HQ 555450: Internal Advice Request No. 38/89; applicability of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, to plastic relay covers subjected to a slotting operation abroad.Rudolph Miles;incidental operations

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 555450

                                   July 28, 1989

            CLA-2 CO:R:C 555450  RA

            CATEGORY:  Classification

            TARIFF NO.:  9802.00.80

            District Director of Customs
            3600 E. Paisano Bldg. B Room 134
            Bridge of the Americas
            P.O. Box 9516
            El Paso, Texas 79985

            RE:  Internal Advice Request No. 38/89; applicability of
                 subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, to plastic relay
                 covers subjected to a slotting operation abroad.Rudolph
                 Miles;incidental operations

            Dear Sir:

                 This is in response to your memorandum of June 20, 1989,
            forwarding a request for internal advice dated March 7, 1989,
            from Rudolph Miles & Sons on behalf of Potter & Brumfield.
            The request relates to the applicability of subheading
            9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
            (HTSUS), to a plastic relay cover which is slotted in Mexico
            prior to its assembly with an electrical relay.

            FACTS:

                 A plug-in electrical relay is assembled in Mexico and, as
            the final step, a plastic dust cover of U.S. origin is pierced
            to form a slot and the cover is positioned over, and assembled
            to, the relay.  The importer claims that this operation is
            minor in nature and incidental to the overall assembly
            operation, as without the piercing of the slot, the final
            assembly of the cover onto the relay base cannot be completed.
            However, your office is of the opinion that the dust cover is
            not exported from the U.S. in condition ready for assembly,
            noting that the piercing could have been done in the U.S.
            before exportation to Mexico.

            ISSUE:

                 Can the piercing of the slot in the relay dust cover be
            considered incidental to assembly so as to qualify the
            component for tariff treatment under subheading 9802.00.80,
            HTSUS?













                                         - 2 -


            LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                 Subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, provides a partial duty
            exemption for:

                 [a]rticles assembled abroad in whole or in part of
                 fabricated components, the product of the United
                 States, which (a) were exported in condition ready
                 for assembly without further fabrication, (b) have
                 not lost their physical identity in such articles
                 by change in form, shape, or otherwise, and (c)
                 have not been advanced in value or improved in
                 condition abroad except by being assembled and
                 except by operations incidental to the assembly
                 process such as cleaning, lubricating and painting.

                 Section 10.16(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.16(a)),
            states that the assembly operations may consist of any method
            used to join or fit together solid components and may be
            preceded, accompanied, or followed by operations incidental to
            the assembly process.  However, 19 CFR 10.16(c) provides that
            any significant process, operation, or treatment other than
            assembly whose primary purpose is the fabrication, completion,
            or physical or chemical improvement of a component shall not
            be regarded as incidental to the assembly and shall preclude
            the application of the exemption to such component.

                 In Rudolph Miles v. U.S., C.A.D. 1202, 65 CCPA 32 (1978),
            the appellate court held that the burning of holes and slots
            in Z-beams prior to their joinder to boxcars, so that wear and
            support plates and other components could be initially
            attached, did not constitute further fabrication and was
            incidental to the assembly process.  The court stated that the
            burning process was concomitant with the assembly and was not
            substantial enough to preclude qualification under the
            statute.  Following the principle of this judicial decision,
            we held in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 061429 dated
            March 28, 1980, that the drilling of holes in the plastic
            cabinet of a cable television converter -- a necessary
            preliminary step to completion of the assembly -- was an
            operation incidental to the assembly process.  See, also, HRL
            555394 dated August 15, 1989 (punching a 1/2 inch hole in the
            upper pocket of a fabric vane for receipt of a plastic hanger
            insert which is permanently enclosed within the pocket is a
            minor operation incidental to the assembly of the vanes).

                 In this case, we are of the opinion that the piercing of
            a slot in the plastic relay cover to permit the insertion of
            the electrical relay into the cover is analogous to the
            drilling and punching operations in HRL's 061429 and 555394.











                                         - 3 -


            The slotting operation is necessary to the assembly of the
            dust cover to the relay and is performed concomitant with the
            assembly of the relay.  Moreover, we are satisfied that the
            operation is a minor one in view of information provided by
            Rudolph Miles & Sons regarding the time and cost required to
            perform the slotting operation compared to the time and cost
            required for the entire assembly operation.  Accordingly, the
            slotting operation should not preclude tariff treatment under
            the provisions of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, for the dust
            cover component.

            HOLDING:

                 The slotting of a plastic relay cover is not a
            substantial operation but rather one merely incidental to the
            assembly of the relay and an allowance in duty may be made
            under the provisions of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, for the
            cost or value of the cover, upon compliance with the
            documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.24.

                                        Sincerely,




                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division


































            6cc:  A.D., NY Seaport (NIB-112-124)