OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H325370 CBC
Kevin Garvey
Steptoe LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
RE: Instruments of International Traffic; 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a); 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a;
Volofleet Logistics Holding Company; Multi-Modal Smart Containers.
Dear Mr. Garvey:
This is in response to your August 14, 2025, and October 28, 2025, requests for a ruling
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.2, on behalf of your client, Volofleet Logistics Holding Company
(“VoloX”), submitted to the National Commodity Specialist Division (“NCSD”), U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (“CBP”), seeking confirmation that VoloX Intermodal Smart Containers
(“VoloX Containers”) qualify for treatment as Instruments of International Traffic (“IIT”),
properly classified under subheading 9803.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (“HTSUS”). Under 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(a), “Carrier rulings should be addressed to .
. . Regulations and Rulings.” Our decision follows:
FACTS:
The following facts are from your ruling request and supplements thereto. The subject:
VoloX Containers are enclosed unitized honeycomb panel contain-
ers with an aluminum frame, with dimensions of approximately
2.5’ W x 6’6” L x 7’6” H, 1 that are designed to be efficiently
nested within standard international shipping containers, and then
unpacked and integrated into different transportation modalities for
“last mile” domestic freight transportation.
...
1
You note that they accordingly have “an internal volume of greater than one cubic meter.”
VoloX Containers allow for high density loading (high cube) of
non-palletized shipments, in addition to palletized shipments. The
format and function of the VoloX Container allows for varied
sized, units, packages, totes and commerce to be readily shipped
with all modes of transport from barge to truck, from truck to mi-
cro-mobility.
The subject containers are depicted below:
Unitized Organized High Cube Multi-Modal
Indexed in Real Time Cross Docking Reserved Containerized to the Last
Mile
“VoloX Containers are each assigned a unique identification number. . . . The lifespan of
VoloX Containers is 5 years, and with routine maintenance, they are designed to last up to 10
years.” Additionally:
VoloX Containers combine VoloX-ESP and Container 42 program
Smart technology to enable real-time geospatial analytics, includ-
ing GPS tracking, AI and machine learning capabilities, weather
and temperature monitoring, and remote geolocking to ensure that
VoloX Containers cannot be opened outside of a prescribed geo-
fenced location prescribed in advance.
You also state that “Marine insurers and logistics companies like [ ] 2 are early
adopters of parts of VoloX’s technology” and that “the Container 42 program” incorporates
“Volo-X-ESP’s licensor.” You anticipate that:
2
You have asked this office for confidential treatment of bracketed information. CBP Regulations at 19 C.F.R. §
177.2(b)(7) provide that the requester of a ruling from our office may ask that privileged or confidential commercial
or financial information supplied for purposes of preparing the requested ruling not be disclosed. Such requests will
be considered if the information is clearly identified and the reasons for requesting that information not be disclosed
are provided. If this office receives a Freedom of Information Act request for your submission, regulations at 6
C.F.R. § 5.12, regarding the disclosure of business information, provide that the submitter of business information
will be advised of receipt of a request for such information whenever the business submitter has in good faith
2
The first deployments of the Volo-X Containers will be in several
major US cities, followed by greater international expansion. Ini-
tial international deployments will involve thousands of annual
cross-border trips to 52 countries.
...
VoloX projects that globally scaled deployment would involve
roughly 1,000,000 Volo-X Containers in circulation.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Instruments of International Traffic
“All merchandise imported into the United States is required to be entered, unless specifi-
cally excepted.” 19 C.F.R. § 141.4(a); see 19 U.S.C. § 1484(c) (“The Customs Service may per-
mit the entry and release of merchandise from customs custody in accordance with such regula-
tions as the Secretary may prescribe.”). 3 The four exceptions to the requirement of entry are
listed under 19 C.F.R. § 141.4(b), one of which is instruments of international traffic. See 19
C.F.R. § 141.4(b)(3).
Subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS, provides for the duty-free treatment of:
Substantial containers and holders, if products of the United States
(including shooks and staves of United States production when re-
turned as boxes or barrels containing merchandise), or if of foreign
production and previously imported and duty (if any) thereon paid,
or if of a class specified by the Secretary of the Treasury as instru-
ments of international traffic, repair components for containers of
foreign production which are instruments of international traffic,
and accessories and equipment for such containers, whether the ac-
cessories and equipment are imported with a container to be reex-
ported separately or with another container, or imported separately
to be reexported with a container.
(Emphasis added). Subchapter 98 of the HTSUS only applies to:
(a) Substantial containers or holders which are subject to tariff
treatment as imported articles and are:
(i) Imported empty and not within the purview of a provi-
sion which specifically exempts them from duty; or
designated the information as commercially or financially sensitive information. We accept your request for confi-
dential treatment as a good faith request.
3
Customs revenue functions have been delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security by the Secretary of Treas-
ury, with exceptions herein not applicable, under the authority of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-
296, §§ 401–19, 116 Stat. 2135, 2177–82; see Treas. Dep’t Order 100-16 (May 15, 2003).
3
(ii) Imported containing or holding articles, and which are
not of a kind normally sold therewith or are entered sepa-
rately therefrom; and
(b) Certain repair components, accessories and equipment.
U.S. Note 1 et seq., Subchapter 98-III, HTSUS.
Section 322(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, added by the Customs Simplification Act of
1953, codified the “customary exemptions from the application of the customs laws” for “instru-
ments of international traffic to such extent and subject to such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed in regulations or instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury.” Pub. L. No. 243-397,
§ 14, 67 Stat. 507, 516; see 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a). 4 “These ‘customary’ exemptions had an estab-
lished legal existence long before the Congress first recognized them in § 1322(a).” Inter-City
Truck Lines, Ltd. v. United States, 408 F.2d 686, 689 (Ct. Claims 1969) (Nichols, J. dissenting). 5
As empowered by Section 322(a), the Secretary has delegated authorization to CBP “to
designate as instruments of international traffic, in decisions to be published in the weekly Cus-
toms Bulletin, such additional articles or classes of articles as he shall find should be so desig-
nated.” 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a).
Lift vans, cargo vans, shipping tanks, skids, pallets, caul boards,
and cores for textile fabrics, arriving (whether loaded or empty) in
use or to be used in the shipment of merchandise in international
traffic are [t]hereby designated as “instruments of international
traffic” within the meaning of section 322(a).
In so designating, “‘instruments of international traffic’ includes the normal accessories
and equipment imported with any such instrument which is a ‘container’ as defined in Article 1
of the Customs Convention on Containers.” Id. 6 (“Convention”). So defined:
4
While “instruments of international traffic” include “containers” and “accessories,” they are subject to entry once
“diverted into domestic use.” Sea-Land Serv. v. United States, 920 F.2d 922, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1990); 19 C.F.R. §
10.41a(d).
5
Section 127 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, Implementation of the customs convention on containers, 1972,
removed the qualification that the “exemption” in Section 322(a) was “traditional,” and revised duty-free treatment
of “accessories” in the tariff schedules. Pub. L. No. 98-573, 98 Stat. 2948, 2959.
6
The “Customs Convention on Containers” in question would have originally been that of May 18, 1956, art. 1, 338
U.N.T.S. 103, 104–05, which had been in the process of being amended for years before the Secretary added the
reference, following passage of “[l]egislation necessary to implement the Conventions [i.e., including other customs
conventions] in respects not previously authorized under domestic law.” 34 Fed. Reg. 9798, 9800 (June 25, 1969);
see World Customs Organization, HANDBOOK, CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON CONTAINERS, 1972 3 (Jan. 2023); see
also 25 Fed. Reg. 2530 (March 25, 1960) (original text); cf. U.S. Note 4, Subchapter 98-III, HTSUS (contemplating
“regulations . . . in accordance with 1956 Customs Convention on Containers.”). However, the Customs Conven-
tion on Containers, 1972, “shall terminate and replace” the 1956 Convention. Dec. 2, 1972, art. 20, 988 U.N.T.S.
43, 48. Accordingly, “[t]he more natural reading . . . is confirmed by . . . the ‘reference’ canon, [dictating that] when
a statute refers to a general subject, the statute adopts the law on that subject as it exists whenever a question under
the statute arises.” Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101, 116 (2024); see Jam v. Int’l Fin. Corp., 586 U.S. 199,
209–10 (2019) (“[A] general reference to ‘the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations’ incorporates a defini-
tion of piracy that changes with advancements in the law of nations.”); United States v. Article of Cosmetic Consist-
ing of 1227 Packages, 372 F. Supp. 302, 304 (D. Or. 1974) (“The Section therefore incorporates admiralty law as it
4
[T]he term “container” shall mean an article of transport equip-
ment (lift-van, movable tank or other similar structure):
(i) fully or partially enclosed to constitute a compartment
intended for containing goods;
(ii) of a permanent character and accordingly strong enough
to be suitable for repeated use;
(iii) specially designed to facilitate the carriage of goods,
by one or more modes of transport, without intermediate
reloading;
(iv) designed for ready handling, particularly when being
transferred from one mode of transport to another;
(v) designed to be easy to fill and to empty; and
(vi) having an internal volume of one cubic metre or more;
↳ the term “container” shall include the accessories and
equipment of the container, appropriate for the type con-
cerned, provided that such accessories and equipment are
carried with the container. The term “container” shall not
include vehicles, accessories or spare parts of vehicles, or
packaging. Demountable bodies, are to be treated as con-
tainers.
Art. 1, 338 U.N.T.S. at 104–05.
The term “accessories and equipment of the container” shall cover
in particular the following devices, even if they are removable:
(a) equipment for controlling, modifying or maintaining the
temperature inside the container;
has been amended.”); see also 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“[W]ords used in the present tense include the future.”). “Congress of-
ten uses the cross-reference device in a statute precisely because the referenced provision may be amended.”
Brown, 602 U.S. at 127. This reasoning applies a fortiori to regulations, not only because the referenced statute or
treaty is a higher authority, but because the Secretary is unbeholden to legislative bargaining, yet he still chose to
delegate—because treaty compliance, for the purpose of standardizing “instruments of international traffic,” more
than any specific term of art, was the “intent and purpose.” Jam, 586 U.S. at 219–20 (Breyer, J. dissenting); see 19
U.S.C. § 2532(2)(A) (“[E]ach Federal agency, in developing standards, shall take into consideration international
standards and shall, if appropriate, base the standards on international standards.”); Murray v. Schooner Charming
Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804) (“[A]n Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of
nations if any other possible construction remains.”) (Marshall, C.J.). Inversely, “[h]ad the [Secretary] intended to”
make a “specific” reference to the 1956 Convention, “it would have been simple to say so.” Somermeier v. District
Director of Customs, 448 F.2d 1243, 1244 (9th Cir. 1971). Without “adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to cross-
references,” we choose to “do the least damage,” Brown, 602 U.S. at 118, by rejecting the absurd premise that the
regulation is potentially ultra vires, but that an identically worded regulation, even including the citation to “Article
1,” would achieve the intended result if it were promulgated after ratification in 1972, the Convention’s effective
date in 1975, or perhaps Congressional “implementation” in 1984. Moreover, the Secretary already appears to have
done so insofar as necessary, on the advice of the “Carrier Rulings Branch,” clarifying that the proposed paragraph
(g) was referring to “Article 1 of the Customs Convention on Containers (1972).” 61 Fed. Reg. 51849, 51850 (Oct.
4. 1996); see 62 Fed. Reg. 42209 (Aug. 6, 1997) (final rule). “A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same mean-
ing throughout a text.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, READING LAW 170 (2012).
5
(b) small appliances, such as temperature or impact record-
ers, designed to indicate or record variations in environ-
mental conditions and impact;
(c) internal partitions, pallets, shelves, supports, hooks, and
similar devices used for stowing goods.
Id. at Annex 6, 988 U.N.T.S. at 68. 7
“The Convention reflects a national policy to remove impediments to the use of contain-
ers as instruments of international traffic.” Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S.
434, 453 (1979). The “consistent practice” “of the other signatory nations” “is persuasive evi-
dence of the Conventions’ meaning.” Itel Containers Int’l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60, 84
(1993) (Blackmun, J. dissenting). “Such instruments may be released without entry or the pay-
ment of duty, subject to the provisions of this section.” 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1).
To qualify for entry-free and duty-free treatment as IITs under the aforementioned statu-
tory and regulatory authority, the article must be a substantial container or holder. As stated
above, CBP is authorized to designate as an IIT such additional articles not specifically noted in
19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1). To qualify as an IIT within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19
C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1), an article used as a container or holder must be: (1) substantial; (2) suita-
ble for and capable of repeated use; and (3) used in significant numbers in international traffic.
See HQ H291037 (Jan. 9, 2018); HQ H016491 (Oct. 1, 2007); HQ 114150 (Dec. 12, 1997); HQ
107545 (May 7, 1985); Treas. Dec. 71-159, Cust. B. & Dec. 296 (June 18, 1971); 99 Treas. Dec.
533, No. 56247 (Aug. 26, 1964). 8
The VoloX Containers
Based upon review of the submission and information provided, the VoloX containers are
containers that are substantial, suitable for and capable of repeated use, and used in significant
numbers in international traffic. They are substantial in that they are made of aluminum. 9 They
will be used in significant numbers in international traffic, given that approximately 1,000,000
are intended for use in “globally scaled deployment.” 10 Lastly, the VoloX containers are suitable
7
“[U]nder the 1956 Convention, there was no provision for accessories and equipment” unless “imported with the
container.” World Customs Organization, HANDBOOK, CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON CONTAINERS, 1972 4 (Jan.
2023).
8
The requirement that an article be “substantial” is not only a threshold requirement under 9803.00.50, but also a
requirement for an article to be an instrument of international traffic pursuant to CBP decisions. The origin for the
criterion found in CBP decisions that an article be “substantial” is found in Schedule 8, Item 808.00 of the Tariff
Schedule of the United States (1963) (TSUS), the predecessor provision to 9803.00.50, HTSUS. Likewise, the crite-
rion that an article be “suitable for and capable of repeated use” is found in Schedule 8, Item 808.00, TSUS, Head-
note 6(b)(ii), stating that the article must be capable of “reuse.” Although the requirement that an article be capable
of reuse is no longer under subheading 9803.00.50, HTSUS (the successor provision to Item 808.00, TSUS), to re-
ceive duty-free treatment thereunder, nevertheless, “reuse” is still required, pursuant to CBP decisions, for an article
to be considered an instrument of international traffic.
9
See HQ H348215(Aug. 20, 2025) (finding that aluminum containers were substantial).
10
“The application of a ruling letter by a Customs Service field office to the transaction to which it is purported to
relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter.” 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1).
6
for and capable of reuse, given their lifespan of five to ten years. 11 Based on the foregoing, the
VoloX containers are designated as IITs; therefore, they qualify for entry-free and duty-free
treatment as IITs pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1).
Additionally, the Volox containers are:
(i) fully or partially enclosed to constitute a compartment intended
for containing goods; (ii) of a permanent character and accordingly
strong enough to be suitable for repeated use; (iii) specially de-
signed to facilitate the carriage of goods, by one or more modes of
transport, without intermediate reloading;[ 12] (iv) designed for
ready handling, particularly when being transferred from one mode
of transport to another; (v) designed to be easy to fill and to empty;
and (vi) have an internal volume of one cubic meter or more.
Accordingly, they constitute “containers.” As such the accompanying “smart technology” com-
ponents qualify as “accessories” insofar as they are “small appliances,” providing such functions
as “temperature or impact recorders.” Therefore, they shall be afforded similar treatment when
“carried with the container,” “even if they are removable,” or alternatively may be imported sep-
arately “if the person making the entry or withdrawal from warehouse files a declaration . . . that
the accessory or equipment is for a container of foreign production which is an instrument of in-
ternational traffic.” 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(2).
While we agree that an “intermodal container used within a larger container, or used to
cross a river” meets this definition just as well “as those that traditionally cross an ocean,” quali-
fication for duty-free treatment as an “instrument of international traffic” under 19 C.F.R. §
10.41a remains contingent on the VoloX containers not being “diverted to point-to-point local
traffic within the United States,” and they must generally “exit[] the United States within 365
days;” the importer must otherwise “promptly notify” CBP. They “are required to be accounted
for when imported and exported into and out of the United States.” U.S. Note 4, Subchapter 98-
III, HTSUS. 13 Nevertheless, they may alternatively qualify under Subheading 9803.00.50 as
“substantial containers . . . of foreign production and previously imported and duty . . . thereon
paid” after being formally entered. 14
11
See HQ 112627 (May 18, 1993) (“[R]euse means more than twice.”).
12
“In ordinary usage the statement that an article is specially constructed for a particular purpose means merely that
it includes features which adapt it for that purpose, and the purpose in question need not be the sole one served by
the article and may not even be the principal one.” Plus Computing Machines, Inc. v. United States, 44 C.C.P.A.
160, 161 (1957). As explained and pictured above, they “are designed to be efficiently nested within standard inter-
national shipping containers, and then unpacked and integrated into different transportation modalities for ‘last mile’
domestic freight transportation.” Cf. Northwest Equip. v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1323–24 (C.I.T.
2010) (“They are thus suitable for the ‘door-to-door’ transport of goods without intermediate repacking.”) (quoting
E.N. 86.09, HSC).
13
We take no position on the relevance of the “smart technology” to satisfying this requirement.
14
You state that “VoloX Containers are currently classified under HTSUS 8609.00.0000,” but for being instruments
of international traffic. We designated similarly classified metal “pallet cubes” as IITs in HQ H350250 (Sept. 2,
2025). A “container” for the purposes of HTSUS 9803 is in some respects narrower than HTSUS 8609. Pac.
Northwest Equip. v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1325 (C.I.T. 2010) (noting that the Convention is limited
to containers that are “fully or partially enclosed to constitute a compartment.”).
7
HOLDING:
The VoloX containers qualify for treatment as instruments of international traffic within
the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1322(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 10.41a(a)(1).
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 incor-
porated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and com-
plete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a {CBP} field office 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 articles vary from
the facts stipulated to herein, or CBP ascertains discrepancies based upon a review of any other
pertinent information, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R. §§
177.2(b), 177.9(b).
Sincerely yours,
W. Richmond Beevers, Chief
Cargo Security, Carriers, and Restricted
Merchandise Branch
Office of Trade, Regulations & Rulings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
8