HQ H258764
CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H258764 TSM
Mr. Satish Ranade
Masimo Corporation
40 Parker
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: Request for reconsideration of NY N256564; Classification of a docking station
Dear Mr. Ranade:
This letter is in reference to New York Ruling Letter (NY) N256564, issued to Masimo Corporation on September 9, 2014, concerning the tariff classification of docking stations for portable patient monitoring devices from Mexico. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) classified the subject merchandise under subheading 8517.62.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), which provides for “Telephone sets, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than transmission or reception apparatus of heading 8443, 8525, 8527 or 8528; parts thereof: Other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network): Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus.”
In a letter dated September 11, 2014, you argued that the docking stations under consideration should be classified under subheading 9018.19.95, HTSUS, which provides for “Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof: Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters); parts and accessories thereof: Other: Other: Other.”
FACTS:
On August 22, 2014, you requested a tariff classification ruling for docking stations for portable patient monitoring devices. In the ruling request, you stated that the docking stations at issue, referred to as Radical docking stations items numbers 20874 and 20872, are accessories designed for use exclusively with a Radical handheld pulse oximeter and a Radical-7 handheld pulse co-oximeter, and are properly classified under subheading 9018.19, HTSUS. You further stated that the functions of the docking stations at issue are: (1) to allow for the transfer of data from the portable medical monitoring systems to computers and other devices; (2) to enable data sharing with multi-dimensional patient monitors and provide a nurse call functionality; and (3) to provide power to the oximeters to charge their internal batteries.
In your request for reconsideration, dated September 11, 2014, you further argued that the docking stations are properly classified under subheading 9018.19, HTSUS, in accordance with Note 2 (b) to Chapter 90, HTSUS.
ISSUE:
Whether the docking stations under consideration should be classified under heading 8517, HTSUS, as “machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data…” or under heading 9018, HTSUS, as “electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters); parts and accessories thereof”?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied.
In addition, in interpreting the HTSUS, the Explanatory Notes (ENs) of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System may be utilized. The ENs, although not dispositive or legally binding, provide a commentary on the scope of each heading, and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127 (August 23, 1989).
The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:
8517 Telephone sets, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than transmission or reception apparatus of heading 8443, 8525, 8527 or 8528; parts thereof:
Other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network):
8517.62.00 Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus:
9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof:
Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters); parts and accessories thereof:
9018.19 Other:
Other:
9018.19.95 Other
To determine whether the docking stations under consideration are classified in subheading 8517.62.00, HTSUS, or subheading 9018.19.95, HTSUS, we follow the above-referenced provision of GRI 1 and consider the relative Section and Chapter Notes. First, it should be noted that Note 1(m), to Section XVI, HTSUS, states that this section does not cover articles of Chapter 90, HTSUS. Accordingly, the issue is whether or not the subject docking stations are “articles of chapter 90.”
Note 1 to Chapter 90, HTSUS, enumerating articles not covered by this Chapter, does not exclude the docking stations at issue from classification in Chapter 90, HTSUS. Therefore, we next consider Note 2 to Chapter 90, HTSUS, which provides as follows:
“Subject to Note 1 above, parts and accessories for machines, apparatus instruments or articles of this chapter are to be classified according to the following rules:
Parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of chapter 84, 85 or 91 (other than heading 8487, 8548 or 9033) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings;
Other parts and accessories, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, instrument or apparatus, or with a number of machines, instruments or apparatus of heading 9010, 9013 or 9031) are to be classified with the machines, instruments or apparatus of that kind.
We also note Explanatory Note III to Chapter 90, HTSUS, which states, in pertinent part, the following:
Subject to Chapter Note 1, parts or accessories identifiable as suitable for use solely or principally with the machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of this Chapter are classified with those machines, appliances, etc.
This general rule does not, however, apply to:
Parts or accessories which in themselves constitute articles falling in any particular heading of this Chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91…
Accordingly, Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 stands for the proposition that the instant merchandise cannot be classified as an accessory to a medical instrument or appliance of heading 9018, HTSUS, if it is itself provided for under a heading of Chapter 84, 85 or 91 by application of GRI 1.
Since the functions of the subject docking stations are both data transmission and power supply, they are considered composite machines as provided for by Note 3 to Section XVI, HTSUS, which provides as follows:
Unless the context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function.
We find that since the principal function of the subject docking stations is data transmission, they are properly classified under subheading 8517.62.00, HTSUS, as “machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data…,” by application of GRI 1 (Note 3 to Section XVI).
In the request for reconsideration, you argued that the docking stations at issue are properly classified under subheading 9018.19.95, HTSUS. In support of this argument, you maintained that since the docking stations at issue are made exclusively for use with Radical 7 patient monitoring systems, classification under subheading 9018.19.95 is appropriate in accordance with HTSUS Note 2(b) to Chapter 90, which provides that “Other parts and accessories, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, instrument or apparatus, or with a number of machines, instruments or apparatus of the same heading … are to be classified with the machines, instruments or apparatus of that kind.” In this regard, we find that HTSUS Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 need not in this instance be considered since, in accordance with HTSUS Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, the subject docking stations are classified in subheading 8517.62.00, HTSUS. As such, they are excluded from classification in heading 9018. See also NY H82636, dated July 17, 2001, which involved endodontic apparatus and its spare parts, imported separately. CBP ruled, in pertinent part, that although the complete unit was classified in heading 9018, HTSUS, the spare parts imported separately were classified in heading 8501, HTSUS, consistent with Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, HTSUS.
In support of your argument that the docking stations under consideration are properly classified under subheading 9018.19.95, you also cited several New York Ruling Letters (NY), specifically NY N254700, NY N004877, NY N069858 and NY 860833. Upon review, we note that these rulings do not alter our position with respect to the docking stations under consideration. Thus, consistent with our position in the present case, in NY N254700 CBP ruled, in pertinent part, that separately imported parts or accessories, if identified as suitable for use solely or principally as parts or accessories of a device (as referenced in HTSUS Explanatory Note III to Chapter 90), are classified in its heading if not excluded from that heading by Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, or from Chapter 90 by its Note 1.
In NY N004877, CBP ruled that devices collecting patients’ health statistics, used in conjunction with medical peripheral devices, were classified in subheading 9018.19 as parts or accessories of 9018.19 apparatus, since Note 2(a) did not exclude them from Chapter 90 because the devices at issue did not have any “per se” functions and were solely parts or accessories of medical devices classified in subheading 9018.19, HTSUS. Unlike NY N004877, however, the docking stations at issue in the present case execute the functions provided for in Chapter 85, HTSUS, and are thus classified there consistent with Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, HTSUS. Finally, we note that NY N069858 and NY 860833 are not relevant here, since at issue in those rulings were automatic data processing units classified in subheading 8471, HTSUS, consistent with Notes 5(B) and (C) to Chapter 84, HTSUS.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the docking stations for portable patient monitoring devices, as described, are classified in subheading 8517.62.00, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
By application of GRI 1, docking stations for portable patient monitoring devices are classified under subheading 8517.62.00, HTSUS, as “machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data…”
Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the internet at.www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/.
EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS:
NY N256564, dated September 9, 2014, is AFFIRMED.
Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division