OT:RR:CTF:VS H346531 RRB
Terrance R. Lawrence
Braun Corporation/BraunAbility
631 West 11th Street
Winamac, IN 46996
Re: Affirmation of NY N346051; Applicability of Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, to electric
actuators from China
Dear Mr. Lawrence
This is in response to your request, dated March 12, 2025, for reconsideration of New York
Ruling Letter (“NY”) N346051, issued on March 7, 2025. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”) determined that the three electric actuators under consideration, PN 404418,
404419, and 404224A, did not qualify for subheading 9817.00.96, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (“HTSUS”), treatment as articles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of
the physically or mentally handicapped, since the actuators were not found to meet the requirements
for that provision. Your request for reconsideration only applies to PN 404419. We have reviewed
NY N346051 and determined that it is correct. For the reasons set forth below, we are affirming that
ruling.
NY N346051 described the electric actuators, and specifically PN 404419, as follows:
The three items under consideration are identified as Linear Actuators, PN 404418,
404419, and 404224A. Each of the actuators are said to consist of a brushed 50 W DC
motor, a plastic shaft covering two metal ends and a wiring harness. You state that the
actuators are designed to be used in vehicle lift applications for handicapped or disabled
access to personal vehicles.
…
You state that the actuators are of a unique shape and construction specific to under
vehicle lift products, which you describe as wheelchair stop safety mechanisms.
In NY N346051, CBP found that based on the information provided, none of the actuators are
constructed in such a way that indicates they are dedicated for use with any particular machine.
Accordingly, CBP concluded that the subject actuators did not qualify for classification in subheading
9817.00.96, HTSUS.
In your request for reconsideration, you provide additional information about the actuator
identified as PN 404419. According to your submission, the PN 404419 actuator is described as a
brushed DC electric motor actuator with a maximum power rating of 50 watts. You aver that the
actuator is specifically used to deploy the wheel stop safety mechanism of a vehicle wheelchair lift.
We note that in your underlying ruling request in support of NY N346051, there was no mention that
the actuator was limited for exclusive use and/or designed to work with only the vehicle lift. In
support of this position now being argued in your request for reconsideration, you supplied the
following information for our consideration:
• Rod end changed from machined aluminum to a steel hem joint.
• Rod end nut changed from aluminum to stainless steel.
• Mounting holes changed from 10 mm on both ends to 12 mm and 17.5 mm.
• Deutsch connector replaced bare wires for electrical connection.
• Maximum load capacity changed from 2300 N to 14000 N.
You also provided documentation setting forth the specifications of the PN 404419 actuator and an
Excel spreadsheet containing further technical description of the PN 404419 actuator along with
enlarged photos.
After careful review and consideration of your current argument regarding the eligibility of the
PN 404419 actuator for treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, we maintain our position
that the subject actuator is not dedicated for use with any particular machine. First, we note that
changing an end rod or fastening nut from aluminum to steel does not imply that the motor actuator
can only be used with a vehicle lift. In addition, boring out the mounting holes, in our view, further
implies that the motor actuator can be used for multiple applications and can be adapted for several
uses. Moreover, placing an electrical connector on the end of two wires is a requirement for various
machines—not just a vehicle lift—with which the actuator is being used. Most tellingly, we note that
the documentation setting forth the specifications of the PN 404419 actuator specifically states under a
heading titled “Features and Benefits” that the actuator “is approved to be perfect for applications like
motorized pergola, yacht automation, special vehicles, [and] rehabilitation equipment.” Thus, the
company’s own documentation confirms that the PN 404419 actuator is not dedicated for use with
wheelchair lifts. Accordingly, we affirm our position in NY N346051 that the request for eligibility
under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, should be denied because the PN 404419 actuator is not
constructed in such a way that indicates that it is dedicated for use with any particular machine.
Sincerely,
Monika Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
2