HQ 955052: Cine Analysers: HRL 952882 reconsidered; other image projectors; GRI 1; GRI 3(a); GRI 3(c); EN 90.08; 9010; EN 90.10; negatoscope; Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary

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 955052

                        November 9, 1993

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 955052 KCC

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  9008.30.00

Mr. John M. Peterson
Neville, Peterson & Williams
39 Broadway
New York, New York 10006

RE:  Cine Analysers: HRL 952882 reconsidered; other image
     projectors; GRI 1; GRI 3(a); GRI 3(c); EN 90.08; 9010; EN
     90.10; negatoscope; Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary

Dear Mr. Peterson:

     This is in response to your letter of September 15, 1993, on
behalf of Tagarno of America, Inc. requesting reconsideration of
Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 952882, dated August 11, 1993,
which concerns the tariff classification of Cine Analysers under
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

FACTS:

     The factual description of the Cine Analysers was set forth
in HRL 952882.  The facts in HRL 952882 are incorporated by
reference into this ruling.  

     In HRL 952882 the Cine Analysers were classified under
subheading 9008.30.00, HTSUS, as other image projectors.  While
the Cine Analysers were found to fall within the broad definition
of negatoscopes of heading 9010, HTSUS, in HRL 952882 we stated
that they do more than a negatoscope; simply "show" radiographic
negatives.  Cine Analysers project rather than simply show
radiographs and, therefore, were classified pursuant to General
Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 1, HTSUS, under subheading
9008.30.00, HTSUS.

     You state that Customs recognized that the Cine Analysers
serve two equally important purposes; they permit both still
viewing and motion viewing.  Therefore, you contend that Customs
recognized that the Cine Analysers fall within the broad
definition of negatoscopes.  Therefore, you state that inasmuch
as the Cine Analysers are prima facie classifiable under two
different tariff provision, pursuant to GRI 3(a), HTSUS, they are
more specifically classified as negatoscopes under heading 9010,
HTSUS.  Although this argument was raised, examined and
discounted in HRL 952882, it will be examined again.

     Additionally, you state that even if Customs disagrees with
the above analysis, classification under heading 9010, HTSUS, is
still required.  You contend that the terms "negatoscope" and
"other image projectors" provide equally specific descriptions of
the Cine Analysers.  Pursuant to GRI 3(c), HTSUS, the tariff
provision which occurs last in numerical order would provide the
proper classification of the Cine Analysers.  Therefore, you aver
they would be classified under heading 9010, HTSUS, as
negatoscopes.

ISSUE:

     Whether the Cine Analysers are classified as negatoscopes
under heading 9010, HTSUS?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     The classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is
governed by the GRI's.  GRI 1, HTSUS, states, in part, that "for
legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to
the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter
notes...."

     When by application of GRI 2(b), HTSUS, or for any other
reason, goods are prima facie, classifiable under two or more
headings, classification shall be effected as follows:

     (a)  The heading which provides the most specific
          description shall be preferred to headings provided a
          more general description....

     (c)  When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or
          3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which
          occurs last in numerical order among those which
          equally merit consideration.

     It is our opinion that to proceed to GRI 3(a), HTSUS, to
determine the tariff classification of the Cine Analysers, is
improper.  Classification is properly determined by application
of GRI 1, HTSUS.  

     The Cine Analysers are classified as other image projectors
under subheading 9008.30.00, HTSUS, pursuant GRI 1, HTSUS.  HRL
952882 determined that the Cine Analysers project rather than
show radiographs.  The Cine Analysers fall within the terms of
heading 9008, HTSUS, as evidenced after examination of the
Explanatory Notes (ENs).  The ENs provide a commentary on the
scope of each heading of the HTS, and are generally indicative of
the proper interpretation of the headings.  Although, not
dispositive, they are looked to for the proper interpretation of
the HTSUS. 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35128 (Aug. 23, 1989).  EN 90.08
(pg. 1470), states that the instruments of heading 9008, HTSUS,
are designed for projecting still images, and that the heading
includes "instruments for projection radiographs."  Inasmuch as
the Cine Analysers are provided for by the terms of heading 9008,
HTSUS, they are properly classified within that heading.

     HRL 952882 found that the Cine Analysers were not of the
class or kind of negatoscope classified under heading 9010,
HTSUS.  Negatoscopes are "apparatus for showing radiographic
negatives."  Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 27th
Edition, pg. 1103 (1988).  "They may be of very different types,
ranging from wall-mounted light boxes to automatic magazine-fed
radiograph viewers."  EN 90.10, pg. 1474.  None of the listed
exemplars in EN 90.10 described an apparatus that projects an
image onto a screen or wall, as do the Cine Analysers. 
Therefore, HRL 952882 determined that the Cine Analysers are not
provided for by the terms of heading 9010, HTSUS, as they are not
of the class or kind of negatoscope classified under that
heading.

HOLDING:

     Pursuant to GRI 1, HTSUS, the Cine Analysers are classified
under subheading 9008.30.00, HTSUS, which provides for "Image
projectors, other than cinematographic; photographic (other than
cinematographic enlargers and reducers...Other image projectors." 

     HRL 952882 dated August 11, 1993, is affirmed.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   John Durant, Director