CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212
Jose Castro
Alps Electric
7100 International Parkway McAllen, TX 78503
RE: The country of origin of wire harnesses
Dear Mr. Castro:
In your letter dated August 30, 2023, you requested a country of origin ruling.
The merchandise under consideration is described as a wire harness assembly and identified by two different part numbers, 2EH-00549AA and 2EH-00548AA. The subject harnesses are comprised of two insulated wire assemblies that are terminated at one end with an electrical connector and unterminated at the other. The harnesses are designed to be exclusively used within the steering wheel column of a motor vehicle to electrically connect various functions such as the horn, airbag, and other electrical controls.
In your request, you state that the assembly process described as follows will be completed in China. Cable assemblies consisting of twisted and insulated electrical conducting wire are imported into China from Japan. These cable conductor assemblies are cut to the desired length and grouped together in pairs. The connector is then assembled on one end of the two cables. This includes the assembly of terminals, ferrites, plastic parts, and a cover. These parts originate from Japan and Thailand. The finished harness is then packaged for shipment to the US.
The “country of origin” is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b), in pertinent part, 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.”
For tariff purposes, the courts have held that a substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 CCPA 267, C.A.D. 98 (1940); National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F. 2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Anheuser Busch Brewing Association v. The United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908) and Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982).
Further, in Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2016), the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) interpreted the meaning of “substantial transformation” as used in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”) for purposes of government procurement. In Energizer, the court reviewed the “name, character and use” test in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred in determining the origin of a flashlight, and reviewed various court decisions involving substantial transformation determinations. The court noted, citing Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 226, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1031, aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), that when “the post-importation processing consists of assembly, courts have been reluctant to find a change in character, particularly when the imported articles do not undergo a physical change.” Energizer at 1318. In addition, the court noted, “when the end-use was pre-determined at the time of importation, courts have generally not found a change in use.” Energizer at 1319, citing as an example, National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 310, aff’d 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, courts have considered the nature of the assembly, i.e., whether it is a simple assembly or more complex, such that individual parts lose their separate identities and become integral parts of a new article.
Regarding the origin of the subject wire harnesses, it is the opinion of this office that the Japanese originating wire assemblies impart the character of the finished article as they are the functional component of the harness. Additionally, the Japanese wire assemblies are dedicated to use as the electrical conductors within the finished harness and are responsible for the primary connection and conduction functions. The addition of the connectors in China as well as the basic assembly of the harness does not substantially transform the cables into new and different articles of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the individual components. Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the origin of the wire harness assemblies, part numbers 2EH-00549AA and 2EH-00548AA, will be Japan.
The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP.
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 Luke LePage at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division