TIB
OT:RR:CTF:ER
H300448 JCO
Mr. Philippe Sukyas
Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.
6901 Tujunga Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91605
RE: Ruling Request; eligibility for duty-free treatment as temporary importations under bond
Dear Mr. Sukyas,
This is in response to your electronic ruling request of August 3, 2018, on behalf of your company Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc. (“Bobrick”). You requested a binding ruling regarding importing mirrors for processing and subsequent export under subheading 9813.00.05, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
FACTS:
Bobrick will import mirrored glass from China to Bobrick’s plants in Jackson, Tennessee and Durant, Oklahoma. You describe the mirrors as initially pieces of unframed mirror glass of over 929 square centimeters. The mirror glass will be cut to proper size in China and imported in crates to the United States. At Bobrick’s plants, Bobrick will add a frame, steel backing and a hanging mechanism to each piece of mirror glass. Bobrick will then export the completed mirrors in crates to Saudi Arabia.
ISSUE:
Whether the mirrors are eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9813.00.05, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
General Note 1, HTSUS, dictates that all merchandise imported into the United States is subject to duty unless specifically exempted there from. See also 19 C.F.R. § 141.4(a). Pursuant to U.S. Note 1(a) of Subchapter XIII of Chapter 98, HTSUS, which contains subheading 9813.00.05, HTSUS (2021), articles to be repaired, altered or processed, including processes which result in articles manufactured or produced in the United States, may enter into the U.S. temporarily free of duty under a Temporary Importation Under Bond (TIB) for exportation within one year from the date of importation. See generally 19 C.F.R. § 10.31. This one-year period may be extended for one or more additional periods, which when added to the initial period may not exceed three years. See 19 C.F.R. § 10.37. The imported merchandise may also not be imported for the purpose of a sale or sale on approval. See also 19 C.F.R. § 10.31(a)(3)(iii).
In this case, the addition of a frame, steel backing and a hanging mechanism to each piece of mirror glass is alike to HQ 555642 (May 9, 1991), whereby mirrored glass was decorated, and then fitted with backing and a hanging mechanism. TIB attainment was not a concern in HQ 555642, which instead turned on whether decorating the mirror components with a lacquer substance fulfilled a certain subheading, HTSUS, so as to obtain a partial duty exemption. However, HQ 555642 clearly refers to the procedure involving the mirror components as an “assembly.” Therefore, CBP will also refer to as the instant procedure involving mirror components as an “assembly.”
CBP has previously stated that “…component parts imported for the purpose of assembly with other parts into a finished article constitute a [‘]processing.[’]….” HQ 224211 (Oct. 20, 1992). That is exactly what is at issue, here. Bobrick plans to import component parts, assemble them into a finished article and then export completed merchandise to a foreign country. Based on the current facts and authorities noted supra, therefore, the steps taken to assemble the components into a mirror constitutes a process for purposes of subheading 9813.00.05, HTSUS.
HOLDING:
Based upon the foregoing, Bobrick’s assembly procedure constitutes a “process” such that the components described are eligible for duty free TIB treatment under subheading 9813.00.05, HTSUS, so long as all statutory and regulatory conditions are met.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by CBP to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.” If the terms of the import or export contracts vary from the facts stipulated to herein, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(1), (2) and (4), and § 177.9(b)(1) and (2).
Sincerely,
Gail G. Kan, Chief
Entry Process & Duty Refunds Branch