OT:RR:NC:N2:231
Jing Zhang, Esq.
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20006
RE: The country of origin of Cod Liver Oil Softgel Capsules and Omega 3.6.9. Softgel Capsules.
Dear Ms. Zhang:
This is in response to your letter dated July 16, 2020, requesting a country of origin determination on behalf of your client, Sirio Nutrition Co., Ltd (Irvine, CA) for “Cod Liver Oil Softgel Capsules” and “Omega 3.6.9. Softgel Capsules.”
In the first scenario, cod liver oil is produced in Norway from crude fish liver oil by neutralizing, bleaching, cold filtrating, deodorizing, and blending with mixed tocopherols, Vitamin A Palmitate, and Vitamin D3.
In the second scenario, the product is a blend of fish oil, borage oil and flaxseed oil prepared in the United Kingdom. The fish oil concentrate is refined, bleached, cold filtrated, deodorized and blended with EPA, DHA, Vitamin A,Vitamin D. The borage seeds and flaxseeds are cold pressed and the ensuing oils are filtrated, and where applicable refined. The three items are blended in equal proportion to produce the preparation, Omega 3.6.9.
You have stated that both articles will be imported into China where vitamins will be added prior to the encapsulation process. Cod Liver Oil Softgel Capsules and Omega 3.6.9. Softgel Capsules will be imported into the United States in bulk sized quantities.
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.
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).
Regarding the present case, we find the processing that occurs in China, i.e., encapsulation, does not constitute a substantial transformation. In the first scenario, the country of origin of the finished product is Norway. In the second scenario, the country of origin of the finished product is the United Kingdom.
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 Ekeng Manczuk at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division