Opinion ID: 210012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Feeders

Text: In its cross-appeal, the government argues that the Court of International Trade erred in classifying the feeders under subheading 8479.90.9595. The government concedes that the feeders are parts of the chip placers as defined in the HTSUS, but argues that they are also machines standing alone and thus should be classified as such under subheading 8479.89. Fuji responds by arguing that the feeders were properly classified by the court under HTSUS subheading 8479.90.9595. [1] We agree with Fuji. The government argues that feeders are machines with individual functions and should thus be classified under subheading 8479.89. The Explanatory Notes to Heading 8479 provide the basis for determining whether the feeders are classifiable as machines . . . having individual functions. HTSUS Heading 8479. Explanatory Note B requires that devices that depend on another machine must meet two requirements to be classified independently as machines. For such a classification, it is required that the device's function: (i) is distinct from that which is performed by the machine or appliance whereon they are to be mounted, or by the entity wherein they are to be incorporated, and (ii) does not play an integral and inseparable part in the operation of such machine, appliance or entity. HTSUS Explanatory Notes, § XVI, Chapter 84.79(B). The parties agree that the feeders in this case satisfy the first requirement of Explanatory Note B. Their disagreement arises with regard to the second requirement: whether the feeders' function plays an integral and inseparable part in the chip placers' operation. Fuji, at . We agree with Fuji that it does. Without feeders dedicated to providing components, the chip placers would not be able to perform their principal function of creating PCAs. The government's claim that other types of feeders could be substituted to enable the chip placers to properly operate, thereby demonstrating that the feeders are not integral, is misplaced. Any substitute for the feeders would perform the same function that the feeders perform, namely, providing components to the chip placers during operation. Without some sort of device performing this function, the chip placers would be unable to create PCAs. The Explanatory Note requires evaluation as to whether the function of the feeders is an integral and inseparable part of the chip placers' operation, not whether any substitute for the feeders is available as the government supposes. The trial court correctly found that the feeders are integral and inseparable for the operation of the chip placers. Thus, since the function of the feeders is an integral and inseparable part of the chip placers operation, the feeders are not machines with individual functions under Heading 8479, and are therefore not properly classified under subheading 8479.89. [2] Both parties agree that the feeders are parts for purposes of the HTSUS. Since we have held that they are not properly classified under subheading 8479.89, they must be classified under subheading 8479.90. See HTSUS Section XVI, Note 2(b). Within that subheading there is not a specific subheading for feeders; therefore, they are classified as other under subheading 8479.90.9595. Thus, we affirm the Court of International Trade's classification of the feeders.