U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
8803.30.00
Compare All →
Federal Register
3 docs
Related notices & rules
Court Cases
10 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
32 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-07-01 · Updates real-time
Aircraft Parts; Heading 8802; Explanatory Note 88.03
HQ 954599 August 10, 1993 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 954599 DWS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8803.30.00 Mr. Charles T. Silberberg Rockwell International Corporation 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 4250 Seal Beach, CA 90740-8250 RE: Aircraft Parts; Heading 8802; Explanatory Note 88.03 Dear Mr. Silberberg: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1993, to the Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport, concerning the classification of certain aircraft parts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Your letter was referred to this office for a response. FACTS: The merchandise consists of various aircraft parts, including two wings, two "Upco SIIIS" ejection seats with supporting hardware, one canopy, one horizontal tail, two seat/egress systems and emergency extend pyros, and four thermal batteries and manifold systems. The parts are imported for use in the manufacture of two prototype "Ranger 2000" aircraft. The classification of the batteries and manifold assemblies with be separately dealt with in a ruling letter to be issued to you by the Area Director, New York Seaport. The subheading under consideration is as follows: 8803.30.00: [p]arts of goods of heading 8801 to 8802: [o]ther parts of airplanes or helicopters. Goods classifiable under this provision receive duty free treatment. ISSUE: Whether the aircraft parts are classifiable under subheading 8803.30.00, HTSUS, as other parts of airplanes of heading 8802, HTSUS? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's), taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification is determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. In understanding the language of the HTSUS, the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes may be utilized. The Explanatory Notes, although not dispositive, are to be used to determine the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35128 (August 23, 1989). In part, Explanatory Note 88.03 (p. 1445) states that: [t]his heading covers parts of the goods falling in heading 88.01 or 88.02, provided the parts fulfil both the following conditions: (i) They must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally with the goods of the above-mentioned headings; and (ii) They must not be excluded by the provisions of the Notes to Section XVII (see the corresponding General Explanatory Note). In part, heading 8802, HTSUS, provides for: "[o]ther aircraft (for example, helicopters, airplanes) . . ." Based upon the information provided us, it is our position that the two prototype "Ranger 2000" aircraft would be classifiable under heading 8802, HTSUS. It is also our understanding that the parts are suitable for use solely or principally with the aircraft of heading 8802, HTSUS, and they are not excluded by the notes to section XVII, HTSUS. Consequently, the subject parts of those aircraft are specifically classifiable under subheading 8803.30.00, HTSUS. HOLDING: The aircraft parts are classifiable under subheading 8803.30.00, HTSUS, as other parts of airplanes of heading 8802, HTSUS. Sincerely, John Durant, Director
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
Trade notices, proposed rules, and final rules related to the tariff codes in this ruling.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative reviews.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative reviews.·Effective 1997-10-17
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders.
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.