OT:RR:CTF:EMAIN H349196 ZJK
Center Director
Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising
Port of New York/Newark, NJ
1100 Raymond Blvd.
Newark, NJ 07102
Attn: Loreen Buchanan, Supervisory Import Specialist
Re: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-23-135213; Classification of Wire
Containers
Dear Center Director:
The following is our decision on the Application for Further Review (AFR) of Protest
No. 4601-23-135213, which was filed on July 20, 2023, on behalf of Global Industrial
Distribution, Inc. (protestant). The protest pertains to the classification under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of
certain wire containers. This ruling takes into consideration the substance of our discussion, per
19 C.F.R. § 177.4, held on August 21, 2025, as well as supplemental information provided via
email, dated August 25, 2025 and October 23, 2025.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue are steel wire containers with dimensions of 40” x 32” x 34.5”
and a capacity of 18.5 cubic feet (~524 liters). The containers consist of steel wire mesh boxes
which sit atop a steel base with reinforced corners. The container floor includes a mesh pattern
that is tighter than that found on the sides and top, and the bottom of the containers include legs
and may be outfitted with optional casters. The container sits six inches off the ground and may
be moved by forklift or pallet truck. Further, the merchandise includes both a top gate and an
anterior gate such that the contents of the individual containers are accessible when stacked.
Finally, the containers support a maximum weight of 3,000 pounds, may be vertically stacked
four-high, and are fully collapsable when empty.
The protestant made 116 entries for the subject merchandise between April 26, 2022, and
June 1, 2023. The protestant entered the merchandise under heading 8609, HTSUS, which
provides for “containers (including containers for the transport of fluids) specially designed and
equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport.” CBP liquidated the subject
merchandise between March 24, 2023, and July 7, 2023, under heading 7309, HTSUS, which
covers “reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material (other than compressed or
liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not lined or heat
insulated, but not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment.”
ISSUE:
Whether the subject wire containers are properly classified under heading 8609, HTSUS,
which provides for “containers (including containers for the transport of fluids) specially
designed and equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport,” or under heading 7309,
HTSUS, as “reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material (other than
compressed or liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not
lined or heat insulated, but not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment.”
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A decision on classification and the rate and amount of duties chargeable is a protestable
matter under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2). The subject protest was timely filed on July 20, 2023,
within 180 days of liquidation, pursuant to 19 U.S.C § 1514(c)(3). Further review of Protest No.
4601-23-135213 is properly accorded to the protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a) because
the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the
Commissioner of CBP or his designee, or with a decision made by CBP with respect to the same
or substantially similar merchandise. Specifically, the protestant argues that the subject
merchandise are wire containers designed and advertised for both the transportation and storage
of goods, and the containers are substantially similar to those CBP has previously classified in
heading 8609, HTSUS.
Classification under the HTSUS is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation
(GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods will 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 GRIs 2 through 6 will then be applied in order.
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs)
constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level. While
neither legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each
heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings.
See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35128 (Aug. 23, 1989).
The HTSUS headings under consideration are as follows:
8609 Containers (including containers for the transport of fluids)
2
specially designed and equipped for carriage by one or more
modes of transport
*****
7309 Reservoirs, tanks, vats and similar containers for any material
(other than compressed or liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a
capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not lined or heat
insulated, but not fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment
*****
Note 1(g) to Section XV (Chapters 72 – 83) provides as follows:
This section does not cover:
(g) Assembled railway or tramway track (heading 8608) or other articles of
section XVII (vehicles, ships and boats, aircraft).
In light of Note 1(g), supra, the subject container cannot be classified under Section XV
if it falls under the scope of heading 8609, HTSUS. In this respect, the protestant contends that
the crucial consideration for our analysis is the suitability of the container for the movement of
goods as opposed to fixed storage. However, based on GRI 1 and CBP’s prior rulings, whether
the subject merchandise is properly classified under heading 8609, HTSUS, turns on whether the
merchandise is specially designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport. EN 86.09
provides useful guidance regarding the features that an article typically possesses to be
considered specially designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport. For example, EN
86.09 explains that articles classified under heading 8609, HTSUS “…are equipped with fittings
(hooks, rings, castors, supports, etc.) to facilitate handling and securing on the transporting
vehicle, aircraft or vessel.” On its face, heading 8609, HTSUS, requires the container to be
specially designed for carriage by at least one mode of transport. EN 86.09 further provides that
“the heading excludes cases, crates, etc. which though designed for door-to-door transport of
goods are not specially constructed…to be secured to the transporting vehicle.”
Our review of the merchandise and the arguments advanced by the protestant lead us to
conclude that the subject articles are not specially designed for carriage by one or more modes of
transport. While the merchandise’s wire construction allows it to be secured during transport due
to the multiple connection points by virtue of the fact that it is designed as a cage, it is not the
case that the construction is the result of an intention to “specially design” the article for
carriage. The cage-like construction is not a unique feature found on articles that are “specially
designed” for carriage. Further, the container does not contain supports enabling the container to
be fitted to a transporting vehicle.
Likewise, while the optional casters provide a degree of maneuverability, they are not
special design features that render the article particularly compatible with modes of transport. To
the contrary, the maneuverability provided by the optional casters is beneficial in warehouses,
garages, and homes as opposed to the transportation or carriage context. For instance, a 3,000-
3
pound wheeled container would require significant measures to ensure stability in most
transporting vehicles; the casters render the containers best suited for warehouse and other
stationary applications. Accordingly, the inclusion of optional casters does not render the
merchandise “specially designed” for carriage.
The protestant contends that the fact that the containers are fully collapsible when empty
indicates that they are designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport. Specifically, the
protestant emphasizes a statement on the manufacturer’s website which explains that the
container “folds flat to save space & return shipping costs.” Notwithstanding the benefits a
collapsible container offers with respect to shipping that container, collapsibility is not a feature
that indicates the container is specially designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport.
This feature is equally if not more useful in a storage context as changing inventories alter the
number of necessary containers. Additionally, the collapsibility of the containers provides a
space-saving benefit in the shipment of new containers to buyers. In this respect, the
collapsibility of the container is similar to the cage design and the optional casters in that its
attributes are not a feature that indicate the container is specially designed for carriage by one or
more modes of transport.
Finally, the fact that the merchandise may be transported by forklift or pallet truck does
not support the contention that the article is specially designed for carriage. The only feature
about the article that allows it to be transported by forklift is the fact that the legs lift the bottom
of the cage six inches off the ground. The merchandise does not include fork pockets, which
would help secure the container to the forklift. Accordingly, like the cage construction and the
optional casters, the fact that the cage’s legs provide space off the ground for forklifts to
potentially operate does not render the merchandise specially designed for carriage by one or
more modes of transport. In fact, one can imagine this feature being useful in many other
contexts including preventing spoilage of the cage’s contents in a long-term storage situation by
ensuring that the bottom of the cage is not in contact with the ground.
Protestant argues that the merchandise should be classified under heading 8609 according
to the classification of merchandise in several prior rulings. First, protestant contends that the
merchandise at issue is similar to that in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H324644, which CBP
classified under heading 8609, HTSUS. See HQ H324644, July 21, 2022. However, the
merchandise at issue significantly differs from that in HQ H324644, which involved 20-foot-
long collapsable metal containers that were “equipped with fork pockets, comer [sic] castings,
and tie down points to facilitate handling and securing to and from the transporting vehicle. The
interior of the container also ha[d] tie down rings to secure household goods stored in the unit
during transit.” Id. (the containers in HQ H324644 were equipped with corner castings).
Likewise, protestant’s reliance on New York Ruling Letter (NY) N024458, which involved
cages designed for packing within 20- and 40-foot ISO containers to be used in the trans-ocean
movement of automobile parts, is misplaced. NY N024458, Mar. 12, 2008. Other merchandise
from prior cited rulings, including the merchandise in NY N020462 (containers designed for
packing and transporting bulk cargo, which included a built-in pallet and featured a 4-way
forklift access and 2-way rotating fork access), NY N061749 (reusable shipping modules that
were designed to facilitate handling of smaller packages loaded into them with the modules then
being loaded into larger ISO INTERMODAL containers for transportation), NY R02124
4
(reusable, intermediate bulk containers with forklift truck channels for transportation purposes
and designed to maximize space utilization in a 20-foot container for trans-ocean transport), NY
I88320 (steel, returnable, fold-down crate with an open, frame structure, a pallet-like bottom, two
frame walls, and two channels for fork-lift truck use), and NY 818317 (steel, fold-down,
stackable, wire shipping containers designed to cube out a standard container, and having bottom
lugs) are all markedly different from the merchandise at issue in that the articles classified in the
cited rulings were all specially designed for carriage. See NY N020462, Dec. 7, 2007; NY
N061749, Sept. 10, 2007; NY R02124, July 5, 2005; NY I88320, Nov. 19, 2022; NY 818317,
Jan. 24, 2996. The merchandise at issue is not so specially designed.
Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with GRI 1, prior rulings, and considering
guidance from the relevant explanatory notes, we conclude that the merchandise is not specially
designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport. Accordingly, the merchandise is not
classified under heading 8609, HTSUS. Having established that the containers are not prima
facie classifiable under 8609, HTSUS, we need not consider the GRI 3(c) classification principle,
which was also advanced by the protestant.
The merchandise is more comparable to the items at issue in HQ 082708, which CBP
classified under heading 7309, HTSUS. In HQ 082708, the merchandise consisted of steel
storage containers designed to hold scrap, garbage, tools, and equipment, which could be stacked
and crane lifted, or winch drawn onto flatbed trucks. HQ 082708 (Mar. 30, 1989). While the
merchandise could be secured to transporting vehicles, the containers were not specially
designed to be secured to transporting vehicles.
While the containers of heading 7309, HTSUS can be lined with solid walls for holding
liquids (i.e., reservoirs, tanks, vats, and similar containers) the portion of the heading which reads
“whether or not lined” contemplates a container that does not have solid walls and may be used
to hold materials other than liquids. This reading is consistent with the “or any material” phrase
found in heading 7309, HTSUS, and with EN 73.09 which provides that the heading includes
containers for solids.
Protestant draws our attention to EN 73.09, which reads “these containers are normally
installed as fixtures for storage or manufacturing use, e.g., in factories, chemical works, dye
works, gasworks, breweries, distilleries and refineries, and to a smaller extent in houses, shops,
etc.” Protestant contends that the subject containers are not normally installed as fixtures and
therefore, fall outside heading 7309, HTSUS. However, the qualifying word “normally” in EN
73.09 contemplates inclusion of storage containers that are not installed as fixtures. Additionally,
there is no language in either the legal text of heading 7309, HTSUS or EN 73.09 indicating that
the heading is limited to containers that are installed as fixtures.
The guidance from EN 86.09 leads us to conclude that the merchandise is properly
classified under heading 7309, HTSUS, because EN 86.09 provides that cases and crates that are
not specially constructed to be secured to transporting vehicles are not classified under heading
8609, HTSUS, and should instead be classified according to their constituent material. As
explained above, the merchandise is not specially constructed to be secured to transport vehicles.
Our finding that the merchandise is properly classified under heading 7309, HTSUS is bolstered
5
by EN 86.09 because the constituent material of the merchandise is powder-coated steel wire,
and steel (or iron) composition is a requirement for classification under heading 7309, HTSUS.
Finally, heading 7309, HTSUS is limited to containers with a capacity exceeding 300
liters. The capacity of the container at issue is 18.5 cubic feet, which is roughly 524 liters when
converted; and exceeds the 300-liter capacity threshold.
HOLDING:
By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject wire containers are classified under heading
7309, specifically subheading 7309.00.00, HTSUS, which provides for reservoirs, tanks, vats and
similar containers for any material (other than compressed or liquefied gas), of iron or steel, of a
capacity exceeding 300 liters, whether or not lined or heat insulated, but not fitted with
mechanical or thermal equipment…. The general column one rate of duty is free.
Pursuant to U.S. Note 20 to Subchapter III, Chapter 99, HTSUS, products of China
classified under subheading 7309.00.00, HTSUS, unless specifically excluded, are covered by
heading 9903.88.03 and subject to an additional 25 percent ad valorem rate of duty.
This ruling does not address the applicability of any additional duties that may apply to
the goods discussed herein. Likewise, 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 at www.usitc.gov.
You are instructed to DENY the Protest.
Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings,
will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP website at
www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public
distribution.
Sincerely,
for Yuliya A. Gulis, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division
6