OT:RR:CTF:EMAIN H351832 ZJK
Ignacio Alcorisa
Improving Mobility Development Corp.
Carrer de la Coma 19 46160
Lliria, Valencia, 46010, Spain
RE: Request for reconsideration of NY N347694; classification of mobility scooters from
China
Dear Mr. Alcorisa:
This letter is in reference to a request for reconsideration submitted on behalf of
Improving Mobility Development Corp. concerning New York Ruling Letter (NY) N347694
issued May 7, 2025. The ruling concerned the classification of three types of mobility scooters
from China under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The ruling
classified the merchandise under heading 8703.90.01, HTSUS, which provides for “Motor cars
and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of
heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars: Other.” We note that the question of
whether NY N347694 properly found that the merchandise does not qualify for duty-free
treatment under 9817.00.96 was reconsidered in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H348400,
issued August 20, 2025, which affirmed that the scooters at issue are not eligible for duty-free
treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, as articles specially designed or adapted for the
use or benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons. Accordingly, this
letter will address the sole issue of whether primary classification of the three mobility scooters
under heading 8703.90.01, HTSUS is correct.
The first scooter at issue is the KMINA All-Terrain Scooter which measures 25” (W) x
51” (H) x 47.5” (L) and supports a maximum user weight of 350 lbs. The KMINA All-Terrain
Scooter weighs 198 lbs. with the battery included and 175 lbs. without. You stated that the
KMINA All-Terrain Scooter has been designed to offer comfort and safety to the user when
moving around and is designed for independent patients, elderly people, or people with reduced
mobility. The KMINA All-Terrain Scooter is equipped with rearview mirrors, a headlight,
turning signals, a horn, an outside temperature gauge, a cup holder, and has a maximum speed of
9.3 m.p.h.
The second scooter is the PEPE-Scooter which measures 19” (W) x 37” (H) x 42.5” (L)
and supports a maximum user weight of 265 lbs. The PEPE-Scooter weighs 99 lbs. with the
battery included and 89.3 lbs. without. You stated that the PEPE-Scooter has been designed to
offer comfort and safety to the user when moving around and is designed for independent
patients, elderly people, or people with reduced mobility. The PEPE is equipped with a front
light, a front mounted basket, an anti-collision bar, a horn, and has a maximum adjustable speed
of 4.3 m.p.h.
The third scooter is the PEPE-Folding Scooter which measures 20” (W) x 16.5-38” (H) x
37.8” (L) when unfolded, and 20” (W) x 16.5” (H) x 29” (L) when folded. The PEPE-Folding
Scooter supports a maximum user weight of 265 lbs., and the scooter weighs 49.5 lbs. with the
battery included and 45 lbs. without. You stated that the PEPE-Folding Scooter has been
designed to offer comfort and safety to the user when moving around and is designed for
independent patients, elderly people, or people with reduced mobility. The PEPE-Folding
Scooter is equipped with a front light, a horn, and has a maximum speed of 4.3 m.p.h. All three
scooters can be pushed manually after their electric drives are disengaged.
Improving Mobility Development Corp. disagrees with CBP’s classification of the
merchandise under heading 8703.90.01, HTSUS, and contends that the merchandise is properly
classified under heading 8713.90.0060, HTSUS, covering “Carriages for disabled persons,
whether or not motorized or otherwise mechanically propelled: Other: Other.” (emphasis added).
In support of its reconsideration request, Improving Mobility Development Corp. cites
three rulings which classified certain “scooters” under heading 8713, HTSUS, and argues that
the subject merchandise should be similarly classified. The three cited rulings are NY L83372,
issued March 30, 2005, NY M83444, issued June 2, 2006, and NY L83102, issued March 8,
2005. In NY L83372, the subject merchandise was described as “three models of electrically
powered scooters for use by the handicapped…that…are intended to be FDA approved
products.” The scooters at issue in NY L83372 had a maximum speed between 4 and 5.5 m.p.h.
In NY M83444, the merchandise at issue was “a personal electric mobility scooter…designed to
assist elderly people who don’t have the capability to walk or stand for long periods of time or
distance.” The scooter in NY M83444 had a maximum speed of 4 m.p.h. Finally, in NY L83102,
the merchandise was “scooters…designed to assist the elderly as a means of transportation
within the home, shopping centers, parks, etc.… and are not permitted to operate on highways,
streets, or roads. These scooters travel at a speed of 4 [m.p.h.].”
The merchandise at issue in NY N347694 is dissimilar to the merchandise considered in
the three rulings in several respects. First, the KMINA All-Terrain Scooter has a maximum speed
that is nearly double that of the merchandise classified in the three prior rulings. Second, while
the PEPE-Scooters and PEPE Folding Scooters have maximum speeds that are similar to the
speeds of the merchandise in the prior rulings, there are other distinguishing features. All three
scooters considered in NY N347694 are equipped with a front light and a horn, and the KMINA
All-Terrain Scooter also includes rearview mirrors, turning signals, an outside temperature
gauge, and a cup holder. None of the merchandise in the three prior rulings included this
equipment. Third, and finally, the scooters in the three prior rulings were designed to assist
people with limited mobility in indoor or otherwise contained environments. This is evident by
2
their low maximum speeds, and the lack of mirrors, horns, turn signals, etc. In NY M83444 the
scooters were intended for use in “the home, shopping centers, parks, etc.… and are not
permitted to operate on highways, streets, or roads.” Further, the merchandise in NY L83372 and
NY L83372 is intended for “use by the handicapped” and “people who don’t have the capability
to walk or stand for long periods of time or distance,” respectively. On the other hand, while the
scooters at issue in NY N347694 may be used by those with limited mobility, they are not
primarily designed for or limited to that purpose. Instead, they may be used as an alternative
mode of transportation by almost anyone, irrespective of one’s mobility. The scooters in NY
N347694 are not “Carriages for disabled persons, whether or not motorized or otherwise
mechanically propelled” which are covered by heading 8713, HTSUS (emphasis added).
Rather, the scooters in NY N347694 were properly classified under heading 8703,
HTSUS, providing for “Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the
transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing
cars.” There are prior rulings that support classification of the subject merchandise under heading
8703, HTSUS rather than heading 8713, HTSUS. First, NY N015977, issued August 27, 2007,
found that four mobility scooters with top speeds between 7 and 10 m.p.h. and equipped with
pulsating-horn systems were properly classified under heading 8703, HTSUS. Likewise, NY
N343423, issued November 14, 2024, determined that an electric mobility scooter with controls
that were designed for ease of use by physically challenged individuals was properly classified
under heading 8703, HTSUS. The scooter in NY N343423 was equipped with handlebar
controls, a headlight, and was designed to allow strong climbing ability. Although the scooter
was designed for ease of use by physically challenged individuals, it was not considered a
“carriage for disabled persons.” Like the scooters at issue in these two prior rulings, the scooters
in NY N347694 are versatile and may be used by any person as an alternative mode of
transportation.
By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject merchandise is properly classified under
heading 8703, and specifically provided for under subheading 8703.90.01, HTSUS, which
provides for “Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of
persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars: Other”.
The general column one rate of duty is 2.5 percent ad valorem.
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.
Based upon the above, we affirm NY N347694.
Sincerely,
for Yuliya A. Gulis, Director
Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division
3