MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 730949 LW
Ms. Gail T. Cumins
          Sharretts, Paley, Carter,
            & Blauvelt, P.C.
          Eighty Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          RE:  Country of origin marking requirements for low insertion
               force jumpers
          Dear Ms. Cumins:
                This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1987,
          requesting a ruling on behalf of your client, W.L. Gore &
          Associates (the importer), concerning country of origin marking
          requirements for low insertion force jumpers produced in the
          U.S., exported to Mexico for cutting, and reimported for testing
          and packaging.
          FACTS:
                Based on your letter, low insertion force jumpers are used
          to transmit signals from one printed circuit board to another.
          In the U.S. the flat laminated ribbon cables are processed in a
          continuous run.  The intended length of each cable is established
          by a break in the conducting medium, leaving a section marked
          only with a line.  These continuous rolls of laminated cable are
          shipped on plastic reels to a sub-contractor in Mexico.
                In Mexico the reels of cable are unwound and the cable is
          cut to its intended length at the predetermined point.  The
          remaining paper insert flap is cut away, exposing the conducting
          medium.  The cables are then returned to the U.S. for final
          testing and packaging before delivery to U.S. customers.  These
          articles are sold for approximately thirty cents each, with the
          processing in Mexico representing three cents of this value.
          ISSUE:
                What is the proper country of origin for marking purposes
          of low insertion force jumpers which are manufactured in the U.S.
          in a continuous roll, exported to Mexico to be cut to length as
          marked and cut to expose the conducting medium, and returned to
          the U.S.?
          LAW AND ANALYSIS:
                Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19
          U.S.C.1304), requires that, unless excepted, every article of
          foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States
          shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and
          permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will
          permit in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser
          the English name of the country of origin of the article.
                The term "foreign origin" is defined in section 134.1(c),
          Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(c)), as a "country of origin
          other than the United States..." Country of origin as defined in
          section 134.1(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), means
          the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article
          of foreign origin entering the U.S.  Further work or material
          added to an article in another country must effect a substantial
          transformation in order to render such other country the "country
          of origin."
                By definition, only merchandise which is of "foreign
          origin" (i.e., of a country of origin other than the U.S.) is
          subject to the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304.  As provided in
          section 134.32(m), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.32(m)), U.S.
          products exported and returned are specifically excepted from
          country of origin marking requirements.  Since further work or
          material added to an article in another country must effect a
          substantial transformation in order to render such other country
          the country of origin, if a U.S. product is sent abroad for
          processing, it remains a product of the U.S. (and not subject to
          the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 upon its return) unless prior
          to its return it is substantially transformed into an article of
          foreign origin.
                In order for a substantial transformation to be found, an
          article having a new name, character, or use must emerge from the
          processing.  See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co. Inc. 27
          C.C.P.A. 267, C.A.D. 98 (1940).  In determining whether there has
          been a sufficient change in character and use to effect a
          substantial transformation, Customs has looked to whether the
          processing done increases the value of the article or transforms
          the article so that it is no longer the "essence" of the final
          product.  See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F.
          Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir 1983).
                As you are aware, Customs has ruled with regard to
          other articles exported and returned that if the process
          performed in the foreign country is very minor, the articles
          will be considered products of the U.S.  While these prior
          rulings are persuasive, they are not necessarily conclusive
          as to low insertion force jumpers.
                It is noted that the entire manufacturing process of the
          jumpers takes place in the U.S.  Upon exportation to Mexico the
          articles are dedicated for use as low insertion force jumpers,
          and can be identified as such.  The minor process of cutting the
          cables to length at a predetermined point, and cutting away the
          remaining paper insert to expose the conducting medium does not
          substantially transform the cables.  Further, the value added to
          the articles for the minor processing in Mexico is minimal.
          HOLDING:
                In view of the above considerations it is our opinion that
          the processing in Mexico does not affect a substantial
          transformation of the cables.  Therefore, the cables remain a
          product of the U.S. and are not subject to the requirements of 19
          U.S.C. 1304.
                                        Sincerely,
Marvin M. Amernick
                                        Chief, Value, Special Programs
                                        and Admissibility Branch