H302977

H302977 January 28, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:EMAIN H302977 MFT CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8703.21.00 Center Director, Automotive and Aerospace C.E.E. U.S. Customs and Border Protection 40 South Gay Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Re: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 1303-18-100126; Classification of the Subaru Sambar Van and Suzuki Every Dear Center Director: The following is our decision on the Application for Further Review (AFR) of Protest No. 1303-18-100126, which was filed on May 22, 2018, on behalf of Duncan Automotive, Inc. (protestant). The Protest and AFR pertain to the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Subaru Sambar Van and Suzuki Every.1 FACTS: Two motor vehicles are subject to this Protest and AFR: a 1992 Subaru Sambar Van and 1990 Suzuki Every. I. 1992 Subaru Sambar Van The 1992 Subaru Sambar is a “microvan” originally produced for the Japanese market. The Sambar measures approximately 129.7 inches in length and is powered by a gasoline engine with 660 cc of displacement. The microvan can seat a driver and passenger in the front row. The second row includes two passenger seats with permanent anchor points. The protestant’s 1 We note that the protestant also requested further review regarding the classification of a Nissan S-Cargo delivery van and certain “kei-class” minitrucks, namely: the Daihatsu Hijet; Honda Acty; Mazda Porter Cab; Mazda Scrum Truck; Mitsubishi Minicab; Subaru Sambar Truck; Suzuki Carry; and Toyota TownAce. We addressed the classification of the Nissan S-Cargo in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H318061 (dated May 23, 2023), and we will address the classification of the kei-class minitrucks under separate cover. submitted photographs indicate that there is no barrier between the second-row passenger area and the rear cargo area. In fact, the second-row seats reduce the Sambar’s overall cargo space. The Sambar’s feature set includes air conditioning and cupholders for the second-row passengers, sliding doors with windows on the side panels, a sunroof, and a rear liftgate with a window. II. 1990 Suzuki Every The 1990 Suzuki Every is another “microvan” originally produced for the Japanese market. The Every measures approximately 130 inches in length and features a gasoline engine with 650 cc of displacement. The Every is designed to seat a driver and passenger in the front and up to three passengers in the second row. The second row of the Every features a bench seat with permanent anchor points and no separation between the passenger area and the rear cargo space. Like the Subaru Sambar, the Every’s second-row passenger area limits the overall cargo space of the vehicle. The Every features sliding doors with windows on the side panels, a rear lift-up door with a window, and passenger amenities such as air conditioning and carpeting throughout. The protestant entered the subject merchandise between October 17, 2016, and October 31, 2017, under heading 8703, HTSUS, which includes “motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons.” CBP liquidated the merchandise between January 5, 2018, and August 3, 2018, under heading 8704, HTSUS, which provides for, “Motor vehicles for the transport of goods.” ISSUE: Whether the subject Subaru Sambar Van and Suzuki Every are classified under heading 8703, HTSUS, as “motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons,” or under heading 8704, HTSUS, as “[m]otor vehicles for the transport of goods.” LAW AND ANALYSIS: A decision on classification and the rate and amount of duties chargeable is a protestable matter under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2). The subject protest was timely filed on May 22, 2018, within 180 days of liquidation, pursuant to 19 U.S.C § 1514(c)(3). Further review of Protest No. 1303-18-100126 is properly accorded to the protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of CBP or his designee, or with a decision made by CBP with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise. Specifically, the protestant argues that the decision to liquidate the subject merchandise under heading 8704, HTSUS, contradicts prior rulings involving the classification of certain passenger vehicles.2 2 These rulings include HQ 083628 (June 6, 1989) (Volkswagen Vanagon); HQ 083433 (Dec. 18, 1989) (Ford Aerostar minivan); HQ 086170 (Mar. 22, 1990) (Volkswagen T-4 vehicle); HQ 955607 (Apr. 15, 1994) (Volkswagen EuroVan camper); and HQ 956049 (July 26, 1994) (“four-door motor vehicle with seating for six or seven passengers”). 2 Classification under the HTSUS is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods will be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 will then be applied in order. The HTSUS headings under consideration 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 The Explanatory Notes (ENs) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level. While neither legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings.3 Whether a motor vehicle is principally designed for the transport of persons, goods, or equally designed for transport of both persons and goods, is a fact-intensive inquiry decided on a case-by-case basis. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explored this inquiry in Marubeni America Corp. v. United States: By the express language of 8703, “motor vehicle principally designed for the transport of persons,” it is clear that the vehicle must be designed "more" for the transport of persons than goods. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1986) defines “principally” as “in the chief place, chiefly;” and defines “designed” as “done by design or purposefully opposed to accidental or inadvertent; intended, planned.” Thus, if the vehicle is equally designed for the transport of goods and persons, it would not be properly classified under 8703, HTSUS. There is nothing in the legislative history that indicates a different meaning. [. . .] While we find it unnecessary to assign a quantitative value to “principally,” the statutory language is clear that a vehicle's intended purpose of transporting persons must outweigh an intended purpose of transporting goods. To make this determination, we find that both the structural and auxiliary design features must be considered. This construction comports with Customs’ interpretations and the CIT’s analysis; and it is equally consistent with the common and popular meaning of the terms.4 3 See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35127–28 (Aug. 23, 1989). 4 Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 530, 534–35 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 3 More recently, the Federal Circuit stated in Ford Motor Co. v. United States that “heading 8703 is an eo nomine provision for which consideration of use is appropriate because HTSUS Heading 8703 inherently suggests looking to intended use.”5 We thus consider Marubeni and Ford together as standing for the principle that a motor vehicle of heading 8703, HTSUS, must be designed “more” for the transport of persons than goods; “if they are equally designed for the transport of persons and goods, [such vehicles] will fall under head

A decision on classification and the rate and amount of duties chargeable is a protestable matter under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2). The subject protest was timely filed on May 22, 2018, within 180 days of liquidation, pursuant to 19 U.S.C § 1514(c)(3). Further review of Protest No. 1303-18-100126 is properly accorded to the protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(a) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to be inconsistent with a ruling of the Commissioner of CBP or his designee, or with a decision made by CBP with respect to the same or substantially similar merchandise. Specifically, the protestant argues that the decision to liquidate the subject merchandise under heading 8704, HTSUS, contradicts prior rulings involving the classification of certain passenger vehicles.2 2 These rulings include HQ 083628 (June 6, 1989) (Volkswagen Vanagon); HQ 083433 (Dec. 18, 1989) (Ford Aerostar minivan); HQ 086170 (Mar. 22, 1990) (Volkswagen T-4 vehicle); HQ 955607 (Apr. 15, 1994) (Volkswagen EuroVan camper); and HQ 956049 (July 26, 1994) (“four-door motor vehicle with seating for six or seven passengers”). 2 

Classification under the HTSUS is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods will be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 will then be applied in order. The HTSUS headings under consideration 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 The Explanatory Notes (ENs) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System represent the offi