CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N1:103
Scott Middlekauff
Cole International USA Inc.
155 12th Street, Suite 222
Blaine, WA 98230
RE: The applicability of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for a battery pack
Dear Mr. Middlekauff:
In your letter dated December 3, 2025, you requested a ruling on behalf of your client, Excell Battery Canada
ULC.
Your request concerns a lithium-ion battery pack, model number 2EXL7540, which was the subject of New
York Ruling N351853, dated August 21, 2025. In that ruling, the battery pack was classified under
subheading 8507.60.0020, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for
“Electric storage batteries, including separators therefor, whether or not rectangular (including square); parts
thereof: Lithium-ion batteries: Other.”
In your letter, you ask whether the subject battery pack is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the
USMCA. The battery pack is assembled in Canada using components sourced from Canada, China, and the
United States.
The USMCA was signed by the Governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada on November 30,
2018. The USMCA was approved by the U.S. Congress with the enactment on January 29, 2020, of the
USMCA Implementation Act, Pub. L. 116-113, 134 Stat. 11, 14 (19 U.S.C. § 4511(a)). General Note (GN)
11 of the HTSUS implements the USMCA. GN 11(b) sets forth the criteria for determining whether a good is
an originating good for purposes of the USMCA. GN 11(b) states:
For the purposes of this note, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States from the
territory of a USMCA country, as defined in subdivision (l) of this note, is eligible for the preferential
tariff treatment provided for in the applicable subheading and quantitative limitations set forth in the
tariff schedule as a “good originating in the territory of a USMCA country” only if—
(i) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or more
USMCA countries;
(ii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA countries,
exclusively from originating materials;
(iii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA countries
using non-originating materials, if the good satisfies all applicable requirements set forth in
this note (including the provisions of subdivision (o));
Since the battery pack contains non-originating materials, it is not considered a good “wholly obtained” or
“produced entirely in a USMCA country” under GN 11(b)(i) and GN 11(b)(ii). We must next determine
whether the battery pack qualifies under GN 11(b)(iii). Since the finished battery pack is classified under
subheading 8507.60, HTSUS, the applicable rule of origin is in GN 11(o)/85.17(C), HTSUS, which provides
for “a change to any other good of subheading 8507.60 from any other heading.” Based on the facts
presented, the subject battery pack uses Chinese 18650 lithium-ion battery cells, which are also classified
under subheading 8507.60, HTSUS. As such, the battery pack would not meet the applicable rule of origin
under GN 11(o)/85.17(C).
Next, we proceed to GN 11(o)/85.17(D), HTSUS, which provides for:
A change to any other good of subheading 8507.60 from subheading 8507.90, whether or not there is
also a change from any other heading, provided there is a regional value content of not less than:
(1) 60 percent where the transaction value method is used; or
(2) 50 percent where the net cost method is used.
The first part of the rule requires a change in tariff classification. As noted above, the Chinese battery cells
are also classified under subheading 8507.60. As the foreign components do not undergo the required change
in tariff classification, there is no need to determine if the regional value content requirements are met.
Accordingly, the battery pack will not qualify as a USMCA originating good.
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)
Evan Conceicao
Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director
National Commodity Specialist Division