Request for tariff classification ruling on certain all terrain bicycles

HQ 082733 April 21 1989 CLA2 CO:R:C:G 082733 AS 825689 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF No. 732.18 732.24 Riggle, Keating & Craven 205 West Wacker Drive Suite 2022 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Re: Request for tariff classification ruling on certain all terrain bicycles Gentlemen: Your letter of October 12, 1987, addressed to the Regional Commissioner of Customs at New York on behalf of XXXXXXX has been referred to Headquarters for reply. FACTS: The imported bicycle is described as a XXXXXXX all terrain bicycle XXXXXX. It has both wheels measuring over 25 inches in diameter, weighs less than 36 pounds complete without accessories and is valued over $16.66 2/3 each. It is described in the sales catalogue as follows: The XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX has a rugged lugged steel frame with oversized downtube. ATBstyle (under lining added) handlebar with alloy canti lever brakes and motorcycle style brake and levers. ****Wide (underlining added) 26 X 1.50 in. tires are dual pressure.... ride at low pressure for maximum traction or increase pressure for reduced rolling resistance. 3piece cottered crank, off road style (underlining added) pedal. The bicycle is available in men's and women's models and retails for $169.99.  -2- ISSUE: The issue is whether the bicycles are "not designed for use with tires having a crosssectional diameter exceeding 1.625 inches.” If so, the classification will be under 732.18, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS). If not, classification will be under item 732.24, TSUS. There is general agreement that if a bicycle is designed for true off road or crosscountry riding (referred to as ATB or mountain or offroad) it is most likely designed for use with 2.0 inch or larger tires which are crucial for offroad riding. Thus, even if a bicycle has for example, a 1.5 inch tire at time of importation, if a change of tire makes the bicycle suitable for offroad riding, it cannot be said to be designed for use with the narrow tire. It is, in fact, designed for use with the wide tire. On the other hand, if the bicycle is designed for street use, it can be said that it is not designed for use with the wide tire, even if it can accommodate the wide tire. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The file does not contain an extensive discussion of the design of the bicycle. Your position seems to be that inasmuch as the bicycle is equipped with a 1.5 inch tire and the rim is specifically designed for this tire, the bicycle is not designed for use with wider tires. Contrary to this position it is argued that the bicycle has a front fork and rear stay opening which are capable of accommodating a wider tire. It is unlikely that a bicycle could be properly classified merely on the basis of either fact situation standing alone. We must look at other facts to reach a proper conclusion. It is our opinion that the XXXXX bicycle is not designed as a true offroad bicycle and is not designed for use with tires measuring over 1.625 inch. We arrive at this conclusion for several reasons. The references in the catalogue to ATB style handlebars and offroad style pedals and the reference to the 1.50 inch tire as a "wide" tire describe this bicycle as what it is, namely a street bicycle designed to imitate a true ATB. It would seem unreasonable for a purchaser to buy this bicycle and then change the tire to a wider size when it has a dual pressure tire which accomplishes much the same thing a wide tire is designed to accomplish merely by reducing the pressure. Furthermore, these bicycles are being sold by a massmerchandiser who attracts price conscious consumers who are unlikely to purchase these bicycles with the intent to change the tires. A review of some of XXXXXX competitor's catalogues shows that there are all terrain style bicycles available with wide tires in the same price range.  -3- We also note that this bicycle is available in men's and women's models. We think this is a significant factor. We think that the women's design is inherently unsuitable for off road activity because it lacks the strength afforded by the top tube on the men's bicycle. This is not to say that there is no such thing as a women's offroad but if there are some in existence we think it would be clearly evident that they are engineered for off road use. The point is that where a lowpriced model is involved such as in this case, it is highly unlikely that the narrow tire will be changed to the wide tire on the women's model because it would still be unsuitable for offroad use. We can infer from this that a companion men's model, identical except for the top tube, would also not be suitable for offroad use even with the added strength of the top tube. After a thorough review of the file and information we have received in connection with other queries, it is our conclusion that the XXXXXXXX is designed for street use. It is designed for a certain class of consumer who is attracted to the mountain style design but who will have no intention of putting wide tires on it. HOLDING: It is our decision that the XXXXXX is not designed for use with tires exceeding 1.625 inch in crosssectional diameter and is classifiable under item 732.18, TSUS. Furthermore, we agree with you that the XXXXXX is classifiable under heading 8712.00.2000 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The bicycle which is the same in all material respects as the XXXXXX which you also inquired about should be classified in accordance with the principles enunciated in this decision. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division