OT:RR:NC:N1:103
Chris Duncan
Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O'Hara LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2388
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: The country of origin of a battery cell
Dear Mr. Duncan:
In your letter dated July 11, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client Suncheck,
Inc.
The merchandise under consideration is identified as a lithium iron phosphate battery cell, model number
CB75, and is described as a prismatic cell with a nominal voltage of 3.2 VDC, a nominal capacity of 314 Ah,
and a nominal energy of 1004.8 Wh. The cell has a rigid housing that is rectangular in shape, measuring
approximately 174 millimeters in width, 206.8 millimeters in height, and 71.7 millimeters in thickness.
The subject battery cell will be produced using an automated process and from materials and components
sourced from China and the United States. The process begins in China with manufacturing semifinished
battery electrodes. The operational steps are described as creating a slurry (composed of raw materials,
binders, and solvents), coating the slurry mixture onto a foil substrate (made of aluminum or copper
depending on the electrode), calendaring the coated roll to the required thickness, and then slitting the roll to
size.
Afterwards, the materials are fed into a winding machine, where they are combined with a US-sourced
separator material and wound into a jelly roll structure. A hot press is used to apply pressure and heat to
improve the structure of the material, which is then inspected using a high-potential test. If it passes
inspection, the material is baked to remove moisture. Next, battery connectors are welded to the jelly roll
before it is wrapped in mylar and inserted into a US-sourced aluminum can assembly. A lid or cover is
welded to the can assembly to seal the contents, and the battery cell is tested to ensure it is airtight.
The battery cell is sent to Indonesia where US-sourced electrolyte is injected into the assembly. This is
followed by the formation process, which is described as subjecting the battery cell to a series of very slow
charge cycles and allowing the cells to rest in a temperature and humidity-controlled environment between
charge cycles. This process activates the electrochemical materials and creates the interface layers that will
determine the battery's future performance, lifespan, and safety. The last steps involve inspecting each cell’s
physical appearance and testing its internal resistance and voltage.
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).
In your submission, you contend that the formation process, which occurs in Indonesia, effects a substantial
transformation. We disagree. Based upon the facts presented, the battery cell is formed in China before it is
sent to Indonesia for activation. In China, domestic and foreign materials are processed into
semi-manufactured materials and subcomponents, which are subsequently used to create the battery cell. The
manufacturing process that occurs in China produces an article, a lithium-ion prismatic cell, that emerges
from the process with a new name, character, and use, different from that possessed by the materials prior to
the processing. While the formation process that occurs in Indonesia is necessary, it does not transform the
battery cell into a new article. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the country of origin of the
prismatic battery cell, model number CB75, 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 Paul Huang at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(for)
James Forkan
Acting Director
National Commodity Specialist Division