OT:RR:CTF:VS H350728 RRB
Junyeong Park
Dream Customs Consulting Company
611-ho, 3-dong, Ace Hitech City Building
775, Gyeongin-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu
Seoul, 07299
South Korea
Re: Affirmation of NY N348411; Country of Origin of a Cosmetic Brush; Substantial
Transformation
Dear Mr. Park,
This is in response to your request, dated July 11, 2025, for reconsideration of New York
Ruling Letter (“NY”) N348411, issued on May 22, 2025. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”) determined the country of origin of a cosmetic brush. While CBP
also opined on the proper method of marking for the cosmetic brush at issue, you specifically
request reconsideration of CBP’s country of origin determination. There, CBP found that the
country of origin of the cosmetic brush was China. We have reviewed NY N348411 and
determined that it is correct. For the reasons set forth below, we are affirming that ruling.
NY N348411 described the cosmetic brush as follows:
The product under consideration is described as a cosmetic brush, model number
SMB2534. It is a beauty tool used to apply, blend, or contour various makeup
products, such as foundation, powder, blush, eyeshadow, and eyeliner.
Your submission indicates that the brush components are imported into Indonesia
from China. They include the polybutylene terephthalate (“PBT”) fibers, the
metal ferrule, and the painted wood handle. The PBT fibers are imported pre-cut
to a fixed length and portioned to match the quantity required to make the brush.
The ferrule and handle are both already in their finished forms.
Furthermore, NY N348411 provides comprehensive descriptions of the various
processing operations that the cosmetic brush is subjected to in Indonesia, which include the
following:
1. The shaped brush bristles are inserted into the metal ferrule.
2. The brush head inserted into the metal ferrule is bonded in place using
adhesive.
3. The portion of the ferrule, into which brush bristles have been inserted, is
pressed (crimped) to physically secure the bristles in place.
4. Excess portions of the brush bristles are removed through a taping process to
achieve a uniform and refined shape.
5. Any excess or unnecessary portions of the brush bristles are removed.
6. The aligned brush bristles are precisely hand-trimmed to complete the final
shape of the brush head.
7. The completed brush head is bonded to the handle using adhesive finishing
the construction of the cosmetic brush.
8. The completed cosmetic brush undergoes a final quality inspection.
Accordingly, CBP concluded in NY N348411 that “the imported bristles have been
processed to the extent that they now hold the basic nature of the finished brush head and do not
become a new article having a new name, character, or use. Therefore, the origin of the finished
brush will remain the same as the origin of the bristles as a substantial transformation does not
occur in Indonesia.” As noted in the ruling, CBP based its conclusion on the country of origin
analysis discussed in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 561279, dated November 30, 1999, and
HQ 733199, dated July 19, 1990.
When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies
under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., HQ H301619,
dated November 6, 2018. 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, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the
evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d
1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A “substantial transformation” occurs when an article loses its identity, and a new and
different article emerges from the processing having a distinctive name, character or use. United
States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270 (1940). In Gibson-Thomsen, imported
wood block articles became toothbrushes after manufacturing in the United States. After
importation, holes were bored into the wood blocks and then bristles were inserted into the holes.
The court determined that after further manufacturing of the wood blocks and the insertion of the
U.S.-origin bristles into the wood blocks to produce the finished product, the imported wood
blocks lost their identity and became new articles having a new name, character, and use.
To determine whether a substantial transformation occurs, CBP considers the totality of
the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin
of the item’s components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether
2
such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary
considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product
design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing
procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered
when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is
determinative.
In your request for reconsideration, you contend that the country of origin of the cosmetic
brush is Indonesia. You note that CBP’s decision in NY N348411 was based on the precedent
set forth in HQ 561279, dated November 30, 1999, where the processing in the country of export
was considered to be a substantial transformation; as well as HQ 733199, dated July 19, 1990,
where the processing in the country of export was not considered a substantial transformation.
You explain that in HQ 731999, which addressed the country of origin of imported paint
brushes, “Chinese hog bristles attached to metal ferrules were imported to the Philippines, where
they were simply trimmed and had handles attached, and thus the country of origin was
determined to be China.” You attempt to distinguish the subject cosmetic brush from the
merchandise in HQ 733199. In particular, you note that unlike the paint brush in HQ 733199,
the subject cosmetic brush is shipped to Indonesia with brush fiber bundles separated from the
metal ferrules and simply tied with thread, where it is then manufactured through “a full process
involving ferrule insertion, epoxy fixation, pressing, trimming, shaping, and handle attachment.”
You argue that through this processing, the brush fiber bundles lose their identity as a material
and undergo a substantial transformation. Without further explanation, you then imply that such
processing to produce the cosmetic brush is similar to the processing in HQ 561279, where CBP
found that the processing in the country of export was considered to be a substantial
transformation. We disagree.
In HQ 561279, raw, untreated hog bristles of Chinese origin were imported into Holland
in bulk where they were blended, aligned, trimmed on the ferrule end, measured by weight for
each size brush, inserted into the ferrule and permanently set with the ferrule through epoxy
fixation. In particular, the processing of the bristles in Holland was noted to be significantly
different from those used by competitors. For example, to achieve a bristle blend that works best
with solvent and water-based paints, the raw Chinese bristles were placed in a machine that
mixes and blends the different varieties of bristles, which were then visually inspected and
manually aligned so that the ends were portioned and lined up in the same direction. This was
followed by machine-measuring a specific weight of bristles and placing them into a specifically
designed device which gave the brush a unique shape. CBP noted that before any processing in
Holland of the Chinese-origin raw bristles, the raw bristles were not dedicated to use solely as
paint brush heads. Therefore, the raw bristles could not be said to represent the “very essence”
of the finished paint brushes. It was only after the processing in Holland, which included
specialized shaping and portioning by machine and by hand, that the brush components were
substantially transformed.
By analogy, we also point to CBP’s treatment of certain knives, peelers, and slicers. In
HQ H310562, dated January 6, 2021, CBP determined whether Japanese-origin blanks for
knives, peelers and mandoline slicers were substantially transformed by certain operations in
China. With respect to the knife, the ceramic blade blank produced in Japan had the appearance
3
of a knife blade when it left Japan and was capable of cutting in the blade blank form. When the
knife blank was shipped to China for further processing, it was sharpened but teeth were not cut
into the blade. Rather, the blade grind was simply created, followed by injection molding the
handle onto the end of the blade. Accordingly, CBP noted that the knife blank already possessed
the shape and form of the finished knife product prior to any processing in China, whereas the
attachment of the handle and sharpening of a blade blank that already had the appearance of a
blade were not complicated processes and left the identity and characteristics of the knife intact.
On the other hand, Japanese-origin blanks for the peeler and mandoline slicer did not have the
shape, form or identity of the finished product before processing in China. CBP noted that the
blanks for the peeler and slicer were box shaped and rectangular shaped items, respectively,
without any distinctive appearance, unique shape, or characteristics that would indicate any
particular commercial identity or identifiable use. In China, the ceramic blanks, which had the
appearance of thin blocks prior to processing, underwent indenting, thinning, and sharpening to
create a slicing edge that was not apparent with the blanks upon importation into China. Thus,
unlike the knife blanks, the peeler and slicer blanks relied on additional operations to form their
identity. The knife blank had the shape, appearance and identity of a knife prior to any
processing or attaching of the handle in the country of export (i.e., China). Conversely, the
peeler and slicer had no shape or characteristics indicative of a cutting device and only assumed
the identity and shape of the finished product after being sharpened, edged, and combined with
the plastic rim housing or paddle handle in China. Accordingly, CBP held that the processing
operations in China to produce the peeler and mandoline slicer resulted in a substantial
transformation.
CBP applied the reasoning in Gibson-Thomsen, HQ 561279, HQ 733199, and HQ
H310562 to the merchandise in NY N348411. To better understand how CBP applied this
reasoning to the specific facts in NY N348411, we highlight how CBP applied this analysis to a
similar cosmetic brush in NY N348403, dated May 22, 2025, which was also issued to you. In
NY N348303, pre-cut PBT filaments from China were imported into Indonesia, where they were
inspected, and any substandard or defective materials were identified or removed. The PBT
filament bristles were organized and aligned to ensure uniform direction and shape. This was
followed by dividing the bristles into specific quantities and organizing them into uniform
bundles. Next, the divided bristles were shaped to form the desired structure of the brush head
and tied with thread so they could easily fit within the ferrule. All of these portioning and
shaping operations were performed on the Chinese-origin bristles in Indonesia. It was only after
the performance of these portioning and shaping operations that the PBT filament bristles had the
identity and character of a cosmetic brush head. Thus, the operations performed on the bristles
in Indonesia in NY N348403 are similar to those performed on the ceramic blanks to create the
mandoline slicer and peeler in HQ H310562, where the blanks only formed their identity and
character as cutting devices once they underwent indenting, thinning, and sharpening to create a
slicing edge that was not apparent with the blanks. In contrast, the pre-cut bristles of the
cosmetic brush in NY N348411 arrived in Indonesia with all of the aforementioned portioning
and shaping operations already performed in China to match the quantity required to make the
finished brush. All that was needed to finish the shaped and portioned bristles—which at that
point, already had the appearance of a cosmetic brush head—was insertion and epoxy fixation of
the shaped and portioned bristles into the finished metal ferrule and handle. In contrast, the
wood blocks in Gibson-Thomsen required more extensive processing prior to insertion of the
4
U.S.-origin bristles into the handles, both of which occurred in the United States. Unlike in
Gibson-Thomsen, no additional processing of the finished Chinese-origin handle in NY N348411
was necessary while the minor processing of the pre-shaped and pre-portioned Chinese bristles
did not result in a new article with a new name, character, or use different from the imported
bristles. Like the knife blanks in HQ H310562, which also applied the reasoning from Gibson-
Thomsen, the identity and character of the pre-shaped and pre-portioned bristles in NY N348411
were already apparent as a brush head prior to finishing operations performed on the bristles in
Indonesia whereby the brush bristles were simply inserted and fixed with adhesive to the metal
ferrule. Therefore, the brush bristles were not substantially transformed in Indonesia, and the
origin of the finished cosmetic brush will remain the same as the origin of the bristles, i.e.,
China. Accordingly, we affirm NY N348411.
Sincerely,
Monika Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
5