HQ 224662: Protest 5201-92-100229; motherboards; description on invoice;19 CFR 141.86(a)(3); 19 CFR 142.6(l); Subheading 8471.91.00;Subheading 8473.30.40; weight of affidavit.

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 224662

                          April 1, 1994

ENT-1-01-CO:R:C:E  224662 AJS

CATEGORY: Entry

District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
77 S.E. 5th Street
Miami, Fla 33131

RE: Protest 5201-92-100229; motherboards; description on invoice;
19 CFR 141.86(a)(3); 19 CFR 142.6(l); Subheading 8471.91.00;
Subheading 8473.30.40; weight of affidavit.

Dear District Director:

     This is our decision in protest number 5201-92-100229, dated
April 10, 1992, concerning mainboards or motherboards. 

FACTS:

     The subject motherboards were invoiced as "286-20 main board
w/dram" or "286-20 mother board".  The protestant claims that the
subject boards do not contain a central processing unit (CPU). 
The subject boards were entered under subheading 8473.30.40,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which
provides for "parts and accessories of the machines under heading
8471: not incorporating a cathode ray tube."  The boards were
rated advanced from the duty-free parts provision to the
provision for "other: digital processing units" within subheading
8471.91.00, HTSUS.

     Invoice 10595 of November 4, 1991, indicates that a 286-20
motherboard is priced at $60.00 per unit.  Invoice 10621 of
November 30, 1991, indicates that a 286-20 motherboard without a
CPU is priced at $58.00.  Another unnumbered invoice dated
October of 1991 indicates that 286-20 CPU is priced at $12.00 per
unit.  Invoice 10575, which relates to the entry forwarded to
this office, indicates that a 286-20 motherboard w/dram is priced
at $89.60.  Counsel for the protestant asserts that this last
price difference is due to the price of the dram and not the
inclusion of a CPU.


                               -2-

ISSUE:

     Whether the subject boards are properly described on their
invoices.

     What is the proper classification of the subject boards.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Initially, we note that the protest was timely filed
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(2)(A).  Two of the subject entries
were liquidated on 1/10/92, and this protest was filed on 4/3/92. 
One of the entries on the Customs Form 19 was not liquidated and
is thus not protestable at this time.
We also note that the issue at protest is protestable.  The
liquidation of an entry is protestable pursuant to section
1514(a)(5).

     19 CFR 141.86(a)(3) provides that each invoice of imported
merchandise shall set forth a detailed description of the
merchandise including the name by which each item is known.  19
CFR 142.6(1) states that a commercial invoice shall contain an
adequate description of the merchandise.
The subject merchandise was invoiced as a "main board" or "mother
board".  As the protestant correctly notes, these types of boards
are classified within subheading 8471.91.00, HTSUS, or within
subheading 8473.30.40, HTSUS, if the boards lack a CPU.  HQ
083957 (July 11, 1989).  The protestant previously invoiced
motherboards and mainboards as without a CPU if that was, in
fact, the case on various importations between May of 1991 and
February of 1993.  Consequently, the invoice description of a
board stating it to be a "main board" or "mother board" would be
one containing a CPU.  Furthermore, in our view merchandise
invoiced as a "motherboard" would by definition be considered to
possess a CPU.  See A. Freedman, The Computer Glossary, p. 468
(4th ed. 1988).  Therefore, the subject boards were inadequately
described on the invoice to support the asserted classification
under subheading 8473.30.40, HTSUS.

     19 CFR 141.89(a) states that a invoice for machine parts
shall contain a statement specifying the kind of machine for
which the parts are intended, or if this is not known to the
shipper, the kinds of machines for which the parts are suitable. 
Therefore, an invoice for a motherboard without a CPU should also
specify the kind of machine for which the motherboard is
intended.  For example, an invoice stating "286-20 motherboard
w/o a CPU, a part for the machines of heading 8471" would
correctly describe the merchandise as a motherboard without a
CPU.  


                               -3-

     The protestant's Vice President submitted an affidavit
stating that the subject boards did not in fact contain a CPU. 
In order for statements in an affidavit to be entitled to any
weight, they must be within the knowledge of the affiant, related
to the merchandise or the issue involved, and supported by
factual information.  R.F. Sturm, Customs Law and Administration,
sect. 46.3, 17 (3rd ed. 1982); See also Sam Yeung Co. v. United
States, 40 Cust Ct. 871, A.R.D. 84 (1958).  No factual
information was initially submitted with the protest to support
the claim made in the affidavit concerning the presence of a CPU. 
Therefore, we did not initially accord any weight to the subject
affidavit. 

     Counsel for the protestant subsequently submitted additional
information to this office in support of the Vice President's
affidavit.  For instance, invoices were submitted indicating that
286-20 motherboards without a CPU were priced at either $58 or
$60 during the relevant time period, and that a price difference
of approximately $12.00 should exist between a 286-20 motherboard
with a CPU and one without a CPU.  Therefore, a 286-20
motherboard with CPU would be priced at approximately $70 or $
72.  The motherboards in question are not priced in this range. 
Consequently, based on the documentary evidence and the
supporting affidavit, we conclude that the subject boards did not
in fact contain a CPU.  Thus, these boards are classifiable
within subheading 8473.30.40, HTSUS.     

     The protestant also argues that the appraisement was
erroneous as the result of a mistake of fact or clerical error
but fails to identify any facts in support of that argument.  In
view of our decision with respect to the classification issue,
together with that failure to develop an argument on the alleged
erroneous appraisement, we do not address that issue.

HOLDING:

     The protest is granted.  The subject boards are classifiable
within subheading 8473.30.40, HTSUS, and thus duty-free. 
However, the boards were not invoiced properly.  Motherboards or
mainboards without a CPU should be invoiced as such.  Customs was
initially correct in classifying the subject boards as invoiced
within subheading 8471.91.00, HTSUS.

     In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed with Customs Form 19,
by your office to the protestant no 


                               -4-

later than 60 days from the date of this letter.  Any
reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must
be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision.  Sixty days
from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to customs
personnel via the Customs Ruling Module in ACS and the public via
the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis, Freedom of Information
Act and other public access channels.  

                                 Sincerely,


                                 John Durant, Director