Base
8952751994-03-21New YorkClassificationNAFTA

The tariff classification and status under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), of a looseleaf binder from Canada.

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

3926.10.000

Compare All →

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

32 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-15 · Updates real-time

Summary

The tariff classification and status under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), of a looseleaf binder from Canada.

Ruling Text

NY 895275 March 21, 1994 CLA-2-39:S:N:N6:221 895275 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 3926.10.000 Mr. Ed Thomas Tabbing Sales Limited 1551 Merrow Road Mississauga, L5J 3C4, Ontario, Canada RE: The tariff classification and status under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), of a looseleaf binder from Canada. Dear Mr. Thomas: In your letter dated February 18, 1994, you requested a ruling on the status of a looseleaf binder from Canada under the NAFTA. In NY Letter 894298, dated February 9, 1994, this office issued a ruling in which plastic looseleaf binders were classified in heading 3926.10.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). You now inquire about the NAFTA status and have included information showing the origin of the materials of which the binder is made. According to this information, the binder is composed entirely of Canadian materials, with the exception of the "metals." We assume that the term metals refers to the ring binder mechanism. No cost breakdowns of the various components were submitted with your letter. The applicable tariff provision for the binder will be 3926.10.0000, HTSUSA, which provides for other articles of plastics, office or school supplies. The general rate of duty will be 5.3 percent ad valorem. Each of the non-originating materials used to make the binder has satisfied the changes in tariff classification required under the HTSUSA General Note 12(t)/39. The binder will also be subject to a Regional Value Content (RVC) requirement of 60% under the Transaction Value Method or 50% under the Net Cost Method as required under the rule applicable to the binder. Assuming the goods are eligible for preferential treatment under the NAFTA, the merchandise will be entitled to a 2.1 percent ad valorem rate of duty under the NAFTA upon compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and agreements. This ruling is being issued under the provision of Part 181 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 181). Because of insufficient information in your ruling request, Customs has not addressed the Regional Value Content (RVC) of the subject goods. If you desire a ruling regarding the RVC of your goods and their eligibility for NAFTA preferential treatment, the information noted in Section 181.93(b) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 181.93(b)), must be provided to Customs. The information we need includes a cost breakdown of the goods and labor so that we can determine the Regional Value Content. As provided for in Section 18194 of the Customs Regulations (19 (CFR 181.94), you may submit this additional information within 30 days of the date of this notice. Please refer to our file number and address any supplemental letter to Director, Commercial Rulings Division, Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service, 1301 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington D.C. 20229. 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. This ruling letter is binding only as to the party to whom it is issued and may be relied on only by that party. Sincerely, Jean F. Maguire Area Director New York Seaport

Related Rulings for HTS 3926.10.000

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (1)

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