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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0952149 - HQ 0952675 > HQ 0952359

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 952359

August 13, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 952359 AJS


TARIFF NO.: 8471.92.65

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
P.O. Box 1490
St. Albans, Vermont 05478

RE: Protest No. 0201-91-100609; printer; United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement; 19 CFR 10.307(c); 19 CFR 10.307(d)(1); 19 CFR 10.307(e); 19 CFR 10.309.

Dear District Director:

This is our decision in protest for further review number 0201-91-100609, dated November 11, 1991, regarding the tariff classification of printers within subheading 8471.92.65, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).


The merchandise under protest are invoiced as printers. It is claimed that the country of origin of these printers is Canada, and that they are subject to duty free treatment under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (CFTA). However, the Customs Form (CF) 6445A states that the importer has not provided sufficient information to support their claim. A CF 28 requesting this information from the importer was not answered.


What is the proper tariff classification of the subject printers under the HTSUS.

Whether the printers are entitled to treatment under the CFTA.


The protestant claims that the subject printers are properly classifiable within subheading 8471.92.65, HTSUS, which provides for printer units. The CF 6445A agrees that the printers are classifiable within this subheading.

Articles from Canada classified within subheading 8471.92.65, HTSUS, are entitled to entry free of duty under the CFTA, provided the importer satisfies the requirements set forth in the pertinent Customs regulations. A claim for CFTA treatment shall be based on the Exporter's Certificate of Origin (ECO), properly completed and signed by the person who exports or knowingly causes the goods to be exported from Canada. 19 CFR 10.307(c). The ECO must be available at the time CFTA treatment is claimed and shall be presented to the district director upon request. 19 CFR 10.307(c). The ECO shall be prepared on CF 353 or alternative formats may be used if they contain the same information and certification as set forth in the CF 353. 19 CFR 10.307(d)(1). In this case, an ECO was not received by Headquarters nor is there any evidence that an ECO was presented to the port of entry.

Exceptions to the foregoing documentation requirements may be authorized at the discretion of the district director in certain circumstances. See 19 CFR 10.307(e). Any evidence of country of origin submitted in support of CFTA treatment shall be subject to such verification as the appropriate Customs official may deem necessary. If the U.S. importer or U.S. exporter or their agent does not provide the information requested by the appropriate Customs officer, the district director may refuse to grant the claim for CFTA treatment, in addition to other available sanctions. 19 CFR 10.309.

The CF 6445A states that sufficient evidence to support the protestant's claim for CFTA treatment has not been provided. In addition, a CF 28 requesting this information was not answered. Therefore, if you are not satisfied that the protestant has provided the necessary information in accordance with the pertinent regulations, you should refuse to grant CFTA treatment.


The subject printers are properly classifiable within subheading 8471.92.65, HTSUS, which provides for printer units which are assembled units incorporating at least the media transport, control and print mechanism. The protest should be approved concerning the classification of the printers.

Concerning CFTA treatment, if you are not satisfied that the protestant has met the requirements set forth above in the pertinent regulations, then you should deny CFTA treatment. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Customs Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the notice of action on the protest.


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling