OT:RR:NC:N:1:128
Mr. Edward C. Han
Kintetsu World Express USA Inc.
145-68 228th Street, Unit 1
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
RE: The country of origin of polishing discs.
Dear Mr. Han:
In your letter dated March 29, 2019, you requested a country of origin ruling determination on behalf of your client, Mipox Shanghai Trading Co Ltd, for D1-KT Lavender 127. Samples were submitted with your ruling request and will be retained by this office.
The merchandise under consideration, D1-KT Lavender 127, is a disc that measures approximately 127 millimeters in diameter and consists of a base film, comprised of polyethylene terephthalate, to which an abrasive powder has been applied. It is used in polishing machines to polish electric parts, particularly fiber optic terminals.
From the information you provided, the base film, a resin, and a solvent are all manufactured in Japan. The abrasive, which you state is 100% artificial diamond powder, is a product of China. In Japan, the diamond powder abrasive is mixed with the resin and solvent; this mixture is used to coat the base film. After this process is complete, the coated film is shipped to China where it is cut to size and shape, quality inspected, and packaged. 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.
When considering a product that may be subject to antidumping, countervailing, or other safeguard measures, the substantial transformation analysis is applied to determine the country of origin. See 19 C.F.R. § 102.0; HQ 563205, dated June 28, 2006; see also Belcrest Linens v. United States, 741 F.2d 1368, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding that “the term ‘product of’ at the least includes manufactured articles of such country or area” and that substantial transformation “is essentially the test used…in determining whether an article is a manufacture of a given country”).
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). 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). 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). With respect to the D1-KT Lavender 127, we find that the base film, resin, and solvent of Japanese origin and the diamond powder of Chinese origin lose their individual identities and are substantially transformed into a new and different article in Japan. Thus, the country of origin of the D1-KT Lavender 127 will be Japan.
This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs 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, contact National Import Specialist Nicole Sullivan at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division