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 0088234 - HQ 0088312 > HQ 0088234

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 088234


April 16, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088234 AJS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 682.25

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
Port of Los Angeles
300 South Ferry St.
Terminal Island
Room 2017
San Pedro, CA 90731

RE: Protest No. 2704-87-002221; voice coil motors; item 682.25; 676.54; The Admiral Division of Magic Chef, Inc. v. United States; Nootka Packing Co. v. United States; Tariff Classification Study of 1960; Customs Cooperation Council, Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature; Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia; United States v. A.W. Fenton Company, Inc.; Digital Equipment Corp. v. United States.

Dear District Director:

Protest for further review number 2704-87-002221 dated 07/01/87, was filed against the classification of certain voice coil positioning devices.

FACTS:

The subject article is a voice coil positioning device, also known as a voice coil motor, and is similar to a stepping motor. Both motors are a type of linear motor used to raise and lower the recording head of a hard disk drive. Voice coil motors are used on 8 inch and 14 inch drives and on some high capacity 5 1/4 inch drives. Faster than stepper motors they allow closed loop positioning of the head over the track where data is to be written or read. Voice coil motors are under constant magnetic force and require a dedicated close loop servo mechanism. That system feeds back track location data from the dedicated servo surface to position the read/write transducers in the heads.

ISSUE:

Whether the subject voice coil motor is properly classifiable within item 682.25, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), which provides for electric motors; or classifiable within item 676.54, TSUS, as parts of magnetic disk drives.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Item 682.25, TSUS, provides eo nomine for motors. The subject voice coil motor is a type of linear motor used to raise and lower the recording head of a hard disk drive. An eo nomine designation includes all forms of the article, absent contrary intent by Congress or some conflicting administrative practice or judicial authority. The Admiral Division of Magic Chef, Inc. v. United States, No. 86-10-01342, slip. op. 9 (CIT Dec. 12, 1990), citing Nootka Packing Co. v. United States, 22 CCPA 464, 469, T.D. 47464 (1935). Motors are not defined by the TSUS. Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the legislative history and other extrinsic sources to determine the common meaning of the subject article. One source of legislative history of the TSUS is the Tariff Classification Study of 1960, which does not provide a definition of motors. Study at 303. Another source of legislative history is the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature, which includes linear motors within the description of motors. Section XVI, 85.01(II)(B). Linear motors are also described as a type of motor by extrinsic sources. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia (VN), 7th ed., vol. II, p. 1906, 2693 (1988). Therefore, linear motors come within the common meaning of the term "motor". Accordingly, the voice coil motor is properly classifiable within item 682.25, TSUS, as a type of motor.

Counsel claims that item 682.25, TSUS, only covers rotary motors, and cites United States v. A.W. Fenton Company Inc., 49 CCPA 45 (1962), in support of this claim. This case dealt with the issue of whether a device was "more than" a motor. It did not discuss the issue of whether a linear motor was a motor. Accordingly, we do not find this case applicable in the resolution of this protest.

Counsel additionally cites Digital Equipment Corp. v. United States, Appeal No. 89-1438 (November 1989), in support of their protest. This case held that a computer power supply which possessed additional functions beyond that of a rectifier or rectifying apparatus and could not be classifiable as such. In this protest, however, the voice coil motors do not possess any features or functions beyond that of a linear motor. Accordingly, the rationale of Digital does not exclude the subject voice coil motor from classification as a motor.

Item 676.54, TSUS, provides for parts of automatic data processing machines. Counsel claims the subject motor is properly classifiable within this item number. The subject motor will be used solely or chiefly as a part of a hard disk drive. However, a parts provision does not prevail over a specific provision for such parts. General Interpretative Rule 10(ij). Item 682.25, TSUS, is such a specific provision. Accordingly, the subject motor is precluded from classification within item 676.54, TSUS.

HOLDING:

The subject voice coil motor is classifiable within item 682.25, TSUS, which provides for motors. The protest should be denied in full and a copy of this letter should be attached to the Customs Form 19 Notice of Action and forwarded to the protestant.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling