Base
0834331989-12-18HeadquartersClassification

Motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons; Ford Aerostar minivan

U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

8703.23.00

$4919.1M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

6 cases

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

36 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-28 · Updates monthly

Summary

Motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons; Ford Aerostar minivan

Ruling Text

HQ 083433 December 18, 1989 CLA-2 CO:R:CV:G: 083433 JLV; 835021 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8703.23.00 Ford Motor Company Attn: Mr. P. B. Kruzich West Park Center 5111 Auto Club Drive P.O. Box 6089 Dearborn, Michigan 48126 RE: Motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons; Ford Aerostar minivan Dear Mr. Kruzich: In a letter of December 14, 1988, on behalf of Ford Motor Company, you requested a ruling on the tariff classification of the Ford Aerostar Wagon. This is our decision on the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). FACTS: The motor vehicle is identified as the Ford Aerostar Wagon which is produced at the Ford Motor Company St. Louis Assembly Plant in a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ), Subzone 102A, located in Hazelwood, Missouri. It has a wheelbase of 118.9 inches, a standard overall length of 174.9 inches (or an extended length of 190.3 inches), and a height (loaded) of 69.1 inches (69.2 for extended length wagon). The body is a single, box-like shell with the following features: windows in all doors and side and rear panels; three doors, one of which is a sliding side door for access to the rear area; a rear liftgate; dual front seats; and one three-passenger rear bench seat which is located directly behind the front seats, or one three-passenger middle bench seat and one two-passenger rear bench seat. - 2 - The Aerostar Wagon is a rear wheel drive motor vehicle and is powered by a 3.0 liter V-6 spark-ignition engine. The standard color-coordinated interior package includes carpet- ing, door and body trim panels, headliner, and 5-person seating. You believe that the Aerostar Wagon is classifiable as a motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons in subheading 8703.23.00, HTSUSA. ISSUE: Based on the design features of the motor vehicle, is it principally designed for the transport of persons for purposes of classification in heading 8703, HTSUSA? LAW AND ANALYSIS: The relevant headings in issue are as follows: 8703 Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars * * * 8704 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods * * * In a ruling of June 6, 1989 (file 083628), the Vanagon window van, a multipurpose motor vehicle similar to the Aerostar in design features, was held to be "principally designed for the transport of persons." The criteria (certain design features) used in that ruling are also applicable in this case. The high-volume structural design of the Aerostar is suitable for transport of cargo as well as for the transport of persons. However, the windows, rear seating and sliding side door for access to the rear seating are features which indicate that the motor vehicle is principally designed for the transport of persons. HOLDING: The Aerostar Wagon, as described in the facts, is a motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons, - 3 - with a spark-ignition engine of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 3,000 cc, and is classified in subheading 8703.23.00, HTSUSA. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division 6cc: AD NY Seaport 1cc: NIS DeSoucey 2cc: Chief, CIE 1cc: AC, CO 1cc: Durant 1cc: Reading File LIBRARY: valentin FILE NAME: 083433

Related Rulings for HTS 8703.23.00

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (5)

CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.