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 > 1998 NY Rulings > NY 886745 - NY 886955 > NY 886955

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 886955

JUNE 29, 1993

CLA-2-84:S:N:N3:102 886955


TARIFF NO.: 8482.10.5048

Mr. John W. Whitaker
O'Neill & Whitaker, Inc.
1809 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64108

RE: The tariff classification of radial ball bearings from United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Whitaker:

In your letter dated June 3, 1993, on behalf of your client, Hobourn
Automotive Limited, UK, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The item in question, part number ER90797, is a radial ball bearing (6203 series) used in the rebuilding of power steering BBU pumps. The pumps are designed for truck usage.

The applicable subheading for the bearing will be 8482.10.5048, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for single row radial ball bearings having an outside diameter of over 30 mm but not over 52 mm. The rate of duty will be 11 percent ad valorem.

It is the opinion of this office that the instant merchandise would be subject to anti-dumping (ADA) margins under the current Department of Commerce ADA findings on bearings, as published in the Federal Register on May 15, 1989. Please contact your local port for the specific case numbers and percentages for each case. If you desire a scope determination on the applicability of anti- dumping duty to your product, please write directly to the Office of Compliance, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.


Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: