Locking Pliers Are Still ‘Wrenches,’ Says CBP
Locking pliers are correctly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as wrenches, said CBP in an internal advice decision that confirmed that a two decade-old customs ruling and a 30-year old Court of International Trade opinion still apply. Cooper Tools argued that the classification of locking wrenches as pliers is incorrect and outdated, and said they should instead be classified as pliers. But in customs ruling HQ 166799 issued on April 16, CBP found that it is bound by the court decision, and nothing has changed that would warrant changing its interpretation.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The various models of locking pliers imported by Cooper Tools have two-part handles, one that is fixed and one that pivots to allow the jaws to open and close while applying pressure. The handles are equipped with an adjusting screw and a safety release mechanism. The locking pliers may also be used to hold, bend, cut, or manipulate objects without engaging the locking mechanism. Cooper Tools argued that the locking pliers should be classified under subheading 8203.20.6030 as pliers, dutiable at $0.12/dozen plus 5.5%. But citing customs ruling HQ 956820 (1994), CBP Laredo said the locking pliers should be classified as adjustable hand-operated spanners and wrenches under subheading 8204.12.00, dutiable at 9%.
The ruling cited by CBP Laredo in favor of classification as wrenches had itself cited a Court of International Trade decision issued in 1983 that found a similar set of locking pliers to be classifiable as wrenches under tariff item 648.97 of the old Tariff Schedule of the United States. In Associated Consumers v. U.S. (1983), the newly established court found that “pliers are tools of a more generally manipulative nature, not specifically designed to exert a twisting force.” It said that, although the locking pliers at issue in the case had a superficial resemblance to pliers because they had two handles, the “most significant fact in evidence is that the tool is designed to lock its jaws in position in order to maximize wrenching power. An adjustment screw on one handle allows the jaws to be closed to the approximate size of an object,” and the locking mechanism “allows the user to concentrate muscular force completely on a wrenching movement,” CIT had said.
Cooper Tools said the court decided incorrectly, because the eo nomine tariff provision for pliers directly describes the locking pliers, and should not be read to exclude pliers capable of turning a bolt. CIT violated the principle that “an eo nomine provision includes all forms of the named article,” it said. Cooper Tools also said the CIT decision isn’t binding on CBP, because the commercial meaning of pliers has changed, and the court decision in any case dealt with the old tariff schedule rather than the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
But looking to current American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards, CBP found that the commercial meaning of pliers hasn’t changed, so CIT’s Associated Consumers decision still applies. And even though the court used the old tariff schedule to decide the correct classification, the respective tariff provisions for wrenches and pliers have not changed much in the HTS, so the CIT decision is directly applicable. CBP held that the locking pliers are still correctly classified as adjustable wrenches under HTS subheading 8204.12.00.