Reconsideration of HQ H271835 (Mar. 9, 2016); Restricted Merchandise; Switchblade Knives; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1245; 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.95-12.103

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H274938 May 19, 2016 OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H274938 RMC CATEGORY: Restricted Merchandise Matt Nakachi Junker & Nakachi, P.C. One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Reconsideration of HQ H271835 (Mar. 9, 2016); Restricted Merchandise; Switchblade Knives; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1245; 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.95-12.103 Dear Mr. Nakachi: This is in response to your April 12, 2016, request for reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) H271835, dated March 9, 2016. In HQ H271835, we held that the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1245 and related Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations, 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.95-12.103, barred the importation of a prototype knife produced by your client Columbia River Knife and Tool (“Columbia River”). After reviewing the ruling, the additional information that you provided, and your arguments presented in our May 6, 2016 teleconference, we affirm HQ H271835 because the exception in 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5) for a knife with a “mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure” does not apply in this case. FACTS: As explained in H271835, the product at issue is a folding knife composed of a two-piece, silver-gray colored stainless steel metal grip and a single-edged blade. The blade measures approximately 3 and 1/4 inches, operates under spring pressure, and tapers toward a sharp tip. The grip with the blade in the closed position is approximately 4 and 5/8 inches long and 1 and 3/16 inches wide. With the blade extended into the fully opened position, the entire knife is approximately 7 and 5/8 inches long. The knife is opened by pressing on a stud that is attached to the base of the blade. The stud slides along a semicircular track on the top of the knife’s grip. Once the stud is moved, a spring inside the grip pushes the blade into the locked and fully extended position. The knife is closed by moving the locking mechanism to the side and manually pushing the blade down toward the closed position. While the blade is being pushed down, the spring that provides the force to push the blade open opposes the movement. As a result, the blade will spring back into the open and locked position if it is released before it is fully folded back into the grip.

Knife in closed position (side without belt clip). Knife in closed position (side with belt clip).
Knife in opened position (side without belt clip). Side with thumb operated button.
Knife in opened position (side with belt clip). ISSUE: Whether the knife is admissible into the United States under the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1245, or 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.95-12.103. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Switchblade Knife Act makes it a federal offense to knowingly introduce a switchblade into the commerce of the United States. See 15 U.S.C. § 1242. The CBP regulations make it clear that “[i]mportations of switchblade knives, except as permitted by 15 U.S.C. 1244, are importations contrary to law and are subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c).” 19 C.F.R. § 12.97. A “switchblade knife” is defined as “any knife having a blade which opens automatically—(1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or (2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1241; 19 C.F.R. § 12.95(a)(1). An exception occurs for “a knife that contains a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure of the blade and that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure to assist in opening the knife.” 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5). Here, we held that the prototype knife at issue was a switchblade and thus was inadmissible into the commerce of the United States. See HQ H271835, dated March 3, 2016. We found that the knife has a “blade that opens automatically” by “hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1241. Id. Specifically, the blade opens automatically by pressing on a stud that is attached to the base of the blade. We noted that pressing the stud “deploys the blade out of the grip into the fully opened position with ease and great speed.” Id. After considering the exception in 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5) for knives with a mechanism that creates “a bias toward closure of the blade,” we decided that it did not apply because the knife’s spring detent creates a bias toward opening of the blade. Id. In its request for reconsideration, Columbia River does not dispute that the prototype knife is a “switchblade” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1241, but asks us to revisit our evaluation of the 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5) exception. Columbia River argues that the prototype knife does exhibit a “bias to closure.” According to Columbia River, “the spring pressure is exerting a force on a locking pin that force holds the locking pin in place, and mechanically constitutes a bias that keeps the blade in a locked (or closed) state.” Columbia River argues that in a previous case, HQ H032255, dated August 12, 2008, CBP held that a knife with “the same internal mechanism” was admissible. Finally, Columbia River directed our attention to a short video that demonstrates and explains how the knife works. After reviewing Columbia River’s request for reconsideration and reexamining the prototype knife, we agree with our initial conclusion in HQ H271835. Further examination of the knife persuades us that it does not have a “mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure” as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5). While the blade is being pushed down and into the closed position, the spring that provides the force to push the blade open opposes the movement. As a result, the blade will spring back into the open and locked position if it is released before it is fully folded back into the grip. Although Columbia River may therefore be correct that a pin holds the blade in place while it is in the locked position, there is no “mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5). This result is consistent with HQ H032255. In that case, we held that a prototype knife was not a switchblade knife under the definition in 19 C.F.R. § 12.95(a)(1) because it “neither open[ed] automatically by hand pressure applied to a button or device in the handle, nor [did it] open automatically by operation of inertia, gravity, or both.” See HQ H032255. Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that the prototype is a switchblade knife as defined by 19 C.F.R. § 12.95. The issue here is whether the prototype qualifies for the exception in 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5) for a switchblade knife with a bias toward closure, an issue that was not raised or addressed in HQ H032255. Finally, while the video that Columbia River did appear to accurately portray how the knife was operated, it also did not address the “bias to closure” argument under 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5). Thus, based on the information provided, the prototype knife does not have a “mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure” under 15 U.S.C. § 1244(5). HOLDING: Based on the information provided, the prototype knife is a switchblade that is inadmissible into the commerce of the United States. HQ H271835 is hereby affirmed. Sincerely, Glen E. Vereb Director, Border Security & Trade Compliance Division Office of Trade, Regulations & Rulings U.S. Customs and Border Protection