OT:RR:NC:N2:206
James Kerslake
SHW Brake Systems (Nantong Haimen) Co., Ltd.
A5 plant, 1599 Fujiang North Road, Haimen District Nantong China
RE: The country of origin of a brake rotor
Dear Mr. Kerslake:
In your letter dated January 12, 2024, you requested a country of origin ruling for a high performance Brake Rotor.
The item under consideration has been identified as a Brake Rotor (Part Number SFX-40011), which is a high-performance and lightweight rotor intended for sale to aftermarket vendors within the United States. The rotor is designed to be used on luxury and high performance automobiles to provide improved braking performance compared to standard brake rotors. You state that the item will be shipped directly from China to the United States, or from Germany to the United States.
The brake rotor consists of a cast iron rotor and stainless steel pins from Germany, and an aluminum bell cast from China. The final manufacturing process occurs in China. The iron rotor undergoes Computer Numerical Control (CNC) pre-machining. Then, the pins and the aluminum bell are inserted into the rotor. After that, the brake rotor undergoes CNC finish-machining, painting, and packing.
The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.
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, dated 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."
In the present case, the components fabricated in Germany do not undergo a change in their name, character or use because of the processing in China. As a result, no substantial transformation occurs in China. Since the components are of multiple countries of origin, we need to find the character of the brake rotor. The Chinese aluminum bell’s function is to mount the brake rotor on to the wheel hub, while it is the cast iron rotor that the brake caliber clamps the brake pads against creating the friction to stop the car when the driver applies the brakes. Therefore, this office has determined that the cast iron rotor imparts the character of the finished brake rotor. Subsequently, the country of origin of the brake rotor (Part Number SFX-40011) will be Germany.
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 Liana Alvarez at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division