Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3701-93-100002; medical apparatus; reimportation; 19 CFR 10.108

HQ 557176 June 24, 1993 CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 557176 BLS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 9801.00.20 District Director Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53110 RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3701-93-100002; medical apparatus; reimportation; 19 CFR 10.108 Dear Sir: This is in reference to Protest No. 3701-93-100002, filed by Fritz Companies on behalf of the Norland Corporation, concerning the applicability of subheading 9801.00.20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, HTSUS, to a Stratec Scanner, XCT- 900, a device used in medical applications. FACTS: The device was previously entered on November 4, 1991, under a dutiable provision. It was subsequently exported under Customs supervision to Norland at the Canadian Association of Radiologists in Halifax, N.S., Canada. Upon re-entry, it was classified under subheading 9018.19.80502, Electro-medical apparatus, Other: Other, Other apparatus, dutiable at 4.2%. Protestant is of the opinion that the Scanner is properly classifiable under subheading 9801.00.20, HTSUS, a duty-free provision. ISSUE: Whether the imported medical device is entitled to duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.20, HTSUS. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Subheading 9801.00.20, HTSUS, provides, in pertinent part, for duty-free treatment with respect to any article previously imported upon which duty was paid if such article is 1) reimported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means while abroad, after having been exported under lease or similar use agreements, and 2) reimported by or for the account of the person who imported it into, and exported it from, the United States. See also, section 10.108, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.108). As noted above, the record establishes that the Scanner was - 2 - previously entered duty-paid on November 4, 1991. However, no evidence was submitted with the protest that the Scanner was exported under lease or similar agreement, in compliance with the statutory requirements. On June 15, 1993, Barbara Frisby of your office telephonically advised Burton Schlissel of my staff that, upon inquiry, protestant stated that the Scanner was not exported under lease or similar use agreement. HOLDING: Upon reimportation, the Stratec Scanner is not entitled to duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.20, HTSUS, since there is no evidence that the imported article was exported under a lease or similar use agreement, in compliance with the requirements of that provision. Since protestant has failed to submit any other information regarding the classification of the imported article, we affirm the import specialist's determination that the Scanner is properly classifiable under subheading 9018.19.80502, HTSUS, Electro-medical apparatus, Other: Other, Other Apparatus, dutiable at a rate of 4.2%. Accordingly, the protest should be denied. A copy of this decision should be attached to the Form 19, Notice of Action, to be sent to the protestant. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division