CLA-2-90:OT:RR:NC:N2:212
Paula Connelly
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
100 Trade Center
Woburn, MA 01801
RE: The country of origin of a fiber optic terminal box
Dear Ms. Connelly:
In your letter dated June 21, 2022, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client, Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The merchandise under consideration is described as a fiber optic terminal box and represented by the two model numbers below:
Terminal box with MPO to SC and MPO
Terminal box with MPO to SC with PLC splitter
The subject articles consist of a fiber optic cable jumper assembly with connectors affixed at each end enclosed within a dome-shaped plastic box. The terminal boxes are used to provide fiber optic network connection within a commercial or private installation. You state that the two versions function identically with the difference being in the structure of the cable within the box.
You state that the manufacturing process is performed in China through the steps described as follows. The process begins with the creation of the cable jumper assemblies based upon the needs of the customer. U.S. origin optical fibers are cut to the desired length and jacketed prior to the addition of the connectors. You state that CBP has previously ruled upon the process for identical merchandise under Rulings N307515, N313261, and N314184 where we found that these assemblies were U.S. origin.
The jumper assemblies are then combined with the remainder of the components, which originate from various countries including Taiwan and the U.K. The cable assemblies are coiled within a splice tray. The terminal box is then created separately by assembling plastic cartridges, adapter holders, and adapters within a plastic box. The splice tray with jumper assembly is then attached to the plastic box and the cables are connected to the adapters to create the finished terminal box.
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 terminal boxes, it is the opinion of this office that the jumper assemblies impart the essential functional component of the finished item. Further, the assembly process performed to manufacture the finished box in China is not significantly complex to substantially transform the jumper assemblies. As noted in the rulings above, the jumper assemblies are considered US origin based on the optical fibers. As such, based upon the facts presented, it is our opinion that the origin of the “Terminal box with MPO to SC and MPO” and “Terminal box with MPO to SC with PLC splitter” is the United States.
Whether an article may be marked with the phrase "Made in the USA" or similar words denoting U.S. origin, is an issue under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). We suggest that you contact the FTC Division of Enforcement, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is made in the USA.
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 Luke LePage at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division