United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0081095 - HQ 0084712 > HQ 0084296

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 084296


October 10, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 084296 CMS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 685.90

District Director Of Customs
423 Canal Street, Ste. 337
New Orleans, LA 70130-2341

RE: Protest For Further Review No. 2002-6000319; Microprocessor Based Control Units For Microwave Ovens

Dear Sir:

This Protest was filed against your liquidation dated March 21, 1986, in which certain microwave oven control panels imported by Toshiba Corp. were classified as control panels in Item 685.90, TSUS.

FACTS:

The merchandise consists of three models of "microprocessor controlled timer units" for microwave ovens. The articles are assemblies of integrated circuit boards mounted on metal chassis, and incorporate microprocessors, LED indicators, relay wiring, membrane touch pads used to activate oven functions, and other elements which assist in the programming of oven functions.

All three models feature programmable power level and time settings. The microprocessors incorporate independent minute timers. The LED's and beepers indicate cooking time, power level, time remaining and the lapsing of the preset time. The intermediate model additionally has a temperature probe and features automatic defrost, programmable power level and automatic shutoff according to the internal temperature of the food being heated or cooked. The advanced model additionally features heat, hold and memory settings. The memory setting can be used to program the oven to perform up to four consecutive functions, and to delay the start of cooking for a preset time.

ISSUE:

Is the merchandise classified as control panels in Item 685.90, or as parts of electro-thermic household appliances in Item 684.28?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Microwave oven control units have been the subject of several headquarters rulings. In HQ Ruling 554010 (April 8, 1986), currently under appeal with Court of International Trade, the merchandise consisted of microwave oven "microprocessor/oven control/timer units". The units incorporated a probe thermostat function, timer function and clock function. We found that all the units' principal components worked to the same end which was the electrical control of microwave ovens. We held that the units were classified in Item 685.90 as control panels. Even the automatic functions of the articles were performed at the direction of the operator. The purpose of the units was to permit the operator to control the quantity of heat produced by the oven for a given period of time.

Similarly, we held in HQ Ruling 067551 (February 5, 1982), that microwave oven panels incorporating microprocessors, touch pads for programming cooking time and temperature, a clock and beeper were classified as control panels in Item 685.90. See also HQ Ruling 071563 (March 7, 1985), and HQ Ruling 071823 (March 20, 1985), where microprocessor based programmable controllers were classified as control panels in Item 685.90.

The protestor presents three arguments as to why the articles should not be classified as control panels: 1) the articles are not described as "control panels", 2) the articles are "more than" control panels, and 3) classification of the articles as control panels "violates an established and uniform practice of the Customs Service".

The first argument relies on the Explanatory Notes to Heading 85.19 of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature (BTN). The protestor states that TSUS Item 685.90 "is derived from, and tracks" the language of BTN Heading 85.19. The protestor interprets the BTN Explanatory Notes to define control panels as articles which contain "componentry which would be separately classifiable as simple electrical apparatus" (emphasis added).

The same argument was considered and rejected in HQ Ruling 554010, supra, which stated "[a]lthough the components are apparently more sophisticated than those given by the Brussels Nomenclature as some examples of the apparatus within an assembly, they do no more than simply permit operations that are fundamental to a control panel." An eo nomine designation generally includes all forms of an article. T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. et al. v. United States, 44 CCPA 60, C.A.D. 638 (1957).

Further, tariff acts are made for the future as well as the present and are intended to embrace new articles not in existence at the time of passage, as long as the articles possess an essential resemblance to the characteristics as described by the tariff provision. Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 1 CIT 236, 518 F. Supp. 1341 (1981), aff'd. 673 F. 2d 1375. The "control panels" under consideration possess an essential resemblance to the control panels described by Item 685.90. The article description for Item 685.90 does not limit "control panels" to those comprised of certain specific electrical components. Additionally, microprocessors and the "simple electrical apparatus" described by Item 685.90 are electrical articles; microprocessor based control panels are essentially an improvement over control panels comprised of "simple electrical apparatus".

The protestor cites HQ Rulings 071434 (October 20, 1983), and 067915 (August 23, 1982) for the position that dedicated integrated circuitry incorporating a substantial portion of the machine controlled is not a "control panel". The rulings cited are inapposite. In Ruling 071434 the merchandise was a ROM software cartridge. The Ruling simply found that the cartridge was more than an integrated circuit and was thus classified as a part of a computer. The question of whether an article with control functions was classified as an Item 685.90 "control panel" was neither discussed nor decided. Ruling 067915 is inapplicable because the merchandise there merely performed signal "integration" and "translation", not control functions. The control panels under consideration do not contain any components which heat or cook food, and do not incorporate a substantial portion of the ovens they control.

The second argument presented by the protestor is that the microwave controllers are "more than" control panels because they incorporate components which transform the merchandise into something more than control panels. However, a TSUS Item 685 article is not "more than" that article when it has auxiliary components, or components which are primarily and directly related to the function of the TSUS Item 685 article. Craig Corporation v. United States, 75 Cust. Ct. 161, 162, (2 cases) (1975). The thermostat, timer, clock and memory features of the microwave controllers do no more than simply permit operations which are fundamental to an Item 685.90 control panel. Where merchandise has a primary function and an incidental, subordinate, or secondary function, it will be classified on the basis of its primary design, construction and function. The Ashflash Corporation v. United States, 76 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 4643, 412 F. Supp. 585 (1976).

The protestor cites Harper Wyman Co. v. United States, 1 CIT 108 (1981), Fedtro, Inc. v. United States, 449 F. 2d 1395 (CCPA 1971), and All Channel Products Corp. v. United States, 1 CIT 128 (1981), in support of the position that the controllers are "more than" control panels. The cited cases are inapposite. The question in the three cases was whether assemblies of switches with other articles were more than switches. Control panels by their very nature are assemblies of several components which can perform functions more diverse than switching. Unlike the merchandise in the three cited cases, the microwave controllers under consideration are assemblies which are not transformed into something more than control panels. The various components which comprise the assemblies do no more than permit operations fundamental to control panels.

The third argument submitted by the protestor is that there is a "uniform and established practice" of classifying protestor's merchandise as parts of microwave ovens, and this practice cannot be changed without providing certain notice and satisfying other requirements provided for in the Customs Regulations. The protestor states that the basis for the "uniform and established practice" is the past treatment of the protestor's merchandise at the Port of New Orleans.

The protestor has not established the existence of a uniform and established practice by merely relying on the treatment of one importer's entries at one port. More substantial treatments of entries have not resulted in the finding of uniform and established practices, e.g., United States v. H. Reeve Angel & Co., Inc., 33 CCPA 114 (1946) (2 importers' entries at 2 ports); Siemens America, Inc., et al. v. United States, 2 CIT 136, aff'd. 692 F. 2d 1382 (1981) (a classification ruling letter and 100 subsequent entries); Washington Handle Co. v. United States, 34 CCPA 80 (1946) (28 shipments at 2 ports).

The articles under consideration are described as Item 685.90 "control panels". The articles are not "more than" control panels. The protestor has not established the existence of a uniform and established practice for the classification of the microprocessor controlled timer units as parts of microwave ovens in Item 684.28, TSUS.

HOLDING:

The "microprocessor controlled timer units" are classified as control panels in Item 685.90, TSUS. A similar issue is pending in the Court of International Trade in Motorola, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 88-08-00577. You may choose to withold
action on the protest pending the outcome of the Motorola case. If you choose to act at this time the protest should be denied and a copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19 Notice of Action.

Sincerely,


Previous Ruling Next Ruling