, or other establishments, aircraft,
vessels, vehicles, or other means of transport, gardens,
patios, parks, or similar outdoor places, even though
such articles are designed to be screwed, bolted, or
otherwise fixed in place on the floor or ground; and
kitchen cabinets and similar cupboards, seats and beds,
and sectional bookcases and similar sectional furniture,
even though designed to be fixed to the wall or to stand
one on the other; ***.
It is a cardinal principle of Customs law that merchandise
is classifiable in its condition as imported. Those pieces of
furniture such as hutches, bookcases and desk units that need a
wall or screen for support or may sit on another piece of
furniture are neither floor standing nor functional in their
condition as imported. Consequently, it is our position that
classification as parts of furniture is appropriate.
HOLDING:
The modular furniture systems imported as units and
consisting of load bearing panels, work surfaces, shelving units,
and cabinets in chief value of wood are classifiable under the
provision for furniture other than chairs in item 727.35, TSUS.
In view of the result reached here, that portion of HRL
076745 dated October 17, 1985, holding that panels or screens
designed to be incorporated with shelving units, cabinets, and
desk tops to create "work modules" are excluded from classifi-
cation as furniture pursuant to Schedule 7, Part 4, Subpart A,
Headnote 1(v), TSUS, is revoked.
Those pieces of furniture that need a wall for support or
sit on another piece of furniture are not classifiable as furni-
ture under item 727.35, TSUS.
The protest is allowed in part. A copy of this decision
should be attached to the Form 19 Notice of Action to be sent to
the protestant.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6cc:Area Dir. N.Y. Seaport
1cc:Commercial Compliance
2cc:Chief CIE Branch
1cc:John Durant
1cc:P. Garretto, N.Y. Seaport
1cc:L. Mushinske, N.Y. Seaport
DCahill:tj:typed 02/08/88
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.