The SoftBank PEPPER is a wheeled, humanoid robot standing approximately 120 cm tall, containing a chest-mounted tablet display. It moves autonomously and interacts with people using the tablet, artificial speech, voice analysis, facial expression recognition, and vocabulary processing to read human emotions and respond conversationally.
The robot has four major components: an electrical block unit, hip and knee motors, the chest tablet, and a rechargeable lithium-ion battery. Both the electrical block unit and the tablet contain internal computers with RAM and flash memory. Additional components include electronic boards, two autofocus cameras, a 3D camera, loudspeakers, microphones, Android OS, various LEDs, multiple small motors, and laser, infrared, sonar, and touch sensors.
PEPPER runs on an open platform and is programmable in several programming languages. SoftBank ships it with two pre-installed applications — “Promotor” (customer engagement, promotional content management, data capture) and “Host” (greeting customers/visitors, answering FAQs). However, users can create entirely new applications to change how the robot performs. Deployment is split approximately 50% commercial (Promotor/Host), 25% new application development, and 25% academic (computer science education in high schools).
COMPETING HEADINGS
Heading 90.23 — “Instruments, apparatus and models, designed for demonstrational purposes (for example, in education or exhibitions), unsuitable for other uses.”
Claim: SoftBank argued PEPPER is designed for demonstrational purposes — deployed at trade shows, exhibitions, and in schools to teach computer science and robotics concepts. SoftBank cited CBP ruling HQ H201596 (RealCare Baby), where a humanoid simulation baby was classified under heading 90.23, and HQ H050116, where a humanoid robot designed to explain facts about robotics was found sufficiently “demonstrational.”
EN support: EN 90.23 covers a wide range of instruments, apparatus, and models designed for demonstrational purposes (in schools, lecture rooms, exhibitions) and unsuitable for other uses. Exemplars include cross-sectional models showing internal operation, training dummies, military tank simulators, and small-scale demonstrational models of machines.
Heading 84.71 — “Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included.”
Claim: SoftBank alternatively argued PEPPER qualifies as an automatic data processing machine. The robot contains two internal computers with RAM and flash memory, runs proprietary software and Android OS, is freely programmable, stores its own programs, and can access cloud-based software — satisfying the Note 5(A) to Chapter 84 criteria for ADP machines.
EN support: Note 5(A) to Chapter 84 defines automatic data processing machines as machines capable of: (i) storing the processing program and data immediately necessary for execution; (ii) being freely programmed by the user; (iii) performing arithmetical computations specified by the user; and (iv) executing, without human intervention, a processing program requiring logical decision during the processing run.
Heading 84.79 — “Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter.”
Claim: The Port of Chicago’s position was that PEPPER is a machine with the individual function of mimicking human speech and expressions, interacting with humans via voice and movement — a function not covered by any other specific heading in Chapter 84 or the broader Nomenclature.
EN support: EN 84.79 states this heading is restricted to machinery having individual functions which: (a) is not excluded from Chapter 84 by any Section or Chapter Note; (b) is not covered more specifically by a heading in any other Chapter; and (c) cannot be classified in any other particular heading of Chapter 84. The EN defines “individual functions” as mechanical devices whose function can be performed distinctly from and independently of any other machine or appliance.
THE CONFLICT
This is a three-heading competition across two Sections of the HS (Section XVI and Section XVIII), complicated by mandatory Legal Note routing and the exclusionary hierarchy between Chapters 84 and 90.
The classification tension arises because PEPPER simultaneously:
- Demonstrates and teaches (robotics education, trade show demonstrations) → pointing toward 90.23
- Processes data (internal computers, RAM, flash memory, freely programmable, cloud access) → pointing toward 84.71
- Performs a mechanical function (anthropomorphic movement, human speech mimicry, autonomous interaction) → pointing toward 84.79
The conflict cannot be resolved by GIR 1 alone because PEPPER’s multi-layered capabilities span headings across different Sections. However, before GIR 3 is even reached, mandatory Legal Note routing must be applied — Note 1(m) to Section XVI states that Section XVI does not cover articles of Chapter 90. This means heading 90.23 must be evaluated first: if PEPPER falls in Chapter 90, it is excluded from all of Section XVI (and headings 84.71 and 84.79 are eliminated). Only if heading 90.23 is eliminated can the Chapter 84 headings be considered.
Within Chapter 84 itself, a second gate applies: Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 states that machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an ADP machine and performing a specific function other than data processing are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions — not in heading 84.71. This creates a sequential elimination within Chapter 84: if PEPPER performs a specific function beyond data processing, heading 84.71 is excluded by operation of this Note, and the residual heading 84.79 remains.
ANALYSIS & RESOLUTION
Step 1: GIR 1 — Evaluate Heading 90.23 First (Note 1(m) to Section XVI Requires This)
Note 1(m) to Section XVI states: “This Section does not cover: … (m) Articles of Chapter 90.”
This means that if PEPPER properly falls under heading 90.23, it is automatically excluded from all of Chapter 84. The 90.23 analysis must therefore come first.
Heading 90.23 requires goods to be: (1) designed for demonstrational purposes, and (2) unsuitable for other uses.
Test (1) — Designed for demonstrational purposes: PEPPER can perform demonstrations — it has been used at trade shows and in schools. The EN 90.23 exemplars share a unifying characteristic: the capacity to convey conceptual or practical knowledge. CBP precedent in HQ H050116 found that a humanoid robot designed to explain facts about robotics was sufficiently “demonstrational.” PEPPER can similarly demonstrate robotics concepts.
Test (2) — Unsuitable for other uses: This is where heading 90.23 fails. PEPPER is not limited to demonstrational purposes. It ships with a “Host” application enabling commercial customer greeting in any business setting. It ships with a “Promotor” application for managing promotional content and capturing customer data. It runs on an open platform allowing unlimited custom application development. SoftBank itself estimated only 25% of deployments would be academic — the remaining 75% are commercial or developmental.
The EN 90.23 exemplars (Wimshurst machines, anatomical models, tank simulators, scale models) are all items that can only be used for demonstrational purposes and have no alternate commercial function. PEPPER fundamentally differs: it is a general-purpose programmable robot with demonstrational capability as one of many use cases.
EN 90.23 explicitly excludes “articles designed for both recreational and demonstrational purposes” (directing them to Chapter 95). While this specific exclusion targets recreational goods, the underlying principle is clear — heading 90.23 does not cover multi-purpose articles.
Result: Heading 90.23 is eliminated. PEPPER is unsuitable for classification as a demonstrational apparatus because it is designed for and suitable for uses far beyond demonstration. The Note 1(m) gate does not activate.
Step 2: GIR 1 — Evaluate Heading 84.71 (Note 5(A) and Note 5(E) to Chapter 84)
With heading 90.23 eliminated, Section XVI headings are now available.
Note 5(A) test: PEPPER contains two internal computers with RAM and flash memory, is freely programmable in several languages, performs arithmetical computations, and executes programs requiring logical decision during processing runs. On its face, the ADP machine criteria appear to be met.
However, Note 5(E) applies as a mandatory gate: Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 states that “machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings.”
PEPPER performs a specific function other than data processing: it is designed to interact with human beings via voice and movement. Its cameras, speakers, microphones, lights, motors, and sensors work in synchronization to create an anthropomorphic robot that mimics human speech and expressions and communicates verbally. This human interaction function is the robot’s primary design purpose — data processing is the means by which it achieves this function, not the function itself.
Result: Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 excludes PEPPER from heading 84.71. The robot must be classified in the heading appropriate to its specific function (human interaction via speech and movement) or, failing that, in a residual heading.
Step 3: GIR 1 — Evaluate Heading 84.79 (Residual Heading)
Heading 84.79 is the residual heading for Chapter 84 — it covers machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in the Chapter.
EN 84.79 sets three cumulative conditions:
- (a) Not excluded from Chapter 84 by any Section or Chapter Note → Met (heading 90.23 was eliminated, so Note 1(m) does not block)
- (b) Not covered more specifically by a heading in any other Chapter → Met (no other Chapter heading specifically covers humanoid interactive robots)
- (c) Cannot be classified in any other heading of Chapter 84 → Met (heading 84.71 was excluded by Note 5(E); no other Chapter 84 heading covers this product)
The “individual function” test is also satisfied: PEPPER’s function — mimicking human speech and expressions, analyzing emotions, and interacting conversationally with humans as prompted — can be performed distinctly from and independently of any other machine or appliance. The robot is a self-contained device performing this function autonomously.
SoftBank also raised heading 85.43 (electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions, not specified elsewhere in Chapter 85). CBP correctly rejected this because EN 85.43 covers articles in which any mechanical function, if present, is subsidiary to the electrical function. PEPPER’s mechanical functions (wheeled locomotion, motor-driven limb movement, physical gesturing) are not subsidiary — they are central to the robot’s human-interaction function. EN 84.79 and EN 85.43 read together confirm that when mechanical and electrical functions coexist and the mechanical function is not subsidiary, heading 84.79 prevails.
Result: Heading 84.79 captures PEPPER. Classification is resolved under GIR 1 at heading 84.79, subheading 8479.89.
Final Classification
8479.89 — Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter: Other machines and mechanical appliances: Other.
Resolved by application of GIR 1 and GIR 6, following mandatory sequential elimination via Note 1(m) to Section XVI (heading 90.23 evaluated first), Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 (heading 84.71 excluded), and the three-part EN 84.79 residual heading test.
Real-world authority: CBP Headquarters Ruling HQ H301814 (July 13, 2020) — SoftBank PEPPER Robot → 8479.89.94, HTSUS.
KEY CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES
- Note 1(m) to Section XVI creates mandatory sequencing: Chapter 90 headings must be evaluated before Chapter 84/85 headings. If a product is prima facie classifiable in both Section XVI and Chapter 90, the Chapter 90 heading must be tested and eliminated before Section XVI headings can be considered. This is a legal note routing chain, not an optional analytical step.
- Heading 90.23’s “unsuitable for other uses” requirement is an absolute bar, not a relative one. A product that can be used for demonstrations but also has commercial, developmental, or other non-demonstrational applications is excluded from heading 90.23 regardless of how prominent the demonstrational use may be. Open-platform programmability is a strong factual indicator against heading 90.23 classification.
- Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 is a function-over-processing gate. When a machine incorporates an ADP machine but performs a specific function other than data processing, Note 5(E) mandates classification by function, not by computing capability. The presence of RAM, flash memory, programmability, and cloud access does not automatically make a device an ADP machine of heading 84.71 if those capabilities serve a non-data-processing function.
- Heading 84.79 is a true residual heading with a three-part cumulative test, not a catch-all. A product must: (a) not be excluded by Section/Chapter Notes; (b) not be more specifically covered in another Chapter; and (c) not be classifiable in any other Chapter 84 heading. All three conditions must be affirmatively established. The “individual function” requirement further requires the device to perform its function distinctly from and independently of any other machine.
- The 84.79 vs. 85.43 boundary turns on whether mechanical function is subsidiary to electrical function. When a product has both mechanical and electrical functions and the mechanical function is central (not subsidiary), heading 84.79 prevails. When mechanical function is subsidiary to electrical function, heading 85.43 applies. For humanoid robots with motor-driven movement, the mechanical function is inherently non-subsidiary.
CONCLUSION
This scenario involves a three-heading competition across two Sections (XVI and XVIII), mandatory Legal Note routing via Note 1(m) to Section XVI, sequential Note-based elimination within Chapter 84 via Note 5(E), the residual heading three-part test of EN 84.79, the 84.79/85.43 mechanical-vs-electrical boundary, and an emerging technology product (humanoid AI robot) that did not exist when the HS was designed. The classification requires four sequential elimination steps before reaching the final heading — each governed by a different Legal Note or EN provision.