HQ 088888

March 24, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 088888 CMS

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 8431.20.00

Frederick L. Ikenson, Esq.

1621 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009

RE: HQ Ruling 087775, Reconsideration; Load Rollers; Fork

Lift Trucks; Parts; Wheels; Guide; Tires; Ball and Roller

Bearings; Antifriction; Mast; Subheading 8482.10.00

Dear Mr. Ikenson:

This is in response to your request on behalf of Federal-

Mogul Corporation, dated March 8, 1991, for the reconsideration

of HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991).

FACTS:

HQ Ruling 087775 held that certain products described as

\"load rollers\" were classified as parts of fork lift trucks in

Heading 8431, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS).

The products consist of steel tires into which assemblies

containing rolling elements are incorporated. The tires are

designed to turn in the channels of fork lift mast uprights.

The products are manufactured in two configurations. The

first configuration is comprised of a separate, reinforced tire

into which inner and outer rings containing rolling elements are

installed. The steel tire of the second configuration is

manufactured integrally with the outer ring section it

incorporates.

ISSUE:

Is the merchandise classified under the HTSUS as parts of

fork lift trucks in Heading 8431, or as ball bearings in Heading

8482?

-2-

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Customs Treatment Of The Products

On November 3, 1983, Customs issued HQ Ruling 070878, which

held that the fork lift mast products with separate, reinforced

steel tires were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the

United States (TSUS) as parts of other lifting, handling, loading

or unloading machinery, and not as ball bearings. We found that

the products functioned as guide wheels.

In NY Ruling 841216 (June 8, 1989), Customs found under the

HTSUS that the products were not classified as ball bearings and

that the products were wheels. Because of interpretative changes

brought about by the Harmonized System, the products were held to

be classified as parts of fork lift trucks, instead of in the

more general provision for parts of other lifting and handling

machinery.

In NY Ruling 842150 (June 19, 1989), Customs ruled on the

integral tire variation of the product. This ruling was based

primarily on a physical observation of the product which was

held to be classified as a ball bearing. The National Import

Specialist who prepared the ruling subsequently acknowledged that

upon a closer examination of the article, including its function,

this determination was incorrect and the ruling should not have

been issued. This ruling did not reference NY Ruling 841216 or

HQ Ruling 070878, and had no legal effect on that line of

rulings.

HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991) resolved any question

which may have existed, by revoking the incorrect NY Ruling

842150 and bringing the classification of the integral tire

variation in line with the position Customs had maintained since

1983\.

In your submission, reference is made to a letter from

Customs dated October 19, 1989, which discussed the product in

the context of the scope of an antidumping case. However, this

letter was not a classification ruling, and it has been

determined that antidumping scope matters do not affect Customs

classification determinations. Royal Business Machines, Inc. v.

United States, et al., 1 CIT 80, 87 (CIT, 1980), 507 F. Supp.

1007, aff\'d. 669 F. 2d 692 (Fed. Cir., 1982).

-3-

Form and Function

HQ Ruling 087775 found that the products had the physical

and functional character of complete wheels. It is common

knowledge that many wheels incorporate and turn on bearing

components (e.g., roller skate wheels). The radial bearing

components (balls, grooved races, spacing cage) within a wheel

might themselves be described as bearings, but the wheels as a

whole are not mere bearings. Many lifting and handling machines

use wheels that turn on tracks and are considered by the HTSUS

and lexicographic authority to be \"wheels\" or \"rollers\" and not

\"bearings\".

It is contended that the products have the form and function

of bearings and that Customs did not look to lexicographic

sources it ordinarily relies on in deciding bearing issues.

While Customs routinely looks to lexicographic authorities,

we do not always quote from or cite every authority used when

deciding every ruling.

In many instances, Customs looks to the McGraw-Hill

Encyclopedia of Science and Technology for descriptions of

products that go beyond dictionary definitions. In Vol. 1, p.

638 of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology,

6th Ed. (1987), bearings and wheels are discussed. It is stated

that wheels perform some antifriction function and that bearings

use this principle, but wheels and bearings are not equated and

some bearings are described that are used in wheels. It is

stated:

The wheelbarrow, the two-wheeled baggage truck, and

similar devices are striking examples of the reduction

in friction by the use of the wheel. \...This principle

is used in the rolling-element bearing which has found

wide use.

The first major application of these bearings was to

the bicycle\...

The use of bearings in bicycles is also addressed in the

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory

Notes to Heading 8482, the heading that describes ball bearings.

The Explanatory Notes to Heading 8482, p. 1325, provide that

\"\[t\]he heading does not cover machinery parts incorporating

ball\...bearings \...\[including\]\...Bicycle hubs (heading 87.14)\".

Thus, under the HTSUS, a bearing would not have to be assembled

with a complete wheel for the assembly to be classified as a

product other than a Heading 8482 bearing.

-4-

Even closer to the \"load rollers\" under consideration are

complete wheels or rollers, especially those that turn in the

guide rails or tracks of the lifting and handling machinery

described in Headings 8426 to 8428 (fork lift trucks are

described in Heading 8427 as works trucks fitted with lifting and

handling equipment). Such wheels and rollers are referenced in

the Explanatory Notes to Heading 8426, p. 1194 (e.g., \"wheels,

rollers, pulleys, running or guide rails, etc.\"; see also

Explanatory Notes to Heading 8428, p. 1197).

The Explanatory Notes to Heading 8426, p. 1195, describe

transporter cranes that use hoisting trolleys running along

beams. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia, supra, Vol. 11, p. 376,

describes a materials handling machine that uses a hoisting

trolley travelling on an \"I\" beam. It is stated that the

circular articles that are mounted in the trolley and roll along

the beam are not ball bearings, but are \"wheels\". It is stated

that the \"\[w\]heels mounted in trolleys ride on the flange of the

track\...\" (emphasis added).

Like the \"I\" beams of other lifting and handling machinery,

fork lift masts may also be of \"I\" beam construction, and fork

lift \"load rollers\" may be designed to turn on \"I\" beams. See

Exhibit 7, ruling requestor\'s March 8, 1991 submission, \"Liftall\"

literature; Exhibit 10, May 6, 1991 submission, documents 1 & 2).

Some materials handling systems with trolleys may use idler

wheels, drive wheels and guide wheels that roll on the side of

the track.

In connection with gravity conveyor machines for

transporting materials and objects, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia,

supra, Vol. 4, p. 397, describes the circular articles used to

handle \"Rolling friction\" not as bearings, but as: \"Wheel,

Roller, Spiral Wheel, Spiral Roller\" (emphasis added). Further,

wheels used in materials handling machinery are not limited to

those that turn on beams. For example, \"\[a\]erial tramways and

cableways employ the use of a cab or carrier suspended by a

grooved wheel on an overhead cable\" (emphasis added). McGraw-

Hill Encyclopedia, supra, Vol. 3, p. 101.

As previously noted, fork lift trucks are described in

Heading 8427 as works trucks fitted with lifting and handling

equipment. Articles that are classified as parts of fork lift

trucks are provided for in Heading 8431, where the \"load rollers\"

under consideration were classified. The Explanatory Notes to

Heading 8431, p. 1207, also describe rolling products that

frequently incorporate bearing elements (e.g., \"rollers\" for

conveyors).

-5-

Marketing Considerations

An extensive review has been made of marketing literature

and statements made by bearing and fork lift manufacturers and

suppliers, including the extensive materials provided with the

request for reconsideration. This review indicates that the

products are referred to by many names, including \"load rollers\",

\"wheels\", \"bearings\", \"guide wheels\", \"mast guide bearings\" and

\"rollers\".

This situation is similar to that in Rollix Bearing, Inc v.

United States, 757 F. Supp. 1412 (CIT, 1991), where a question

was whether certain products were classified as bearings. One

party noted that the products were referred to as bearings and

large diameter bearings, and the other party noted that the

products were also known as ring gears, turntable bearings,

swing gears, swing circles, turntables, rotation gears and

rotation circles. The Court noted the tariff classification

principle referred to by the plaintiff, that the marketing of a

product is not determinative of its tariff classification.

Venaire Shade Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 469, 472,

C.D. 4235 (1971).

In Rollix Bearing, Inc., supra, the products were similar in

physical construction to a radial ball bearing, having an outer

ring, rolling elements and an inner ring that was manufactured

with gear teeth. The Court found that antifriction was only one

of the functions of the products and the products were not

classified as bearings under the TSUS.

There may be no direct analogy between the products in

Rollix Bearing, Inc. and the \"load rollers\" under consideration.

However, the argument that the tires of the \"load rollers\" are

merely bearing races of special design, formed to allow the

product to function in the machines for which they are designed,

is not much different from asserting that a geared inner ring is

merely a bearing race of special design, formed to allow it to

function in the machine for which it was designed (a concept

rejected by the Court in Rollix Bearing, Inc.).

Although marketing may not be determinative of tariff

classification, it is interesting to note that in what might be

the most detailed name attached to the \"load rollers\" in company

literature, the product is referred to not as a ball bearing, but

as an assembly in which a bearing is just one component (i.e., an

\"Integral Load Roller And Bearing Assembly\", May 6, 1991,

submission, Exhibit 10, documents 1 and 2).

-6-

Miscellaneous Arguments

It is stated that Customs violated section 502(b) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1502(b)), because HQ Ruling 087775

was not issued in concurrence with the Attorney General, the

Court of International Trade or a certain binational panel.

In Joanna Western Mills Company v. United States, 311 F.

Supp. 1328 (Cust. Ct., 1970), the Court found that section 502(b)

was not intended to benefit any class of individuals or persons,

including the plaintiff. It was also found that the reference to

the concurrence of the Attorney General was directory, not

mandatory.

You also argue that Customs had a \"fixation\" on what is

described as the \"wheel concept\". The key element of the

argument is apparently that Customs had a \"fixation\" on the fact

that the outer part of the product rotated around the inner part.

May 6, 1991, submission, p. 7. Customs had no such \"fixation\".

All aspects of the product were considered, including their

similarity to articles used in lifting and handling machinery.

Several arguments are made in the context of the \"wheel

concept\" notion. Reference is made to \"slide mechanisms\" which

do not have an outer part rotating around an inner part. The

analogy between \"slide mechanisms\" and \"load rollers, however, is

misplaced; the \"slide mechanisms\" are linear bearings which have

no rotating races and no separate or integral outer tires at all.

An extensive discussion is also provided regarding products

described as cam followers. Cam followers, however, primarily

follow the curved surfaces of cams in the wide variety of

machines that use cams (e.g., engines, manufacturing machinery,

packaging machinery, typesetting machinery, machine tools). The

\"load rollers\" are much more similar to the wheels, including

guide wheels, that turn on \"I\" beams and other beams, tracks and

channels, specifically in lifting and handling machinery.

Concerning antidumping, the May 6, 1991, submission, p. 17,

cites Diversified Products Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 155, 572

F. Supp. 883 (1983), a case that sets forth criteria used by the

Department of Commerce in making antidumping scope

determinations. It is suggested on p. 18 of the submission that

Customs use a \"modified Diversified Products analysis\" in the

course of its tariff classification determination.

-7-

As you are aware, antidumping scope and tariff

classification have fundamental differences. Antidumping scope

does not affect tariff classification. The Court of

International Trade has stated:

The Court distinguishes between the authority

of the Customs Service to classify according to tariff

classifications (19 U.S.C. 1500) and the power of the

agencies administering the antidumping law to determine

a class or kind of merchandise. The determinations

under the antidumping law may properly result in the

creation of classes which do not correspond to

classifications found in the tariff schedules or may

define or modify a known classification in a manner not

contemplated or desired by the Customs Service.

Royal Business Machines, Inc., et al. v. U.S., 1 CIT at 87,

n\. 18

Conclusion

After careful consideration of all aspects of this issue, we

have concluded that under the classification system of the HTSUS,

the fork lift \"load rollers\" are not described or classified as

ball bearings in Heading 8482. Customs is unpersuaded that the

products should be classified in a provision other than the

Heading 8431 provision for parts suitable for certain materials

handling machinery, including the fork lift trucks of Heading

8427\. HQ Ruling 087775 properly classified the merchandise in

Heading 8431, pursuant to Section XVI Note 2(b).

HOLDING:

HQ Ruling 087775 (January 17, 1991) properly classified the

merchandise as parts of fork lift trucks in subheading

8431.20.00, HTSUS, and is affirmed.

Sincerely,

Harvey B. Fox, Director

Office of Regulations and Rulings