CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212
Oscar Palacios
C.H. Robinson International
180 E. Ocean Blvd. Suite 700 Long Beach, CA 90008
RE: The country of origin of an ultrasonic transducer
Dear Mr. Palacios:
In your letter dated March 11, 2024, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client, Tung Thih Electronic USA.
The merchandise under consideration is an Ultrasonic Transducer, which is comprised of a round, semiconductor head with dual wires extending from the bottom. The subject device is designed to emit ultrasonic sound waves that bounce off surrounding objects and return to the transducer to register the existence of the objects in the area. The transducer will be used in various industries, such as burglar alarms, automatic doors, and parking assistance systems.
In your request, you state that the transducer is fully manufactured and assembled in Thailand. It is then sent to China, where it is cleaned and prepared for paint application. Multiple layers of primer, paint, and varnish are then added before the items are placed under infrared light to dry and cure. The finished transducers are then inspected and packaged for shipment to the United States.
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 ultrasonic transducer, it is the opinion of this office that the operations performed in China are not significant and do not create a physical change that would result in the change in the name, character, and use of the imported transducer. Further, the Thai originating transducer has a predetermined end use that is not altered by the minor processes completed in China. Based upon the facts presented, the country of origin of the Ultrasonic Transducer is Thailand.
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