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 > 1996 HQ Rulings > HQ 951324 - HQ 953403 > HQ 951935

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 951935




SEPTEMBER 1, 1992

CLA-2:CO:R:C:M 951935 JAS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 8705.90.00, HTSUS

Mr. Ken Bokor
Blowhard Pneumatic Manufacturing Inc.
111B Robin Crescent
Saskatoon, SK. S7L 6M3

RE: Pneumatic Conveyor Incorporated Into Pickup Truck; Pneumatic Conveyor Vehicle; Truck-Powered Blowing Apparatus

Dear Mr. Bokor:

In your letter of May 11, 1992, as supplemented, you inquire as to the tariff classification of what you describe as a mobile pneumatic conveyor unit from Canada. Descriptive literature and drawings were submitted. Our ruling follows.

FACTS:

The apparatus referred to as a pick-up powered pneumatic conveyor consists of a product injector, blower and hydraulic system all bolted to the back of an F-350 Ford pick-up truck purchased from a Canadian dealer. The vehicle, designated a mobile conveyor unit, is then returned to the Customs territory. It is designed for the on-site handling of dry bulk materials.

In Canada, the truck's driveshaft is replaced with a custom-made driveshaft to power the positive displacement blower and hydraulic pump. The front fuel tank is replaced by a fuel tank built into the conveyor's structure. The blower and pump hydraulics are cooled by a special fan and oil cooler installed in front of the truck engine. The truck's electrical system powers the conveyor's fuse/distribution box. You state that two hundred man hours are required to install the system and ninety percent of the components added in Canada are of Canadian origin. You do not indicate whether there are any components of third country origin. - 2 -

ISSUE:

Whether the Blowhard mobile conveyor unit is a special purpose motor vehicle for tariff purposes.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 states in part that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, and provided the headings or notes do not require otherwise, according to GRIs 2 through 6.

The Harmonized Commodity Description And Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the Customs Cooperation Council's official interpretation of the Harmonized System. While not legally binding on the contracting parties, and therefore not dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the Harmonized System and are thus useful in ascertaining the classification of merchandise under the System. Customs believes the notes should always be consulted. See T.D. 89-80.

Heading 8705 is a provision for special purpose motor vehicles, other than those principally designed for the transport of persons or goods. Relevant ENs indicate that heading 8705 covers a range of motor vehicles specially constructed or adapted, equipped with various devices that enable them to perform certain non-transport functions, i.e., the primary purpose of a vehicle of this heading is not the transport of persons or goods. Snow-blowers with built-in equipment, that is, vehicles constructed solely for snow clearance are listed as examples of vehicles of heading 8705. Such vehicles are compellingly analogous to the vehicle in issue.

HOLDING:

Under the authority of GRI 1, the Blowhard mobile conveyor unit is provided for in heading 8705. Actual classification is in subheading 8705.90.00, HTSUS, other special purpose motor vehicles. If qualifying as an originating good under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988, the rate of duty on the vehicle is 2.2 percent ad valorem. - 3 -

The matter has been referred to the Special Classification Branch for a separate ruling on the tariff consequences of the processing operations in Canada.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: