Reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQRL) 086173, dated March 29, 1990.
Issued June 4, 1993 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Tariff classification
HTS codes: 2932.90.4100
Headings: 2932
Product description
It is your contention that the above ruling was wrong and that PBO should be classified as a pesticide in subheading 2932.90.20, HTSUS. Also you maintain that the conclusion in the ruling that PBO is only used as a synergist and never alone as a pesticide was in error. While you acknowledge that one of the major uses of PBO is as a synergist, you claim that it is also an effective acaricide, has considerable insecticidal activity and is used as a growth regulator. In support of your position you submitted several excerpts from the technical literature, dating back to 1947, illustrating PBO's insecticidal action.
CBP rationale
On review of the ruling in question, apparently we did err in stating that PBO appeared to have no pesticidal activity when used alone. However, even while acknowledging that it does possess some insecticidal properties, we do not believe that this is its primary use. The test for classification of PBO in the tariff as a pesticide is not whether it has any pesticidal activity but whether it is currently predominantly used as a pesticide. It is noted that many of the authorities you cited not only mentioned PBO's use as a pesticide but also its synergistic use. A synergist is defined as a material which enhances the remedial efficiency of a therapeutically active agent, or the effective- ness of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar biological agent. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary. A synergist for tariff classification purposes is not a pesticide. In fact, a review of the more recent technical literature on PBO shows that the most common use is as a synergist. Piperonyl Butoxide is defined as an insecticide synergist, especially for pyrethoids and rotenone. The Merck Index - Eleventh Edition (1989). Therefore, even though PBO may have pesticidal activity, the preferred commercial use is as a synergist. Thus, we remain of the opinion that it is correctly classifiable in subheading 2932.90.4100, HTSUS.
Full text
HQ 953531 June 4,1993 CLA-2 CO:R:C:F 953531 JGH CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 2932.90.4100 Mr. Paul A. Keane Keane and Associates International Marketing 7 East Chestnut Chicago, Illinois 60611 RE: Reconsideration of Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQRL) 086173, dated March 29, 1990. Dear Mr. Keane: Your letter of February 25, 1993, concerns the classification of piperonyl butoxide (PBO) under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In the above-cited ruling this chemical was classified as an other aromatic, heterocyclic compound with hetero-atoms only, in subheading 2932.90.4100, HTSUS. FACTS: It is your contention that the above ruling was wrong and that PBO should be classified as a pesticide in subheading 2932.90.20, HTSUS. Also you maintain that the conclusion in the ruling that PBO is only used as a synergist and never alone as a pesticide was in error. While you acknowledge that one of the major uses of PBO is as a synergist, you claim that it is also an effective acaricide, has considerable insecticidal activity and is used as a growth regulator. In support of your position you submitted several excerpts from the technical literature, dating back to 1947, illustrating PBO's insecticidal action. ISSUE: Classification of PBO in the HTSUS. - 2 - LAW AND ANALYSIS: On review of the ruling in question, apparently we did err in stating that PBO appeared to have no pesticidal activity when used alone. However, even while acknowledging that it does possess some insecticidal properties, we do not believe that this is its primary use. The test for classification of PBO in the tariff as a pesticide is not whether it has any pesticidal activity but whether it is currently predominantly used as a pesticide. It is noted that many of the authorities you cited not only mentioned PBO's use as a pesticide but also its synergistic use. A synergist is defined as a material which enhances the remedial efficiency of a therapeutically active agent, or the effective- ness of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar biological agent. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary. A synergist for tariff classification purposes is not a pesticide. In fact, a review of the more recent technical literature on PBO shows that the most common use is as a synergist. Piperonyl Butoxide is defined as an insecticide synergist, especially for pyrethoids and rotenone. The Merck Index - Eleventh Edition (1989). Therefore, even though PBO may have pesticidal activity, the preferred commercial use is as a synergist. Thus, we remain of the opinion that it is correctly classifiable in subheading 2932.90.4100, HTSUS. HOLDING: HQRL 086173 is affirmed. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division cc- NIS Bill Winters
More rulings on the same tariff codes
The tariff classification of Taxol from China.
The tariff classification of Cromolyn Sodium from Italy.
The tariff classification of 3,4-Methylene Dioxy Phenol Acetone and 2-Chloro-Alpha-(2-Piperidinoethyl)Phenyl- Acetonitrile from France, and Chloroacetamide from Germany.
Piperonyl butoxide (PBO); CAS No. 51-03-6 not listed; HRL 953531 reconsidered; NYRL 086173
The tariff classification of 10-Deacetyl Baccotin III andTaxol from Taiwan.
The tariff classification of 4'-dimethylepipodophyllotoxin (CAS# 6559-91-7) from China.
The tariff classification of Ipriflavone (CAS# 35212-22-7)from Hungary.
The tariff classification of 1,3-benzylidene glycerol (CAS#1708-39-0) from Canada.
The tariff classification of Dronabinol (CAS# 1972-08-3)imported in bulk from Germany.
The tariff classification of cromolyn sodium (CAS# 15826-37-6) and benzalkonium chloride (CAS# 8001-54-5) fromEngland.
Searching CBP rulings the smart way
TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings, surfaces the ones that actually match your product, and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.
Book a demo →