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 > 2007 HQ Rulings > HQ H014778 - HQ H015905 > HQ H014942

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ H014942




October 17, 2007

CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H014942 HkP

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 7326.20.0070

Ms. Tamra S. Nelson
Import Supervisor
Targus, Inc.
1211 N. Miller Street
Anaheim, CA 92806

RE: Tariff classification of the “Targus Ergonomic M-Stand for Notebooks”

Dear Ms. Nelson:

This is in response to your request, received by the National Commodity Specialist Division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) on May 7, 2007, in which you requested a binding ruling on behalf of Targus, Inc. At issue is the proper classification of the “Targus Ergonomic M-Stand for Notebooks” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Your request was returned to you with a request for additional information. On June 22, 2007, CBP received the requested information, including a sample, from you. Your request was forwarded to this office for a response.

FACTS:

The stand at issue measures 7.09 x 11.02 x 7.87 inches and is made of a continuous length of bent heavy-duty steel wire that is coated with poly vinyl (plastic). It weighs approximately 1.8 pounds. The stand has no moving parts and is not adjustable.

It is your contention that the stand is properly classified in subheading 8473.30.9100, HTSUSA, as a part or accessory of the machines of heading 8471 because the stand is specifically designed for use with laptop computers and is designed to improve air circulation around the computer so that it does not overheat. You also claim that the stand can hold a user’s keyboard when not in use.

ISSUE:

What is the correct classification of the laptop computer stand?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order.

The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:

7326 Other articles of iron or steel:
7326.20.00 Articles of iron or steel wire .. 7326.20.0070 Other ..

8304.00.0000 Desk-top filing or card-index cabinets, paper trays, paper rests, pen trays, office stamp stands and similar office or desk equipment and parts thereof, of base metal, other than office furniture of heading 9403 ..

8473 Parts and accessories (Other than covers, carrying cases and the like) suitable for use solely or principally with machines of heading 8469 to 8472: 8473.30 Parts and accessories of the machines of heading 8471: 8473.30.9100 Other ..

The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the official interpretation of the HTSUS. While not legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings at the international level. See T.D. 89-80.

EN 84.73 provides, in relevant part:

Subject to the general provisions regarding the classification of parts (see the General Explanatory Note to Section XVI), this heading covers parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of headings 84.69 to 84.72.

The accessories covered by this heading are interchangeable parts or devices designed to adapt a machine for a particular operation, or to perform a particular service relative to the main function of the machine, or to increase its range of operations.

But the heading excludes covers, carrying cases and felt pads; these are classified in their appropriate headings. It also excludes articles of furniture whether or not specially designed for office use (heading 94.03). However, stands for machines of headings 84.69 to 84.72 not normally usable except with the machines in question, remain in this heading.

It is your contention that the stand at issue is specifically designed for use with laptop computers and that its design improves air circulation which helps to keep a computer from overheating. As such, you believe that the stand should be classified under heading 8473, HTSUS, which provides for, among other things, parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of heading 8471. In relevant part, heading 8471, HTSUS, provides for automatic data processing (“ADP”) machines. We assume for the purposes of this ruling that a laptop computer conforms to the definition of an ADP machine of heading 8471, as defined by Note 5(A) to Chapter 84, HTSUS.

The courts have considered the nature of “parts” under the HTSUS and two distinct though not inconsistent tests have resulted. (See Bauerhin Technologies Limited Partnership, & John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States, (“Bauerhin”) 110 F.3d 774 (“We conclude that these cases are not inconsistent and must be read together.” At 779)). The first, articulated in United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, (“Willoughby Camera”) 21 C.C.P.A. 322 (1933) requires a determination of whether the imported item is “an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article.” At 324. The second requires a determination of whether the imported item is dedicated solely for use with the article in question. United States v. Pompeo, (“Pompeo”) 43 C.C.P.A. 9 (1955).

In a fact situation such as this, the courts have applied the test in Pompeo (see discussion in Bauerhin) stated above and CBP must do the same. The subject merchandise consists of a continuous length of bent heavy-duty steel wire coated with plastic. It has no moving parts and is not adjustable. In addition, the stand does not have ports, a security cable, keyboard holder, wrist gel pads, or similar features. Based on these facts, we can find no indication that the stand is dedicated solely (or principally) for use with ADP machines. It can easily and equally be used to hold, for example, a book or papers. Accordingly, because we can find no indication of dedicated use, we find that the stand is not a “part”, as defined in Pompeo.

The courts have also considered the nature of “accessories”, and have found that although the HTSUS does not define the term “accessory”, “the language of the HTSUS reflects the common understanding that accessories must be ‘of’ or ‘to’ another thing.” Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States (“Rollerblade”), 116 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (CIT 2000), aff’d 282 F.3d 1349, 1351 (C.A.F.C. 2002). The Court of Appeals clarified that an accessory “must be ‘of’ or ‘to’ the article listed in the heading, not ‘of’ or ‘to’ the activity for which the article is used.” Rollerblade, 282 F.3d 1349, 1351. Applying this definition to the article under consideration, we find that the stand fulfils the definition of an “accessory” for a laptop ADP machine. However, the language of heading 8473, HSTUS, imposes the additional requirement that accessories of the heading, like parts, be suitable for use “solely or principally” with the machines of heading 8471. As was stated above, there is no indication that the stand under consideration fulfils this requirement. For this reason, we find that the stand is not an accessory provided for in heading 8473.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the Targus M-Stand is precluded from classification in heading 8473, HTSUS, because it is neither a part nor an accessory suitable for use solely or principally with machines of heading 8471, HTSUS. Our finding is consistent with the explanation given in EN 84.73 that “stands for machines of [heading 8471] not normally usable except with the machines in question, remain in heading [8473].”

Heading 8304, HTSUS, an eo nomine provision, provides for, among other things, desk-top filing or card-index cabinets, paper trays, paper rests, pen trays, office stamp stands and similar office or desk equipment of base metal. EN 83.04 explains that the heading includes “paper rests for typists, desk racks and shelving, and desk equipment (such as book-ends, paperweights, ink-stands and ink-pots, pen trays, office stamp stands and blotters). “ The Court of International Trade (CIT) has stated that the canon of construction ejusdem generis, which means literally, “of the same class or kind,” teaches that “where particular words of description are followed by general terms, the latter will be regarded as referring to things of a like class with those particularly described.” Nissho-Iwai American Corp. v. United States (Nissho), 10 CIT 154, 156 (1986). “As applicable to classification cases, ejusdem generis requires that the imported merchandise possess the essential characteristics or purposes that unite the articles enumerated eo nomine in order to be classified under the general terms.” Id. at 157.

CBP has long held that the essential character of articles of heading 8304, HTSUS, is that they are used to hold desk or office articles such as paper, pens, and office stamps. See, for e.g., HQ 089415, November 7, 1991. A search on the Internet reveals that the desk racks and shelving mentioned in EN 83.04 (the articles most like the stand at issue) are self-contained units used to store papers and small objects that are usually found on an office desk. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, we now find that the stand is not classifiable in heading 8304, HTSUS, because it is not provided for by name and it is not similar to the named contents of that heading.

The stand is a composite good, consisting of steel and plastic components. GRI 3(b) directs that composite goods consisting of different materials shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character. EN (VIII) to GRI 3(b) explains that the factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods. After considering the stand at issue, we find that its essential character is imparted by the steel wire by virtue of its bulk, weight, and role in relation to the use of the stand. Accordingly, we find that the stand is provided for under heading 7326, HTSUS, as other articles of iron or steel. CBP has consistently classified generic stands with no dedicated function according to their constituent material. See, for e.g., NY H83766, dated August 3, 2001, in which the “MDO Monitor Stand/Organizer”, which had no features specifically dedicated to a computer monitor, was classified in subheading 4420.90.8000, HTSUSA, which provides for wooden articles of furniture not falling within chapter 94. See also NY R00276, dated May 14, 2004, in which a “cookbook holder” consisting of a wooden base, two pieces of steel wire and a plate of tempered glass was classified according to its essential character in subheading 4420.90.8000, HTSUSA, as a wooden article of furniture.

HOLDING:

By application of GRI 3(b), the Targus Ergonomic M-Stand for Notebooks is classified in heading 7326, HTSUS. It is specifically provided for in subheading 7326.20.0070, HTSUSA, which provides for: “Other articles of iron or steel: Articles of iron or steel wire: Other.” The 2007 column one, general rate of duty is 3.9% ad valorem.

Duty rates are provided for your convenience and subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the World Wide Web at www.usitc.gov.

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to entry documents filed at the time the goods are entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Gail A. Hamill, Chief
Tariff Classification and Marking Branch

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: