Pierre C Belarge said:
For cords, 400.8(1) & (7), yes I would say without being able to see the length of cord it could be subject to physical damage.
First off 400.8(1) and (7) are irrelevant as this installation is specifically permitted by 400.7(A)(9).
Next I find it interesting you can tell from this picture that the cord is subject to damage.
Lets say I have a commercial electric overhead door.
Lets say it has a reversing safety edge on the bottom of it.
What wiring method may I use to connect the door that may move 8' 10' 12' up and down to the stationary motor operator?
Of course flexible cord.
Is the cord in the drawer more subject to damage then the rubber cord hanging beside a overhead door?
Remember the premise that cords are supposed to be visible their entire length, hence 400.8.
Again not relevant.
The NEC does not require a cord to be visible their entire length.
Also, hard wiring for this would not be permitted. What type of Chapter 3 wiring method would one use for the constant opening and closing of the draw?
Your right no method in Chapter 3 is suitable for this use.
Some of the flexible cords in Article 400 are suitable for this use.
It's not about how we feel about it, it is about what the code does or does not require.