OT:RR:NC:N2:206
Steven Monica
2455 Palmway Circle
Lakeland, FL 33805
RE: The country of origin of a basic trainer aircraft
Dear Mr. Monica:
In your letter dated June 10, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling.
The merchandise under consideration is identified as a 1967 CJ6A Nanchang aircraft, which is an aircraft that
was formerly used by the Chinese Air Force as a basic trainer. The aircraft is not equipped with any weapons,
bombs, or similar types of armaments. The basic trainer aircraft is powered by a single engine with a
two-bladed propeller and the two dihedral wings are fixed to the fuselage with a bubble canopy that encloses
the cockpit where two pilots can sit in a tandem configuration. The aircraft also features a retractable tricycle
landing gear where it has a wheel by the nose and two main wheels under the wings. We note that the aircraft
is for personal use only.
In your submission, you state that the aircraft was initially imported into Canada from China in 1993. Once
imported into Canada, the aircraft arrived in a disassembled state. Then, a Transport Canada approved
aircraft maintenance organization was hired to perform reassembly and conduct necessary restoration work to
return the aircraft to an airworthy state.
Restoration work performed on the aircraft:
1. Strip and paint replacement
2. Fabric replacement elevator and rudder
3. Instrument replacement
4. Avionics replacement
5. Canopy and windshield replacement
6. Tire replacement
7. Engine and propeller replacement
When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301
and additional duties, 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).
Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this office that the restoration work performed in
Canada does not transform the aircraft into a new and different article.
In Ashdown, U.S.A. Inc. v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 661 (CIT 1988), the court held that a printing press,
which was continually used in West Germany for nine years and which was not intended at the time of
original sale to be exported to the U.S., became a bona fide part of the commerce of West Germany and was
therefore, not an import from East Germany, where the printing press was produced. In Headquarters Ruling
Letter (“HRL”) 561209, dated May 4, 1999, Customs held that used automotive parts (master cylinders,
brake cylinders, cv joints) incorporated in vehicles in use in the U.S. or Canada and not marked with a
country of origin were considered to be of U.S. or Canadian origin respectively. In HRL 559968, dated May
7, 1997, Customs determined that the origin of rebuilt automobile axle assemblies was the country where the
automobiles were operated. In HRL 559968, Customs stated that: “Ashdown supports the proposition that
the connection to the country where an article was built may be broken due to the extended period of time
that the article was in use in another country.” Customs stated in HRL 561209 that “Customs has applied the
principles of Ashdown primarily in instances where the country of origin of used articles cannot be
determined. Accordingly, we believe that the approach taken in HRL 732258 to articles already marked with
their country of origin is appropriate.”
You provided us with airworthiness certificates issued on October 25, 1993, and July 4, 2019, both of which
indicate that the CJ6A aircraft was manufactured in China. The various work performed on the aircraft in
Canada only improved the condition and ensured compliance with operational safety standards. As a result,
no substantial transformation occurs in Canada. Therefore, the country of origin of the 1967 CJ6A Nanchang
aircraft is China.
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,
(for)
James Forkan
Acting Director
National Commodity Specialist Division