Annex H/6. Decisions of the Harmonized system Committee (O. Eng.)

DECISIONS OF THE HARMONIZED SYSTEM COMMITTEE (O. Eng.)

1. Opening the discussion on the item, the Observer from the ICC briefly informed the Committee about the main features of the Bluetooth technology applied in the device at issue. He also noted that, in accordance with the terminology used by the industry, the articles at hand should be referred to as wireless headsets.

2. The Russian Delegate presented a sample to the Committee for examination. It was the <...>, which was one of the articles described in the working document, and consisted of a headset with a microphone and a charger. The Russian Delegate requested that this item be classified by the Committee.

3. The Russian Delegate accepted the proposed terminology from the Observer of the ICC, indicating that the functions performed by the device at issue were covered by the text of heading 85.18. He continued by reminding the Committee that at its 23rd Session, it had already classified a similar device in subheading 8518.50 (Annex IJ/27 to Doc. NC0090E1, HSC/23 - Report). He further noted that the way of transmitting the data was not of relevance in that particular case, and in spite of the fact that the device was wireless, it still kept the functionality of the earphone together with the microphone.

4. That approach was supported by another delegate, who put forward an example of a keyboard using the Bluetooth protocol for exchanging data, but still kept the basic functionality of the keyboard. In her opinion, the wireless headset at issue should be classified in heading 85.18 either by GIR 1 or GIR 3 (c).

5. Several other delegates supported classification in heading 85.18. Some of these delegates thought that the article was classified in heading 85.18 by application of Note 3 to Section XVI.

6. On the other hand, one delegate voiced the opinion that to a certain extent, the function of the device was outside the scope of heading 85.18; therefore, heading 85.17 should also be considered, and, in accordance with GIR 3 (a), heading 85.17 was applicable since it provided a more specific description.

7. Another delegate agreed that classification should be in heading 8517. That delegate's reasoning was that the article consisted only of a transceiver and, based on that and in application of Note 3 to Section XVI, classification should be in subheading 8517.62.

8. When the question was put to a vote, 18 delegates voted for heading 85.18, while 16 voted in favor of 85.17. The Committee decided to classify the subject article in subheading 8518.30 by application of GIRs 1 (Note 3 to Section XVI), 3(b) and 6.

9. In order to reflect the decision taken, the Secretariat was instructed to prepare a draft Classification Opinion for examination, in the first instance, by the next presessional Working Party.

10. In this regard, the US Delegate proposed certain amendments to the boxed text in the working document. In addition, the Delegate of Switzerland was of the opinion that the boxed text too fully described the article. He proposed using text from paragraphs 3 and 4 of Doc. 1492E1a and adding a little more detail.