HQ H015186

October 17, 2008

**CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM** H015186 JER

**CATEGORY:** Classification

**TARIFF NO.:** 8466.93.15

Port Director

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1400

Long Beach, CA 90802

**RE:** Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-07-101025;
cast-iron parts for machine tools

Dear Port Director:

This is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review of
Protest No. 2704-07-101025, timely filed on behalf of Mazak Corporation
("Mazak"), concerning the classification of cast-iron parts for machine
tools under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
("HTSUS").

**FACTS:**

The subject merchandise consists of cast-iron components of machine
tools including beds, head stocks and carriages (or bases). The castings
are made by pouring molten iron into a mold. Once cooled and solidified,
the casting is removed from the mold by a shakeout machine and then
machined to remove fins, gates, sprues and risers. Finally, the castings
are coated with a rust inhibitor that consists mainly of epoxy resin,
pigment, impregnate and French chalk. According to the Protestant, the
purpose of the coating is to prevent rust from forming on the casting
during ocean transit. Absent the protective coating, the castings would
oxidize as a result of exposure to moisture and salt water. The coating
is permanent and is not removed after importation. The coating is
applied to the casting by either spraying or dipping.

The merchandise was entered on February 11, 2006, and classified under
subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS. On October 2, 2006, the Port issued a
Notice of Action notifying the importer that the merchandise has been
reclassified and would be liquidated under subheading 8466.93.53, HTSUS.
On October 27, 2006, the entry was liquidated under this subheading. The
importer filed a protest and an Application for Further Review ("AFR")
on April 24, 2007.

**ISSUE:\
**

Whether the subject merchandise is precluded from classification under
subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS.

**LAW AND ANALYSIS:**

Initially, we note that the matter protested is protestable under 19
U.S.C.

§ 1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely
filed on April 24, 2007, within 180 days of liquidation of the first
entry for entries made on or after December 18, 2004. (Miscellaneous
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub.L. 108-429, §
2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)
(2006)).

Further Review of Protest No. 2704-07-101025 was properly accorded to
protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24 because the decision against
which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling
of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee. Specifically, Protestant
alleges the action of the Port is inconsistent with Customs Ruling TC
423.37, dated August 11, 1967, Headquarters Ruling Letter ("HQ") 95489,
dated September 28, 1993, as well as with the decision in [Ross Machine
& Mill Supply, Inc. et al. v. United States]{.underline}, ("Ross
Machine") 69 Cust. Ct. 160 (1972), in which the court held that
"painting" cast-iron rollers for machines to protect them against
oxidation did not advance them beyond being cleaned.

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.

GRI 6 provides that the classification of goods in the subheadings of a
heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings
and any related subheading notes and, *mutatis mutandis*, to the above
rules, on the understanding that only those subheadings at the same
level are comparable.

The 2006 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:

8466 Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with
the machines of heading 8456 to 8465, including work or tool holders,
self-opening dieheads, dividing heads and other special attachments for
machine tools; tool holders for any type of tool for working in the
hand:

> Other:

8466.93 For machines of headings 8456 to 8461:

> Bed, base, table, head, tail, saddle, cradle, cross slide, column,
> arm, saw arm, wheelhead, tailstock, headstock, ram, frame, work-arbor
> support, and C-frame castings, weldments or fabrications:

8466.93.15 Cast-iron parts not advanced beyond cleaning, and machined
only for the removal of fins, gates, sprues and risers or to permit
location in finishing machinery.....

Other:

8466.93.53 Other....

The Port classified the machine tool castings in subheading 8466.93.53,
HTSUS, which provides for, in relevant part, parts and accessories
suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of headings
8456 to 8461, Other. Both the Protestant and the Port agree that the
subject merchandise is classifiable under subheading 8466.93, HTSUS. At
issue is whether the application of a rust preventative coating is a
process which precludes classification of the castings under subheading
8466.93.15, HTSUS.

Protestant argues that the merchandise at issue should be classified
under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, because:

> \(1\) Customs (CBP) and the Courts have previously ruled that coating
> iron castings for preservation is not an advancement but rather is in
> the same category as is the removal of fins, gates, spruces or risers;
> and (2) the process of coating castings for preservation is integral
> to the casting process and can be likened to stress relieving of
> castings which is considered not to be an advancement in Customs
> Ruling HQ 954989 of September 28, 1993.

In HQ 954989, CBP determined that "stress relieving" of castings was not
considered an advancement which would preclude classification in
subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS. However, the stress relieving process
occurs prior to the cooling process and prior to the coating process. As
such, we do not view HQ 954989 as applicable to the facts of the present
case.

In support of his position, counsel cites [Ross Machine]{.underline}
which concerned whether cast-iron rollers used in machines were properly
classified under the Tariff Schedule of the United States ("TSUS") item
680.60. Counsel notes the similarity of the language of that provision
to subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, and is of the view that the [Ross
Machine]{.underline} court's interpretation of TSUS item 680.60 is
persuasive in the instant case. In [Ross Machine]{.underline}, the Court
found that the application of a coating to prevent oxidation is not a
process that precludes the classification of cast-iron parts from the
TSUS item 680.60. In reaching this decision, the Court examined the
legislative intent behind item 680.60 by reviewing the relevant
legislative documents, including Customs Ruling 423.37, issued by CBP's
predecessor, the Bureau of Customs. In that ruling Customs stated:
"\[w\]e have decided that primer painting iron castings for preservation
is not processing which removes an article from classification under
item 692.24." Based on this and other legislative documents, the Court
found that: "the \[process\] of...painting \[was\] considered by the
Bureau of Customs as being in the same category of advancing a casting
as the removal of fins, gates, sprues or risers. It is therefore
apparent that what the Bureau did not consider as advancement in its
1967 ruling was not an advancement at the time of importation."
[Id]{.underline}. at 169.

Decisions by the Customs Service and the courts interpreting
nomenclature under the TSUS are not deemed dispositive in interpreting
the HTSUS. Nevertheless, on a case-by-case basis prior decisions should
be considered instructive in interpreting the HTSUS, particularly where
the nomenclature previously interpreted in those decisions remains
unchanged and no dissimilar interpretation is required by the text of
the HTSUS. Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, P.L. 100-418,
August 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1107, 1147; H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100^th^ Cong.,
2d Sess. 549-550 (1988) 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1582-1583. [See
also]{.underline}, [Hewlett-Packard Co. v. United States]{.underline},
189 F. 3d. 1346; 22 Ct. Int'l. Trade 514 (1999). In this instance, we
find the decision in [Ross Machine]{.underline} to be persuasive in the
classification of the machine tool parts at issue.

After a review of the information presented herein, we agree with the
Protestant and find that the application of a rust preventative coating
does not advance the subject castings so as to preclude classification
under subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS.

**HOLDING:**

By application of GRI 1, through the provisions of GRI 6, the cast-iron
parts for machine tools are classified under heading 8466, HTSUS. They
are specifically provided for in subheading 8466.93.15, HTSUS, which
provides for: "Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or
principally with the machines of headings 8456 to 8465, including work
or tool holders, self opening dieheads, dividing heads and other special
attachments for machine tools; tool holders for any type of tool for
working in the hand: Other: For machines of headings 8456 to 8461: Bed,
base, table, head, tail, saddle, cradle, cross slide, column, arm, saw
arm, wheelhead, tailstock, headstock, ram, frame, work-labor support,
and C-frame castings, weldments or fabrications: Cast-iron parts not
advanced beyond cleaning, and machined only for the removal of fins,
gates, sprues and risers or to permit location in finishing machinery."
The 2006 column one, general rate of duty is free.

Since reclassification of the merchandise as indicated above would
result in a lower duty rate, you are instructed to ALLOW the protest in
full. In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP [Protest/Petition
Processing Handbook]{.underline} (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and
26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to
the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.

No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, the Office of
International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make the decision
available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP homepage on the
World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information
Act, and other methods of public distribution.

> Sincerely,
>
> Myles B. Harmon, Director
>
> Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division