OT:RR:NC:N3:139
Donald Stein
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
2101 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20037
RE: The country of origin of crude synthetic graphite derived from petroleum coke
Dear Mr. Stein:
In your letter, made on behalf of your client SB Specialty Metals, dated January 26, 2026, you requested a
ruling concerning the country of origin of certain imported graphite.
Crude synthetic graphite derived from petroleum coke is imported into the United States from China or
Malaysia. You state that subsequent to its importation undergoes a carbonization process which entails the
following:
Precursor application: Organic materials, like pitch, are applied to the graphite particles to form a
coating. The process occurs in an oxygen-free environment, such as nitrogen or argon, to prevent
oxidation.
Decomposition and rearrangement: Under high temperatures, the organic coating decomposes and
rearranges into a stable, amorphous carbon structure.
After carbonization, the product is subject to one additional step – sieving – to obtain the final product. You
state that the final product will ultimately be used to coat the anodes of lithium ion batteries. You also state
that the carbonization process done in the United States is crucial for creating stable electrode coatings that
enhance battery performance and durability.
When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g.,
Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 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 U.S. v. Gibson-Thomsen
Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); 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).
At the time of importation, you state that the crude synthetic graphite that arrives from China or Malaysia
does not yet possess the optimized structure, surface properties, or electrochemical performance required for
lithium-ion battery anodes. You state that the carbonization process done in the United States addresses these
deficiencies that result in improved properties such as electrical conductivity, lithium diffusion pathways
during charging cycles, and battery capacity retention. You have also provided academic research specific to
carbonized synthetic graphite that backs up these types of performance improvements in regard to lithium ion
batteries.
Pursuant to section 134.35(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.35), an imported article that is substantially
transformed in the United States is excepted from individual country of origin marking and only the
outermost container of the imported article must be marked with country of origin. An article is substantially
transformed if it is “so processed in the U.S. that it loses its identity in a tariff sense and becomes an integral
part of a new article having a new name, character and use.” U.S. v. Gibson-Thomsen Company, Inc. 27
CCPA 267 (1940). As a result of the different and improved properties that would occur in the imported
graphite as a result of the carbonization to be performed in the United States, we find that the imported
graphite would be substantially transformed into an article with a new name, character, or use. Accordingly,
the importer of the graphite is considered the ultimate purchaser. The imported graphite is excepted from
individual marking so long as the port director at the port of entry is satisfied that it is imported in properly
marked containers and the ultimate purchaser will receive it in those containers. Accordingly, the outermost
containers must be marked with China or Malaysia as the country of origin of the graphite at the time of
importation.
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 John Bobel at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(for)
James Forkan
Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director
National Commodity Specialist Division