MAR-2:OT:RR:NC:N2:206
Dan Liu
Sling Automobile Bearing (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
40/2 Moo 5, Rojana Road, Tambon Uthai
Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, 13210
Thailand
RE: The country of origin of a wheel bearing.
Dear Mr. Liu:
This is in response to your letter, dated March 16, 2022, requesting a ruling on the country of origin of a wheel bearing for marking purposes and for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, from China, which you filed on behalf of your client AutoZone, Inc.
The item under review is a Wheel Bearing, which is a component of the suspension system or braking system in vehicles. It functions to provide accurate guidance for the rotation of the wheel. The wheel bearing consists of an outer ring flange, inner ring, inner ring flange and accessories such as rolling elements, cages, bolts, sealing rings, etc.
Based on the pictorial diagrams you submitted, the components of the wheel bearing are sourced from China and exported to Thailand to be assembled into a complete wheel bearing.
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) (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".
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.
According to the flowchart provided with your request, the inner ring and the outer ring flange undergo grinding and super fine grinding using the CNC machine in Thailand. However, the components produced in China have the basic characteristics of the wheel bearing and the processing operation performed in Thailand is only a finishing operation that completes a product but does not fundamentally change it. The end-use of all components from China is pre-determined at the time of importation to Thailand. The assembly of the components into the wheel bearing appears to be a minor one and none of the components undergo any substantial processing.
As a result, it is the opinion of this office that no substantial transformation occurs in Thailand. Therefore, the country of origin of the wheel bearing will be China for purposes of applying trade remedies 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 Service 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 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