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 > 1997 NY Rulings > NY 887222 - NY 887398 > NY 887283

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 887283




June 18, 1993

CLA-2-83:S:N:N3:113 887283

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 8302.41.6060

Mr. E. Hoedemaker
Gro-tec Greenhouse Systems, Inc.
26045 62nd Avenue
R.R.1, Aldergrove
British Columbia, Canada VOX 1AO

RE: The tariff classification of Springlocks from Canada

Dear Mr. Hoedemaker:

In your letter dated June 2, 1993, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The merchandise is a "Springlock." The item is used to secure polyethylene film or shade producing fabrics to commercial greenhouse structures. The Springlock consists of a steel channel about 1 1/4 inches in width and 12 feet in length which is fastened by screws over the top of the gable arches and along the ground sills. There is a wire spring in the channel to secure the film or fabric.

The applicable subheading for the Springlock will be 8302.41.6060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for base metal mountings and fittings and similar articles ... suitable for buildings ... of iron or steel, of aluminum or zinc, other. The rate of duty will be 5.7 percent ad valorem.

Goods classifiable under subheading 8302.41.6060, HTS, which have originated in the territory of Canada, will be entitled to a 2.8 rate of duty under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) upon compliance with all applicable regulations.

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

See also: