H335208

H335208 June 4, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:EMAIN H335208 TPB CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8528.59.33 Center Director Customs and Border Protection Electronics Center of Excellence and Expertise 301 E. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Joseph Harris, SIS; Scott Titus, IS Re: Protest and Application for Further Review No: 4110-23-100871; Classification of certain LED display panels; NEOTI, LLC. Dear Center Director: The following is our decision as to Protest and Application for Further Review No. 4110-23-100871, which was filed by counsel on behalf of its client, NEOTI, LLC (“NEOTI” / “Protestant”). The protest pertains to the classification of certain light emitting diode (“LED”) display panels under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This decision follows our meeting, requested by Protestant and held on April 29, 2025. Protestant considered that due to their design, use and capabilities, the LED displays in question were classified under heading 8528, subheading 8528.52, which provides for “[m]onitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus… Other monitors: Capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an [ADP] machine of heading 8471”. Subsequently, CBP provided a Notice of Action that the entries were re-classified under subheading 8528.59, which covers “[m]onitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus, reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus: Other monitors: Other”. FACTS: The protest covers the NEOTI COB series LED displays and the UHD video walls LED displays series. Both LED display series in question are ultra-high-definition LED displays used in large LED display systems. Neither of the subject LED displays contain a tuner or channel selector to receive television broadcast signals. A diagram included with the submission (i.e., “Exhibit B”) shows that the display connects to a display controller box via a CAT5e cable. The controller box itself connects to an automatic data processing (ADP) machine (labeled “COMPUTER” on the exhibit). Based on the provided invoices, the only items in question are the LED displays. As there is no indication of a display controller on the provided invoice, the focus of this ruling will be the classification of the displays. ISSUE: Whether the subject LED displays are classified under subheading 8528.52, HTSUS, as monitors capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471, or subheading 8528.59, HTSUS, as other monitors and projectors. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Initially, we note that the matters presently before us may be protested under 19 C.F.R. § 174.11(b)(2) (CBP administrative decisions that are “subject to protest” include “[t]he classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable”). Consolidation of multiple entries into this Protest is proper because the entries involve the same protesting party and same category of merchandise, and the issue of proper tariff classification of the LED panels is common to all entries. See id. § 174.13(b). This Protest is timely, as it is being submitted within 180 days of liquidation of all entries pursuant to § 174.12(e)(1). Further, Protestant claims that this Protest also satisfies the eligibility criteria for further review because CBP’s decision to liquidate the subject merchandise under HTSUS subheading 8528.59.33 is inconsistent with previous rulings by CBP. See id. § 174.24(a), including CBP’s decision in NY N328363 (Oct. 17, 2022), which classified merchandise alleged to be nearly identical under subheading 8528.52, HTSUS. Merchandise imported into the United States is classified under the HTSUS. Tariff classification is governed by the principles set forth in the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and, in the absence of special language or context which requires otherwise, by the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. The GRIs and the 2 Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation are part of the HTSUS and are to be considered statutory provisions of law for all purposes. GRI 1 requires that classification be determined first 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 heading and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order. GRI 6 provides: For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative section, chapter and subchapter notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires. Protestant does not question the classification of the goods under heading 85.28, HTS, as they meet the terms of the heading. The remaining question is which is the correct subheading for the subject merchandise. The heading and subheadings under consideration are as follows: 8528 Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus; reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio- broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus: Other monitors: 8528.52 Capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471 8528.59 Other Protestant argues that subheading 8528.52, HTSUS, is the proper classification of the subject displays because they are monitors that do not incorporate television reception apparatus, and they claim that the subject displays meet the distinctive conditions of this subheading, namely, they are 1) capable of directly connecting to, and 2) designed for use with an automatic data processing (“ADP”) machine of heading 84.71. In this case, Protestant argues that the panels connect directly to the ADP machine as shown in the exhibits provided (ex., Exhibits B, C and D). Regarding whether the displays are directly connectable to an ADP machine, we will first note that CBP does not consider a display controller an ADP machine of heading 8471. The display controller, which itself connects to an ADP machine, receives and converts a variety of signals and sends those signals to the subject 3 displays. The display controller serves as an intermediary connection between the display and the ADP machine. As such, the display is not capable or directly connecting to an ADP machine nor accepting a signal from the central processing unit of an ADP machine. CBP precedent establishes when a monitor itself is not capable of directly connecting to an ADP machine and is not designed for use with an ADP machine, and instead, when that monitor directly connects to another device, such as a video controller, processor, set top box, etc., to be classified under subheading 8528.59, HTSUS, as other monitors. See, e.g., New York Ruling Letter (NY) N326463 (6/28/2022), NY N310939 (4/17/2020), NY N312883 (7/22/2020), and Headquarters Ruling Letter H315444 (9/28/2021). In their protest, NEOTI cites to NY N328363, dated October 17, 2022, where CBP classified a Sony Display System video wall under heading 8528.52, HTSUS. Protestant notes that both that NY ruling and the products currently before us utilize a display controller. However, the complete facts surrounding the displays classified in NY N328363 and those presently before us are not the same. The merchandise in NY N328363 were described as: a display controller, multiple display cabinets, cables, and a set up kit that work together to display images on a large scale. Because the goods in that ruling were presented together with the display controller and all the components needed 

Initially, we note that the matters presently before us may be protested under 19 C.F.R. § 174.11(b)(2) (CBP administrative decisions that are “subject to protest” include “[t]he classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable”). Consolidation of multiple entries into this Protest is proper because the entries involve the same protesting party and same category of merchandise, and the issue of proper tariff classification of the LED panels is common to all entries. See id. § 174.13(b). This Protest is timely, as it is being submitted within 180 days of liquidation of all entries pursuant to § 174.12(e)(1). Further, Protestant claims that this Protest also satisfies the eligibility criteria for further review because CBP’s decision to liquidate the subject merchandise under HTSUS subheading 8528.59.33 is inconsistent with previous rulings by CBP. See id. § 174.24(a), including CBP’s decision in NY N328363 (Oct. 17, 2022), which classified merchandise alleged to be nearly identical under subheading 8528.52, HTSUS. Merchandise imported into the United States is classified under the HTSUS. Tariff classification is governed by the principles set forth in the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and, in the absence of special language or context which requires otherwise, by the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation. The GRIs and the 2 

 Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation are part of the HTSUS and are to be considered statutory provisions of law for all purposes. GRI 1 requires that classification be determined first 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 heading and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order. GRI 6 provides: For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms