HQ 956528

DECEMBER 29, 1994

CLA-2:CO:R:C:M 956528 JAS

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 7318.15.50

District Director of Customs

200 east Bay Street, Rm. 121

Charleston, SC 29401

RE: PRD 1601-94-100080; Wheel Hub Bolt, Threaded Fastener for

Attaching Automobile Wheel to Hub and Bearing Assembly;

Fastener With Round Head and Partially or Fully Threaded

Shank, Bolt, Subheading 7318.15.20; Stud, Threaded

Protuberance Designed to be Fixed in Place; Gorman Anderson

Corp. v. United States, Fastening Devices, Inc. v. United

States, S.I. Stud v. United States; Hafele America Co., Ltd.

v\. United States; NY 825810, HQ 951995

Dear District Director:

This is our decision on Protest 1601-94-100080, filed

against your action in classifying certain threaded fasteners for

use on automobiles. The entries in question were liquidated on

January 3, 1994, and this protest timely filed on March 31, 1994.

FACTS:

The two fasteners under protest, referred to as wheel bolts,

wheel hub bolts or U-bolts, are specialty automotive fasteners

designated DACF 2097 and DACF 1031D. Fastener DACF 2097 is 40 mm

long with an enlarged longitudinally ribbed shoulder beneath the

head and fully threaded shank. Fastener DACF 1031D is 50 mm long

with a similarly configured shoulder and shank threaded 3/4 of

its length. Both fasteners are made of medium carbon steel, and

have flat points and M12 or 1/2-20 threads. Fastener DACF 2097

has a flat fillister head while fastener DACF 1031D has more of a

D-shaped head. Protestant states these fasteners are used to

attach the wheels of an automobile to the hub and bearing

assemblies.

The fasteners were entered under a provision of heading 7318

for bolts and bolts and their nuts or washers entered or exported

in the same shipment. The import specialist determined the

fasteners closely resembled steel broaching studs and liquidated

the entries under a provision of heading 7318 for studs.

\- 2 -

Counsel for the protestant supports the bolts classification

with the following arguments: the fasteners are designed to

attach an automobile wheel to the hub and bearing assembly by

means of a nut; the fasteners are within the common meaning of

the term bolt as established by lexicographic and scientific

authorities; the courts recognize that the definition of the term

bolt contains both a configurational element and a functional

element, both of which these fasteners possess; and, relevant HTS

Explanatory Notes support the fact that studs are headless.

The provisions under consideration are as follows:

7318 Screws, bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw

hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter pins, washers

including spring washers) and similar

articles, of iron or steel:

Threaded articles:

7318.15 Other screws and bolts, whether

or not with their nuts or washers:

7318.15.20 Bolts and bolts and their nuts

or washers entered or exported

in the same shipment\...0.7

percent ad valorem

7318.15.50 Studs\...4.7 percent ad valorem

ISSUE:

Whether the fasteners in question are studs 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 respective provisions for bolts and for studs describe a

commodity eo nomine, by name. Absent a contrary legislative

intent or judicial decision, and without proof of commercial

designation, an unlimited eo nomine designation will include all

forms of the named article. Despite the fact these fasteners are

specialty items specifically designed for automotive

applications, they will nevertheless be regarded as bolts or

\- 3 -

studs for tariff purposes if they otherwise comport with the

common meaning of either term.

Customs traditionally classifies fasteners in accordance

with their primary design characteristics. American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) specification B18.2.1 in part regards

as a bolt an externally threaded fastener designed for insertion

through holes in assembled parts which, because of head design or

other feature, is prevented from being turned during assembly,

and which can be tightened or released only by torquing a nut.

A stud, on the other hand, is a type of bolt, but is

distinguished from a bolt by its intended service application.

Studs are normally short rods or pins threaded on one or both

ends, sometimes with heads on one end to allow them to be fixed

in place resulting in a protuberance to which other articles may

be suspended or attached by a nut or other means. While not

necessarily encompassing the entire universe of fasteners that

may be studs, Customs regards as studs articles that are within

this definition, as cited in Fastening Devices, Inc. v. United

States, 40 Cust. Ct. 345, C.D. 2004 (1958). Threaded fasteners

with flat fillister heads and ribbed necks or shoulders, similar

in function to the ones under protest, were held to be studs in

NY 825810, dated November 6, 1987. Similarly, in HQ 951995,

dated September 15, 1992, we held that similarly configured

fasteners that enclosed the two halves of an automotive

differential cover were studs for tariff purposes. The head

design coupled with the longitudinal threads anchored one end of

the fastener in one half of the differential cover allowing the

other end to form a threaded protuberance onto which the other

half of the cover is fastened by means of a nut.

Counsel maintains that the common meaning of the term stud

has been established by the Court of International Trade in S.I.

Stud, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-124, aff\'d. 24 F 3d.

1394 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In that case, the court found the so-

called stud-bolt, a fully threaded headless fastener with

chamfered ends, designed to be passed through untapped holes in

two flanges and secured with a nut at each end, was a stud for

tariff purposes. Counsel concludes that this decision expressly

overrules the cited administrative decisions and is authority for

classifying the fasteners in this protest as bolts.

We disagree with counsel\'s interpretation. Initially, the

S.I. Stud court\'s pronouncements on bolts constitute dictum and

do not conclusively establish a common meaning for that term.

The court stated that the terms \"stud\" and \"bolt\" are not defined

in the HTSUS and there is little in the legislative history or

prior judicial interpretation that defines or distinguishes them.

\- 4 -

In its most recent decision in Hafele America Co., Ltd. v. United

States, Slip Op. 94-188 (Ct. Int\'l Trade, decided December 12,

1994), the court agreed that the dictionary definition of the

term \"stud\" encompasses a wide variety of items which do not

necessarily share distinguishing characteristics.

In describing the term stud as \"multifaceted\" and having

\"broad application\" the S.I. Stud court cited with approval an

earlier decision in Gorman Anderson Corp. v. United States, 34

Cust. Ct. 35, C.D. 1674 (1955), and then concluded it was

impelled to adopt the definition of the term which most aptly fit

the stud-bolt it was considering. The court cited the McGraw-

Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms and stated that

studs are particular types of bolts which may be threaded on one

or both ends, either with heads or headless. In quoting

definitions of the terms \"bolt\" and \"stud\" the court noted that

each contains both a configurational element and a functional

element. Since the functional element of bolts and studs is the

same, i.e., to fasten one or more things together, it is the

configurational element that assumes particular significance in

this case; that is, the head design coupled with the ribbed necks

allows one end of these fasteners to be anchored firmly in place.

See counsel\'s submission of November 23, 1994, at p. 7.

Of equal importance, the S.I. Stud court rejected

plaintiff\'s attempts to distinguish the stud-bolt from fasteners

which the court in Gorman and Fastening Devices held to be studs,

thus leaving those decisions undisturbed. It is also noteworthy

that while S.I. Stud was affirmed on appeal to the CAFC, a

strongly worded dissent noted that studs are threaded fasteners

with one end anchored or fixed in place to provide a projection

to which something may be attached by a nut or other fastener.

For all of these reasons, we find that S.I. Stud is only

authority for classifying the particular fastener in that case.

Counsel\'s final argument is that the Explanatory Notes, at

p\. 1028, include within heading 73.18 so-called screw studs

(short rods threaded at both ends) and screw studding (rods

threaded throughout), and concludes that studs must be headless

fasteners. These notes only indicate examples of articles that

are included in heading 73.18. The fact that fully or partially

threaded rods may be studs is not conclusive with respect to

headed fasteners like wheel bolts or wheel hub bolts that may

also be studs.

HOLDING:

Under the authority of GRI 1, the fasteners designated DACF

2097 and DACF 1031D are provided for in heading 7318. They are

classifiable in subheading 7318.15.50, HTSUS, as studs.

\- 5 -

The protest should be DENIED. In accordance with Section

3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, dated August 4,

1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, you should mail this

decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no

later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any

reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the

decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision.

Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of

Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision

available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in

ACS and to the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, the

Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Commercial Rulings Division