H300870

HQ H300870 January 15, 2020 OT:RR:CTF:EMAIN: H300870 PF CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8479.89.94 Damon V. Pike The Customs Law Firm, P.A. River Plaza 900 South U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Jupiter, FL 33477 Re: Request for Reconsideration of HQ H289652; Classification of a “size reduction machine” Dear Mr. Pike: This is in response to your letter, September 11, 2018, in which you appeal Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H289652 on behalf of Vecoplan Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG. (“Vecoplan” or “protestant”). HQ H289652, issued to the Port of Norfolk on July 30, 2018, by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), involves classification of two different models of a size reduction machine, specifically the VAZ 1600 and VAZ 1800, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). In reviewing your request, we have also considered arguments presented during a November 29, 2018 meeting and a supplemental submission received on December 31, 2018. We have determined that HQ H289652 is correct, and, for the reasons set forth below, are affirming that ruling. HQ H289652 provided the following description of the size reduction machine: The subject size reduction machine is designed for processing plastic waste for reclamation and recycling large extruder purgings, large reject parts, trim scraps, baled or loose film, synthetic fiber, wood processing scrap, medical waste, cardboard, paper, and carpet. The size reduction machine features a large feed hopper, precision hydraulic “process ram,” cutting inserts, counter knife, and a cutting rotor. The materials are loaded into the hopper, which are dropped directly inside a cutting chamber. Thereafter, a ram feeds the material into the space between a cutting rotator and a counter knife. The counter knife works in conjunction with the rotor, which has a plurality of multi-point cutters, to cut material fed into the space where the rotor and counter knife converge. The processed material exits through a screen that surrounds a portion of the circumference of the rotor. Pieces that are too large to pass through the screen are carried by the rotor back to the counter knife to be cut again. The protestant provided pictures of the different materials, which are provided below. The pictures show aluminum and copper radiators, aluminum box lights, and woven seatbelts that have been reduced into smaller pieces. 
 
 Vecoplan and its subsidiary company, Vecoplan LLC, is the owner of two patents, Patent No. 6,837,453 and Patent No. 9,144,803, that contain multi-point cutters similar to the ones contained in the subject size reduction machine. Patent No. 6,837,453, named a “Shredder,” describes the invention as a “rotary shredder for shredding various materials including fibrous materials . . .” and notes that the “rotor carries a plurality of cutters.” This patent also provides that the cutters “are positioned to work in conjunction with the counter knife to cut material that accumulates between adjacent V-cutters.” Patent No. 9,144,803, named a “Shredder with Multi-Point Cutters,” notes that “[m]aterial fed into the space between the rotor and counter knife is cut into pieces by the cutters . . . .” Moreover, the international classification for Patent No. 9,144,803 is listed as B02C18/00, which corresponds to “Disintegrating by knives or other cutting or tearing members which chop material into fragments.” Marketing materials for two different models of the size reduction machine describe them as “shredders.” The product literature for the “New Generation Shredders VAZ 1300-VAZ 1600” size reduction machine refers to “Reversible counter knives located in the bed of the cutting chamber. . . .”  Moreover, the product literature for the VAZ 1800 size reduction machine refers to a “wear resistant cutting chamber.” On the Vecoplan website, the VAZ 1600 and VAZ 1800 size reduction machines are described as “single shaft shredders.” The protestant also describes the size reduction machine as a “single-shaft rotary grinder.” The HTSUS subheadings under consideration are as follows: 8479 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof Other machines and mechanical appliances * * * 8479.82.00 Mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring machines * * * 8479.89.94 Other In HQ H289652, CBP classified the size reduction machine in subheading 8479.89.94, HTSUS, which provides, in relevant part, for: “Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and mechanical appliances: Other: Other.” CBP classified the size reduction machine in subheading 8479.89.94, HTSUS, because it found that the machine performed a function that was not encompassed by subheading 8479.82, HTSUS. In particular, CBP determined that the size reduction machine functioned like a shredder because the material placed in the machine was continuously cut by cutters into smaller pieces. Vecoplan maintains that the size reduction machine is a single rotor machine and cannot “shred” because “the resulting material must be shaped as thin, narrow strips – which two rotors can accomplish – but not one.” The term “shred” is not defined in the HTSUS or the Explanatory Notes (“ENs”). When terms are not defined in the HTSUS or the ENs, they are construed in accordance with their common and commercial meaning. See Toyota Motor Sales (USA), Inc. v. United States, 7 C.I.T. 178, 182, 585 F. Supp. 649, 653 (1984), aff'd, 753 F.2d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Nippon Kogaku (USA), Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 89, 673 F.2d 380 (1982). Dictionaries and other lexicographic authorities may be utilized to determine a term's common meaning. Mast Indus., Inc. v. United States, 9 C.I.T. 549 (1985), aff'd, 786 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, the dictionary definitions of “shred” are not limited to material that is shaped as thin or narrow strips. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “shred” as “to cut or tear something into small pieces,” the Oxford English Dictionary defines “shred” as a “strip of material, such as paper, cloth, or food, that has been torn, cut or scraped from something larger,” and Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “shred” as “a long narrow strip cut or torn off” and “to cut off.” Moreover, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (“C.C.P.A.”), by relying on dictionary definitions, determined that the common meaning of the term “shred” included “[t]o tear, cut or separate into small irregular or jagged strips or pieces; reduce to long and narrow fragments, as fibrous material . . . “[t]o cut or tear into small pieces; also, to cut or tear pieces from.” See W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States, 19 C.C.P.A. 326, 329 (1932). The single shaft rotor of the subject size reduction machine, which has multi-point cutters, is positioned to work in conjunction with the counter knife to cut material. Moreover, the material that is fed into the space between the rotor and the counter knife is cut into pieces by the cutters. The functions of the size reduction machine clearly fit the dictionary definition of shred, which is to cut material into smaller pieces, regardless of the fact that it is a single rotor machine. Moreover, in NY N248108, dated December 10, 2013, CBP held that “[c]utting and tearing [were] not functions encompassed by subheading 8479.82.0080, HTSUS.” In NY E85833, dated September 2, 1999, CBP also determined that shredding was not mentioned in the language of subheading 8479.82.00, nor was it synonymous with any of the terms of the subheading. Vecoplan’s argument that the size reduction machine either “crushes” or “grinds” is inconsistent with its patents that describe the technology and the product literature for the subject size reduction machine. Vecoplan product literature indicates t