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 0954939 - HQ 0955015 > HQ 0954942

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

HQ 954942

September 27, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 954942 MBR


TARIFF NO.: 8503.00.40

Mr. Allen T. Low
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304

RE: Revocation of NY 863121; Automatic Data Processing Disk Drive Motor Spindles; Parts of Motors; HQ 086832

Dear Mr. Low:

This is in reference to a ruling issued to you on May 10, 1991, (NY 863121) regarding the classification of ADP disk drive motor spindles, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). As part of a recent review of the classification of these goods we have reconsidered the opinion in NY 863121.


The merchandise at issue consists of two models (97533-60030 and 97548-60030) of automatic data processing ("ADP") disk drive motor spindles. The spindles are imported separately, and incorporated with the disk drive motors in the United States.


Is the ADP disk drive motor spindle classifiable under subheading 8471.30.40, HTSUS, which provides for parts and accessories of ADP machines, or under subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS, which provides for parts of motors?


The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) to the HTSUS govern the classification of goods in the tariff schedule. GRI 1 states, in pertinent part:

...classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes...

In NY 863121, dated May 10, 1991, Customs classified the instant ADP disk drive motor spindles under subheading 8473.30.40, HTSUS, which provides for parts of ADP machines.

However, HQ 086832, dated May 21, 1990, held that ADP disk drive motors with spindles were classifiable in subheading 8501.10.40, HTSUS, which provides for motors. Therefore, in light of HQ 086832, which determined that the spindles were part of the disk drive motors, the spindles themselves are prima facie classifiable in subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS, which provides for parts of motors.

HQ 086832 cited the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes ("ENs"), EN 85.01(I)(A), page 1334, which states in pertinent part:

Motors remain classified here even when they are equipped with pulleys, with gears or gear boxes, or with a flexible shaft for operating hand tools.

Thus, the ENs consider motor shafts, etc., to be essential to the operational function of the motor. See for example American Feldmuehle Corp. et al. v. United States, 64 Cust Ct. 462, C.D. 4021 (1970).

The spindles are also prima facie classifiable under subheading 8471.30.40, which provides for parts of ADP machines. However, A Manual of Customs Law, Ruth F. Sturm (1974), page 246 states that:

Merchandise is classifiable under the tariff provision having requirements which are more difficult to satisfy. Arthur J. Humphreys et al. v. United States, 56 CCPA 67, C.A.D. 956, 407 F.2d 417 (1969); F.L. Smidth & Company v. United States, 56 CCPA 77, C.A.D. 958, 409 F.2d 1369 (1969). Thus, in the case first cited it was held that cabinets for radio-phonograph combinations were classifiable as parts of such combinations, rather than as parts of furniture because the requirements for classification as the former were more difficult to satisfy.

It is Customs position that the provision for "[p]arts of motors under 18.65 W (other than commutators)," is more difficult to satisfy than "[p]arts and accessories of the machines of heading 8471: [n]ot incorporating a cathode ray tube," which includes a myriad of ADP parts and accessories. It is important to note that Sturm, page 281, also states that:

Where a particular part of an article is provided for specifically, a part of that particular part is more specifically provided for as a part of the part than as a part
of the whole. C.F. Liebert v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 677, C.D. 3499, 287 F. Supp. 1008 (1968)(parts of clutches which were parts of winches held dutiable as parts of clutches rather than as parts of winches or parts of tractors); Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 166, C.D. 3556, 290 F. Supp. 375 (1968)(parts of converters, whether or not converters were parts of machines, are classifiable as parts of converters); Korody-Coyler Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 337, C.D. 4212 (1971)(nozzles classifiable as parts of fuel injection pumps rather than as parts of the internal combustion engines of which the pumps are part).

Therefore, the spindle is classifiable as a part of the motor, rather than as a part of the whole disk drive.


The ADP disk drive motor spindles are classifiable in subheading 8503.00.40, HTSUS, which provides for: "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading 8501 or 8502: [p]arts of motors of under 18.65 W (other than commutators)." The rate of duty is 10% ad valorem.

This ruling should be considered a revocation of NY 863121, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.9(d)(1). It is not to be applied retroactively to NY 863121 (19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)) and will not, therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of your merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future transactions in merchandise of this type, NY 863121 will not be valid precedent. We recognize that pending transactions may be adversely affected by this modification, in that current contracts for importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation arises, you may, at your discretion, notify this office and apply for relief from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by the circumstances.


NY 863121, dated May 10, 1991, is revoked under authority of Section 177.9(d), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(d)).


John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: