OT:RR:NC:N2:206
Laura Oliver
A.N. Deringer
173 West Service Road Champlain, NY 12919
RE: The country of origin of a lined brake shoe assembly.
Dear Ms. Oliver:
In your letter dated July 25, 2023, you requested a country of origin ruling on the Lined Brake Shoe Assembly, which you filed on behalf of Exxin Canada.
The product under consideration has been identified as a lined brake shoe assembly for heavy duty commercial vehicle brakes. The assembly consists of two brake lining blocks (friction material) from India, two steel brake shoes and brake hardware from China, fifty six rivets from the United States, and a box (packaging) from Vietnam. You state that the brake lining blocks are mechanically riveted to the steel brake shoes in Vietnam to create a finished lined shoe assembly. The installation brake hardware is included in the lined shoe kit. All four (4) components are then packaged together in Vietnam in the box for import to the U.S.
The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. 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 in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.
The "country of origin" is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b) as "the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. 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' within the meaning of this part."
However, if the manufacturing or combining process is merely a minor one that leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Uniroyal). Substantial transformation determinations are based on the totality of the evidence. See Headquarters Ruling (HQ) W968434, date January 17, 2007, citing Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 470, 478, 664 F. Supp. 535, 541 (1987). In Uniroyal case, the court held that an upper was not substantially transformed when attached to an outsole to form a shoe and that the upper was "the very essence of the completed shoe".
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 C.C.P.A. 151 (1982).
Based on the information provided, none of the components undergo substantial transformation in Vietnam. As a result, we need to determine the character of the lined brake shoe assembly. In HQ Ruling 733979, dated June 17, 1991, CBP stated that “The steel core is permanently attached to the friction lining, and is of secondary importance to the lining. The steel core has no independent function, but rather loses its separate identity by incorporation in the brake shoe assembly.” In Ruling N322988, dated December 29, 2021, we opined, “Since we stated in HQ 733979 that the cores are of secondary importance to the lining, the country of origin of the entire brake shoe will be the country of origin of the lining.”
Therefore, the lined brake shoe assembly is considered a product of India and will not be subject to the additional duties under Section 301, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
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 a Customs and Border Protection 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.”
This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).
A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, please contact National Import Specialist Liana Alvarez at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division