OT:RR:NC:N2:209
John McKenzie
Baker & McKenzie LLP
101 California Street, suite 4100
San Francisco, CA 94111
RE: The country of origin of System-on-Chip integrated circuits
Dear Mr. McKenzie:
In your letter dated April 4, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on System-on-Chip (SOC)
integrated circuits on behalf of your client, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
The merchandise under consideration is described as SOC integrated circuits which are identified by model
names, Ryzen and EPYC. The SOCs are comprised mainly of 2 specific integrated circuits that each perform
a specific function. The first is Core Complex Die (CCD) which is a silicon integrated circuit that contains a
group of CPU cores, along with their associated caches, and interconnects. The second integrated circuit is
Input/Out Die (I/O Die) which is a separate silicon integrated circuit designed to offload input/output and
memory related functions from the CCDs. It includes key functions such as memory control, PCIe control,
external connectivity, power and thermal management. Once combined, they form the finished SOC
integrated circuits for use with consumer applications (Ryzen) in desktop personal computers, laptops, and
notebook computers, etc. or commercial applications (EPYC) in servers and cloud computing.
The SOC integrated circuits undergo a Front-End and Back-End manufacturing process. The Front-End
manufacturing process takes place in fabrication plants located in either the United States or Taiwan and the
Back-End manufacturing process occurs in China, Malaysia, or Taiwan depending on the availability of
manufacturing capacity.
The Front-End manufacturing process consists of two major processes:
1. Development of semiconductor circuit designs
2. Manufacture of integrated circuits
The manufacture of integrated circuits includes the following:
1. Epitaxial Wafer Production
2. Oxidation
3. Thin-Film Deposition
4. Lithography
5.
5. Etching
6. Ion Implantation
7. Chemical Mechanical Planarization
8. Metal Wiring Process
9. Wafer Testing
The Front-End manufacturing process will yield wafers which contain the CCD and I/O Dies. Those die will
be incorporated into the finished product during the Back-End manufacturing process in either China,
Malaysia or Taiwan.
The Back-End manufacturing process includes:
1. Die Preparation – Wafer dicing
2. Substrate Preparation – Prepare substrates for attaching the dies with solder bumps
3. Die Placement – Place and align die’s contact pads to substrate’s solder bumps
4. Die Attachment – Attach dies to substrate via reflow soldering
5. Interconnection of Die – Connect CCD to I/O dies
6. Thermal Interface and Lid Attachment – Apply thin layer of thermal interface material and attach heat
spreader
7. Final Packaging and Testing
When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301,
the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter H301619, dated
November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an
article emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article
prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This
determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16
C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that unless
excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States 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 United States, the English name of the country of origin
of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be
able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the
product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may,
by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should
influence his will.” See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940).
Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 134) implements the
country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP
Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” 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 the marking laws and regulations.
Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the Front-End manufacturing process that
takes place in the United State or Taiwan is both meaningful and complex, resulting in the creation of
integrated circuits which incorporate all the essential circuitry needed to function. The integrated circuits do
not undergo a substantial transformation as a result of the Back-End manufacturing process that takes place
in either China, Malaysia, or Taiwan. They retain their identity as integrated circuits with a predetermined
end use. Therefore, the finished SOC integrated circuits will be considered a product of either the U.S. or
Taiwan for marking purposes (depending on where the Front-End manufacturing process takes place), at time
of importation into the U.S. As such, Section 301 Trade Remedies would not be applicable.
If a good is determined to be an article of U.S. origin, it is not subject to the country of origin marking
requirements of 19 U.S.C. ?1304.??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, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is made in the U.S.
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 Steven Pollichino at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division