OT:RR:NC:N2:201
Michael Murphy
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K St. NW
Washington, D.C., DC 20005
RE: Country of Origin Determination for Section 301 and Marking Purposes – Bicycle Assembled in China
with Frame Made in Vietnam
Dear Mr. Murphy:
In your letter dated July 7, 2025, you requested a country-of-origin and marking ruling for purposes of
applying Section 301 duties, on behalf of your client, Electromobility Solutions Inc. d/b/a Troxus, located in
Vista, CA. The following ruling is based on the information submitted.
The item under consideration has been identified as the Troxus Trax LT e-bike. You state that the Trax LT is
assembled in China using components manufactured in China and Vietnam. You state that the frame is
wholly produced in Vietnam from raw material sourced from China and Vietnam. You state that during the
frame production stage the following manufacturing steps take place in Vietnam. Aluminum tube from China
and Vietnam is:
Cut
Mitered
Drilled
Polished
Crimped
Ground
Welded
Painted, and
Formed into a finished frame
The completed frame is then shipped to China, where it is assembled with the remaining e-bike components.
Once the frame arrives in China, the final e-bike is then assembled by installing:
Headset
Hanger
Set clamp
Fenders
Rear rack
Cable assembly
Controller
Lights
Crank set
Mounts
Kickstand
Brakes
Handlebar
Wheels
Cables, and
Seat to the e-bike frame and attaching various subassemblies onto the frame
The product is then inspected and packaged for retail sale. You claim that the manufacturing operations that
occur in China are not complex or meaningful with respect to the e-bike frame and indicate that these
operations are not enough to work a substantial transformation. We concur.
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).
CBP precedent recognizes that, in the case of bicycles, the frame imparts the essential character of the
finished article. Notably:
NY N345038 (Jan. 27, 2025) – The frame was deemed the “essence of the bicycle,” and origin was
assigned to the country where the frame was made.
NY N329722 (Dec. 20, 2022) – Held that the frame sourced from Vietnam is the essence of the
[bicycle], and the assembly operations of the various components in China do not result in a substantial
transformation of the bicycle frames. Therefore, the country of origin of the [bicycle] is Vietnam.
HQ H302358 (Jan. 23, 2020) – Found that a bicycle manufactured in Taiwan with its frame sourced
from China, and the remaining components sourced from Taiwan, China, Japan, and the United States,
was a product of China. CBP noted that the frame was the most essential component of the bicycle as it
imparts the overall shape, size, and character of the product and that the other parts of the bicycle lose
their separate identity once they are attached to the frame.
In this case, the raw aluminum tubing of Chinese and Vietnamese origin undergoes significant manufacturing
in Vietnam. The processes — cutting, shaping, welding, heat-treating, and finishing — transform the
aluminum tubing into a finished bicycle frame with distinct characteristics and function. CBP has found that
this level of fabrication constitutes a substantial transformation of the Chinese material.
Although final assembly occurs in China using all Chinese components, the operations in China do not result
in a substantial transformation. The frame gives the bike is overall shape, size, and character. The addition of
components such as handlebars, wheels, and seats — though necessary — do not change the nature or use of
the product already defined by the frame.
Based on the information provided and applicable CBP precedent, the country of origin of the Troxus Trax
LT e-bike is Vietnam for purposes of applying trade remedies. Therefore, trade remedies under Section 301,
as amended, from China will not apply.
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.
In this instance, we believe the frame imparts the essential character to the Troxus Trax LT e-bike. The frame
is the costliest component and imparts to the bicycle its overall shape, size, and character. Accordingly,
because the material that imparts the essential character to the good, the frame, is of Vietnamese origin, the
country of origin of the entire imported good is Vietnam for marking purposes and the bicycle needs to be
marked as “Made in Vietnam.”
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 Matthew Sullivan at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(for)
James Forkan
Acting Director
National Commodity Specialist Division