OT:RR:NC:N5:137
Lawrence Friedman
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn LLP
303 E Wacker, Suite 305
Chicago, IL 60601
RE: The country of origin and marking of the contents of a dishwasher installation kit
Dear Mr. Friedman:
In your letter dated May 6, 2025, you requested a country of origin and marking ruling of a dishwasher
installation kit, on behalf of your client Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc.
The product under consideration is a dishwasher installation kit. The kit includes a 6ft. water supply line
consisting of extruded polyvinyl chloride (PVC) hose reinforced a braided stainless-steel sleeve with fittings
attached, a 6 ft. 3 wire electric cord, a brass hose elbow, a compression elbow, a stainless-steel hose clamp, a
Romex connector, Teflon tape, and plastic wire nuts. This office considers the installation kit to be a set for
tariff classification purposes, with the essential character imparted by the 6’ water supply line.
The 6 ft. 3 wire power cord. brass hose elbow, compression elbow, a stainless-steel hose clamp, Romex
connector, Teflon tape, and plastic wire nuts are all of Chinese origin. They are merely packed together with
the hose in China.
The 6 ft. hose under review undergoes two manufacturing phases. The first manufacturing phase takes place
in Taiwan. Polyvinyl chloride resin is extruded to form a PVC hose. The hose is then layered with an
integrated braided nylon mesh and covered with a clear vinyl jacket. The hose is then spooled onto rolls for
shipment and further processing.
The second manufacturing phase takes place in China. The rolls of hose are shipped to China where they are
reinforced by braiding stainless steel around the hoses. The hoses are cut to a length of 6 feet and the brass
fittings are attached.
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).
In this case, the reinforcement with braided materials, cutting to length, and the addition of the Chinese
fittings does not substantially transform the hose. Therefore, the country of origin of the finished hose with
fittings is considered to be Taiwan.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 134.1(b), each piece within a kit retains its own country of origin which must be marked
if it is of foreign origin unless the packaging of the pieces together effects a substantial transformation. A
substantial transformation occurs when articles lose their identity and become new articles having a new
name, character or use. Merely packaging parts of a kit together does not constitute a substantial
transformation. The parts involved in this kit were merely packaged together and are not substantially
transformed. Therefore, the individual parts retain their individual countries of origin.
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.
As provided in section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b)), the country-of-origin marking is
considered conspicuous if the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. is able to find the marking easily and read it
without strain.
With regard to the permanency of a marking, section 134.41(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(a)),
provides that as a general rule marking requirements are best met by marking worked into the article at the
time of manufacture. For example, it is suggested that the country of origin on metal articles be die sunk,
molded in, or etched. However, section 134.44, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.44), generally provides
that any marking that is sufficiently permanent so that it will remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate
purchaser unless deliberately removed is acceptable.
You propose two options for the marking of the kit: “Product of Taiwan” or in the alternative “Hose made in
Taiwan-reinforced and fitted with parts in China.” We disagree. Only the hose is a product of Taiwan; all
other components are made in China. As stated above, each piece within the kit must be marked with its own
country of origin. Further, since these pieces are packaged together, the packaging should indicate the proper
country of origin for each item in the kit.
Effective April 5, 2025, Executive Orders implemented “Reciprocal Tariffs.” All imported merchandise
must be reported with either the Chapter 99 provision under which the reciprocal tariff applies or one of the
Chapter 99 provisions covering exceptions to the reciprocal tariffs. At this time products from all countries
will be subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty. At the time of entry, you must report the
Chapter 99 heading applicable to your product classification, i.e. 9903.01.25, in addition to subheading
3917.39.0010, HTSUS, listed above.
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 Christina Allen at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack
Director
National Commodity Specialist Division