OT:RR:CTF:VS H348567 AP
Arthur W. Bodek, Partner
Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt LLP
599 Lexington Ave, Fl. 36
New York, NY 10022
RE: Gold Necklace Medallions; Country of Origin for Purposes of Marking and Trade
Remedies
Dear Mr. Bodek:
This is in response to your May 2, 2025 ruling request, filed on behalf of Cemayla LLC,
d/b/a Foundrae (“importer”), regarding the country of origin of prospective importations of gold
necklace medallions of various designs for purposes of marking and additional trade remedy
measures.
FACTS:
The necklace medallions consist of U.S.-origin 18-karat gold castings that are set with
stones of various origins. The gold castings will be made in the United States and will be sent to
India or Thailand for assembly into finished medallions. To produce the castings in the United
States, wax pieces are 3D-printed and prepared into casting trees. The wax casting trees are then
cast in 18-karat gold. The castings are cut from the trees and sent to India or Thailand, where
they are pre-worked (e.g., filing, sprue removal, pre-polishing, and general cleaning) and set with
stones. The castings are polished and subjected to finishing operations. The finished gold
necklace medallions will be imported into the United States.
ISSUE:
What is the origin of the necklace medallions for purposes of marking and additional
trade remedy measures?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies,
the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. The test for determining whether a
substantial transformation will occur is whether an article emerges from a process with a new
name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. See
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA 151 (1982). This determination is based on
the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992),
aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The casting of metal alloys into jewelry is a substantial transformation, while setting
stones alone does not effect a substantial transformation. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”)
555801, dated January 2, 1991 (mounting a ring with gemstone is a simple combining operation
and not a substantial transformation); New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N248127, dated
December 12, 2013 (“the entire casting process constitutes a single substantial transformation”).
In NY N346349, dated March 24, 2025, a gold ring was cast in the United States and was sent to
China for cleaning and polishing, stone setting and final adjustments, before being sent back to
the United States. The country of origin of the ring was determined to be the United States
because the casting provided the essence of the finished product, and the finishing and setting of
stones in China did not substantially transform the casting.
Consistent with the above rulings, the gold castings produced in the United States from
casting trees cast in 18-karat gold, will impart the essential character to the finished necklace
medallions in this matter. The gold castings do not undergo a substantial transformation in India
and Thailand where the stone setting, polishing, and final assembly take place. Therefore, the
finished necklace medallions will be considered products of the United States for marking
purpose and for purposes of trade remedies. Since the country of origin will be the United
States, the necklace medallions will be excepted from country of origin marking requirements
and will not be subject to additional trade remedy measures, such as reciprocal or global tariffs.
HOLDING:
The country of origin of the finished gold necklace medallions for purposes of marking
and trade remedies, such as reciprocal or global tariffs will be the United States. Therefore, the
medallions will be excepted from country of origin marking requirements and will not be subject
to additional trade remedy measures.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the
assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and
incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by [U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”)] field office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is
subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the
transaction described therein to the actual transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on
which the ruling was based.”
2
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this
merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be
brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
3