CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 951990 DWS

Mr. David L. Clark
Director, Customs
Cummins Engine Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 3005
Columbus, IN 47202-3005

RE: Revocation of NY 859968; Diesel Engine Cylinder Heads; 8409.99.99

Dear Mr. Clark:

In NY 859968, dated February 6, 1991, you were advised that the subject diesel engine cylinder head, imported from Brazil, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, would be classifiable under subheading 8409.99.99, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for: "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 or 8408: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther." In your letter to the Area Director, New York Seaport, of January 22, 1991, you stated that the merchandise has a variety of applications, including a "range from construction, mining, marine, rail, on-highway, power generation units, logging, agriculture, bus, and government/defense."

However, it has come to our attention that the subject cylinder heads are principally used with the vehicles of headings 8701.20 (road tractors), 8702 (public transport passenger vehicles), 8703 (motor vehicles for transport of persons), or 8704 (motor vehicles for transport of goods), HTSUS.

This letter is to notify you that, based upon this new information, it is now our position that the merchandise is classifiable under subheading 8409.99.91, HTSUS, which provides for: "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 or 8408: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther: [f]or vehicles of subheading 8701.20, or heading 8702, 8703, 8704." The general, column one rate of duty is 3.7 percent ad valorem.

The merchandise which is manufactured in Brazil and Canada, upon the meeting of certain regulations, will be entitled to duty free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences, and a duty of 2.2 percent ad valorem under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, respectively.

Accordingly, we are revoking NY 859968 pursuant to 19 CFR 177.9(d)(1). This revocation will not be applied retroactively to NY 859968 [19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)] and will not, therefore, affect past transactions under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future transactions in merchandise of this type, NY 859968 will not be valid precedent. We recognize that pending transactions may be adversely affected by this revocation, in that current contracts for importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation arises, you may apply for relief from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by the circumstances.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division