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 NY Rulings > NY 0851367 - NY 0851461 > NY 0851445

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



NY 851445


April 24, 1990

CLA-2-95:S:N:N3D:225-851445

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 9503.90.6000

Mr. Yasuo Motoyoshi
Motoyoshi Associates
17950 Jacquard Path
Lakeville, Mn. 55044

RE: The tariff classification of an adult computer toy from Japan.

Dear Mr. Motoyoshi:

In your letter dated March 19, 1990, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

Submitted with your inquiry was a sample of a hand held adult computer toy, model number U-100, known as "Astro V". The article is housed within a plastic triangular outer casing with a snap closure design. The mechanism is chip operated and is designed to "predict" horoscopes, your love life, wealth, fame, compatibility and a variety of other functions. Each major function has seven additional sub-functions.

The face of the computer has a plastic screen that acts as a "mood indicator". The pink and blue colors reflected on the screen move and shift according to the emotions produced by manipulating the mechanism. Additionally, on the face of the mechanism are buttons for indicating significant dates and astrological signs.

The applicable subheading for the adult computer toy will be 9503.90.6000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other toys (except models), not having a spring mechanism. The duty rate will be 6.8 percent ad valorem.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling