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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 225339 - HQ 226123 > HQ 225684

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 225684





February 5, 1995

BAG-5-04/CON-2-07-CO:R:C:E 225684 PH

CATEGORY: ENTRY

District Director
U.S. Customs Service
10 Causeway Street, Room 603
Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1059

RE: Internal Advice; Household Effects; Use Abroad for One Year; Subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS; 19 CFR 148.52(a)

Dear Sir:

In your memorandum of August 31, 1994 (File: RL:DJC 94-0409), you request internal advice concerning the applicability of the referenced provisions to the importation of two Iranian carpets. Our ruling follows.

FACTS:

You state that the person involved in the situation about which you request advice is a permanent resident alien (since 1987) of the United States whose husband has remained in their family household in Iran. You state that the permanent resident alien travels back to Iran periodically to be with her husband. On August 8, 1990, she purchased two carpets in Iran and placed them in her residence in Iran. She returned to the United States on September 10, 1990. On July 10, 1993, she again travelled to Iran. On February 26, 1994, she returned to the United States with the two carpets (i.e., according to the information available to us, she had been in Iran for approximately eight and one-half months after the purchase of the carpets). You state that she seeks entry of the two carpets pursuant to 31 CFR 560.514, based upon her claim that these carpets constitute household effects under subheading 9804.00.05, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). You request our advice on the applicability of subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, in this situation.

ISSUE:

Does the merchandise under consideration qualify for importation under subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, in the situation described in the FACTS portion of this ruling?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Except as specifically authorized, no goods or services of Iranian origin may be imported into the United States (31 CFR 560.201 (certain exceptions, inapplicable in this case, are listed in section 560.201)). Under 31 CFR 560.514, the importation of Iranian-origin goods within the description of household and personal effects under subheading 9804.00.05 (and 9804.00.20 (not applicable in this case)), HTSUS, by persons arriving in the United States from a foreign country is authorized, with certain restrictions (one of these restrictions is that no more than five Iranian-origin carpets, rugs, or similar articles such as tapestries or wallhangings are authorized importation under section 560.514).

Therefore, determinative of whether the merchandise under consideration may be imported into the United States is the issue of whether it qualifies for importation under subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS. That provision provides duty-free treatment for:

Articles imported by or for the account of any person arriving in the United States from a foreign country: Books, libraries, usual and reasonable furniture and similar household effects, if actually used abroad by him or by him and his family not less than one year, and not intended for any other person, or for sale.

The predecessor in the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) was item 810.10, TSUS, which is substantively the same as subheading 9804.00.05 (Tariff Classification Study, Explanatory and Background Materials, Schedule 8, pp. 28, 36-37 (November 15, 1960)). The predecessor to this provision was Paragraph 1632 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (which provided duty-free treatment for "[b]ooks, libraries, usual and reasonable furniture, and similar household effects of persons or families from foreign countries if actually used abroad by them not less than one year, and not intended for any other person or persons, nor for sale"). The same provision was in the Tariff Act of 1922 (paragraph 1531), the Tariff Act of 1913 (paragraph 428), the Tariff Act of 1909 (paragraph 520), and the Tariff Act of 1897 (paragraph 504).

The Customs Regulations pertaining to subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, are found in 19 CFR 148.52. Under paragraph (a) of that section:

Furniture, carpets, paintings, tableware, books, libraries, and other usual household furnishings and effects actually used abroad for not less than 1 year by resident or nonresidents, and not intended for any other person or for sale may be allowed entry ... under subheading 9804.00.05 [HTSUS]. Household effects used abroad not less than 1 year by a family of which the importer was a resident member for not less than 1 year during the period of use may be allowed free entry whether or not the importer owned the effects at the time of such use. The year of use need not be continuous, nor need it immediately precede the time of importation.

This provision was promulgated in the Customs Regulations (in the same form as above, except that instead of subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, the tariff provision was item 810.10, TSUS) by Treasury Decisions 73-27, after notice in the Federal Register and the opportunity for, and review of, public comments (37 F.R. 16092, August 10, 1972). Formerly, the provision was found in 19 CFR 10.11 and 10.12. The second sentence from the above-quoted provision was found in section 10.12(b) and is substantively unchanged. Section 10.12(b), in the same form as in the 1972 Customs Regulations, is found in the 1943 Customs Regulations. The predecessors in earlier editions of the Customs Regulations are found in the Article 413(f) (1937 Customs Regulations), Article 408(f) (1931 Customs Regulations), Article 382 (1923 Customs Regulations), and Article 349 (1915 Customs Regulations). The predecessors are substantively the same as the above-quoted second sentence in section 148.52(a).

According to the annotations in the 1915 Customs Regulations for Article 349, the origin of the referenced language was the decision in the G.A. Cochlan case (T.D. 26890, Abstract 9258 (1905)). In that case it was held that the predecessor to subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, did not permit the free entry of certain wedding presents received by the importer at the time of her marriage in Canada a year before the importation, when she had come to the United States at the time of the wedding and left the presents in the possession of her relatives in Canada and then attempted to enter the presents free of duty upon her return from Canada after a visit there. The basis of the decision was that "[i]t is apparent from the facts that the articles in question had not actually been used abroad by the party seeking to bring them in for one year, as is required by the provisions of paragraph 504 [i.e., paragraph 504 of the 1897 Act, referred to above]."

The importer in this case (through her representative) argues that the carpets under consideration may be imported under subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, on the basis of the language therein providing for duty-free treatment "... if actually used abroad by him or by him and his family not less than one year ...." The importer contends that the second clause in this language provides for "a use by the person arriving in the United States and a use by his family which added together equal the one year minimum requirement" (pages 5 and 6 of Addendum to Supplemental Petition). In support of this argument, the importer cites ruling 710614 dated June 26, 1979, and Bella Haas v. United States, 1 Cust. Ct. 140, C.D. 37 (1938).

Initially, we note that the above precedents, cited by the importer, are not relevant to the issue under consideration. Ruling 710614 was concerned with the interpretation of the general restriction regarding the arrival of effects more than 10 years after the arrival of the importer, provided for in 19 CFR 148.52(d), and had nothing to do with, and in no way commented on, the issue of whether the use by a member of the importer's family during a period while the importer him or herself was not physically in the family's household may be included in the 1- year period provided for in the tariff provision. The issue in the Bella Haas case was whether the articles there under consideration were "actually used", not how the 1-year period is calculated (i.e., "... it was established that the plaintiff ... lived with her mother in Germany [and] that the article in question had been in plaintiff's possession for more than a year prior to her sailing ..." (1 Cust. Ct. at 141)).

We disagree with the importer's argument. Basically, the importer would interpret subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, to permit duty-free treatment thereunder if the articles under consideration had been used abroad by the importer for not less than one year or by the importer, his family, or any combination thereof for not less than one year. Thus, the interpretation proposed by the importer would permit duty-free treatment under the provision even if the importer had used the merchandise abroad for only one day (e.g., if the merchandise had been used by the importer's family for one year and the importer had used, as a member of the family, the merchandise for one day during that year, according to the importer's interpretation, this would be a use of the merchandise abroad by the importer and his family for not less than one year).

As is demonstrated by the review of the tariff provision and the Customs Regulations implementing it, Customs has long held that the second clause in the language under consideration (providing for use by the importer and his family) actually means that an article may qualify for duty-free treatment under the provision if it was used by the importer's family for at least one year and if during this period of use the importer was a resident member of the family for at least one year. The Customs Regulations have explicitly so provided since 1915 and the basis of this requirement is a published 1905 decision (the G.A. Cochlan case, supra) explicitly stating that the tariff provision "require[s]" "the articles in question [to have] actually been used abroad by the party seeking to bring them in for one year" (see also, ruling letter dated January 3, 1947, copy enclosed).

It is a doctrine of statutory construction that a "long continued administrative practice" may be considered to have been adopted by the legislature when the legislature reenacts, without material change, legislation containing the provision which is interpreted in the administrative practice after the administrative practice is established to have been in effect (see Joshua Hoyle & Sons., Ltd., Inc. v. United States, 25 CCPA 128, T.D. 49244 (1937); and United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc., 33 CCPA 60, C.A.D. 317 (1945)). In the Hoyle case, the Court found that a practice regarding drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313 was a "long-continued administrative practice" (25 CCPA at 130). The Court held, "[t]he Congress having reenacted the quoted provisions ... without material change, so far as the issues here are concerned, as section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1922, we think the doctrine of legislative approval of long- continued administrative practice is applicable to, and determinative of, the issues here presented ..." (25 CCPA at 131). The Dunkel case makes it clear that for this doctrine to be applicable, the administrative practice must have been in effect when the legislation which is treated as approving the practice is reenacted (i.e., in the Dunkel case, the Hoyle case was distinguished on the basis that "there has been no proof of administrative practice with respect to drawback on butter prior to 1933 [i.e., the practice was not established to have been in effect before the legislation was reenacted]" (33 CCPA at 64).

In the case under consideration, Customs practice in regard to the issue under consideration has been established, in the Customs Regulations, since 1915. The statutory provision interpreted by the administrative practice has been reenacted, without material change insofar as the issue under consideration is concerned, at least six times (i.e., the 1909, 1913, 1922, and 1930 Tariff Acts, the conversion to the TSUS, and the conversion to the HTSUS) after establishment of the practice. Clearly, the doctrine of "long established administrative practice" supports Customs interpretation of subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, as stated in 19 CFR 148.52(a).

HOLDING:

The merchandise under consideration does not qualify for importation under subheading 9804.00.05, HTSUS, in the situation described in the FACTS portion of this ruling, because the merchandise was not used abroad by the importer for at least 1 year or by her family for at least 1 year during which period she was a resident member of the family for at least 1 year (19 CFR 148.52(a)).

The Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make this decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels 60 days from the date of this decision.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: