HQ 555378: Internal Advice Request No. 63/87; applicability of duty- free treatment under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10 to various parts of U.S.-origin packaged abroad with electric garage door openers and returned to the U.S.

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 555378

                         March 19, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:V 555378 GRV

CATEGORY:  CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.:  9801.00.10

District Director of Customs
Nogales, Arizona  85621

RE:  Internal Advice Request No. 63/87; applicability of duty-
     free treatment under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10 to various
     parts of U.S.-origin packaged abroad with electric garage
     door openers and returned to the U.S.

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your letter of September 16, 1987,
forwarding a request for internal advice initiated by the
Chamberlain Group, Inc. ("importer"), regarding the applicability
of subheading 9801.00.10, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) (formerly item 800.00, Tariff Schedules of
the United States (TSUS)), to certain parts or components
packaged in Mexico with assembled electric garage door openers.
The initial request dated March 23, 1987, was submitted on behalf
of the importer by the firm of Baker & McKenzie.  Subsequent
submissions dated March 13, and December 19, 1989, were prepared
by the firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro.  No samples of the
subject merchandise were submitted for examination.

FACTS:

     Certain U.S.-made and foreign parts are packaged in Mexico
with foreign assembled garage door openers.  The U.S. items
include a clip and brackets, which are packed loose in the box
containing the opener, and various hardware items--nuts, bolts,
screws, a cotton pin, a small tube of grease, a length of nylon
rope and a plastic handle of identifiable U.S. and non-U.S.
origin--which are packaged in a plastic bag.  (These parts are
used by the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. to complete and
install the garage door opener.)  The plastic bag is heat-sealed
and either taped or stapled to a portion of the garage door
opener.  These loose-packed parts and the parts packaged in the
plastic bag are then imported with the foreign assembled garage
door openers into the U.S.

     Counsel states that allowances in duty have been granted for
a substantial portion of the value of the entries of the electric
garage door openers under HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80.  However,
your office declined to grant an exemption from duty under HTSUS
subheading 9801.00.10 for those U.S. parts which were merely
packaged abroad with the garage door openers and returned.  In
counsel's opinion, these U.S.-origin parts are entitled to such
treatment, and in support of his contention, references numerous
Customs ruling letters--731806 (November 18, 1988), 071705
(February 21, 1984), and 058632 (November 14, 1978)--and the
recent decision in Superscope, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op.
89-167, Court No. 85-3-00328 (1989).

     In the event we deny the claim to duty-free treatment under
HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10, counsel alternatively requests that
we consider whether the parts packed in the plastic bag are
eligible for the partial duty exemption under HTSUS subheading
9802.00.80.

ISSUE:

     Whether the described U.S. items, which are merely packaged
abroad with other parts of foreign origin and with foreign
assembled garage door openers, are eligible for duty-free treat-
ment under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10 when returned to the U.S.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The imported articles affected by this internal advice
request were entered both before and after the effective date of
the HTSUS (January 1, 1989).

     HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10 provides for the duty-free entry
of products of the U.S. that are returned after having been
exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in
condition by any process of manufacture or other means while
abroad, provided there has been compliance with the documentary
requirements of section 10.1, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.1).

     In the recent decision of Superscope, Inc. v. United States,
Slip Op. 89-167 (CIT 1989), the court held that certain glass
panels of U.S. origin that were exported, repacked abroad with
certain foreign components, and returned to the U.S. as part of
unassembled audio cabinets, were entitled to duty-free entry
under TSUS item 800.00, since the U.S. panel portion of the
imported article was "not 'advanced in value or improved in
condition ... while abroad,' but [was] merely repacked."
Although the Superscope case concerned the TSUS, not the HTSUS,
the decision is believed to be equally applicable to similar
situations arising under the HTSUS, since TSUS item 800.00 and
relevant Schedule 8, TSUS, headnotes were carried over virtually
unchanged into the HTSUS.

     We believe that the decision in Superscope is controlling in
regard to the facts of the instant case.  Various parts of U.S.
origin are exported, merely repackaged with foreign items, and
returned to the U.S. as part of electric garage door opener kits.
Therefore, since these U.S. parts are not advanced in value or
improved in condition while abroad, we find that they are
entitled to duty-free entry under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.10.
This presumes that the documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.1
are met, and that your office is satisfied that those specific
parts claimed to be American goods returned are, in fact, U.S.
products.

     In view of the foregoing, there is no need to consider
counsel's alternative argument regarding the applicability of
HTSUS subheading 9802.00.80 to the U.S. parts packaged in the
plastic bag.

HOLDING:

     The specified U.S.-made parts that are merely repackaged
abroad are entitled to duty-free treatment under HTSUS subheading
9801.00.10 (and TSUS item 800.00) when returned to the U.S., pro-
vided the documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.1 are satisfied.

                              Sincerely,





                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division