Parts for Child Safety Seats Can't Be for Vehicles If Seats Themselves Aren't, CBP Says in HQ Modification

Canopies for child safety seats are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9401.99.90 as "other" seat parts, CBP headquarters said in a recently released ruling modification, despite a comment on the underlying proposal that said the court needed to follow U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent and classify the canopies as parts of seats for vehicle seats.

Citing an additional U.S. note issued after the Federal Circuit decision, CBP explained that the seats cannot be parts for seats of a kind used in vehicles, because child safety seats themselves are barred from classification as vehicle seats.

The comment argued that the subject canopies are properly classified under subheading 9401.99.10 as other parts of motor vehicle seats. The comment argued that Additional U.S. Note 1 to chapter 94, added in 2007, only said that child safety seats aren't classifiable as seats for motor vehicles, and not that parts of child safety seats are not classifiable as parts of seats for motor vehicles. That was intentional, and showed congressional intent, the comment said.

Additional U.S. Note to chapter 94 says that the subheading 9401.20.00, "seats of a kind used for motor vehicles," does not include "child safety seats.” In 2008, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. carved out a provision for child safety seats in subheading 9401.80.6020 as "other seats." This change required the reclassification of child safety seat parts from subheading 9401.90.10, as parts of seats for motor vehicles, to subheading 9401.90.50, as parts of other seats, CBP said. The current HTSUS still identifies child safety seats in subheading 9401.80.60, but the HTSUS was again updated in 2022 to move the provision for parts of other seats to subheading 9401.99.90, where CBP classified them.

The comment also argued that the Federal Circuit in a 1997 decision, Bauerhin Techs v. U.S., directly addressed the issue of where to classify canopies for child safety seats, putting them in subheading 9401.20.00 as parts of seats for motor vehicles. It argued the HTSUS changes did not negate the fact that child safety seats are still factually seats used in motor vehicles and so their parts can be classified as such despite the prohibition on the seats themselves being classified as of a kind used in motor vehicles.

"A simple causal analysis demonstrates that a part of merchandise, which no longer constitutes a specific type of a commodity, would not be upheld as a part of such commodity," CBP said. "In essence, because child safety seats are precluded from subheading 9401.20.00, HTSUS, parts of those seats are consequently excluded from subheading 9401.90.10, HTSUS, which provides for parts of seats for motor vehicle," the agency said.

CBP agreed with the commenter that subheading 9401.99.10 is a use provision, but the agency said that it was restricted from conducting an actual use analysis because it was still bound by the Bauerhin opinion. "Analyzing whether parts of child safety seats constitute parts of seats for motor vehicles, in contradiction of the Bauerhin holding, would effectively result in unlawful encroachment" on judicial power, CBP said.