OT:RR:71:NC:N4:441
David M. Murphy
GDLSK
599 Lexington Avenue, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10022
RE: The classification, origin, marking, and eligibility under subheading 9802.00.5060 on rings
Dear Mr. Murphy:
In your letter dated January 30, 2026, you requested a ruling on behalf of your client,
Diamondere Inc. You submitted photographs, product description, and manufacturing information on gold
jewelry.
Style Claudine is a 14K gold ring with amethyst and side diamonds.
Style Astuty is 14K gold ring with blue topaz.
Style Danette is a 14K gold ring with diamonds.
Style Eugene is a 14K gold ring with ruby.
Style Jean is a 14K gold ring with emeralds.
Manufacturing Steps:
Product design. This is performed in the United States.
Creating the wax model. This is performed in India.
Casting. This is performed in the United States.
Sprue cutting. This is performed in the United States.
Pre-Finishing and tumbling. This is performed in India or Thailand.
Setting and final finishing. This is performed in India or Thailand.
Logo engraving and packaging. This is performed in China.
The applicable subheading for the gold rings will be 7113.19.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS), which provides for “Articles of jewelry and parts thereof, of precious metal or of metal clad
with precious metal: Of other precious metal, whether or not plated or clad with precious metal: Other.” The
general rate of duty will be 5.5% ad valorem.
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 Texas Instruments Inc. v.
U.S., 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. U.S., 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
You propose that the country of origin of subject rings is the United States. We agree. The casting of the
rings in the United States provides the essence of the finished product. Setting the gems and performing final
finishing does not substantially transform the castings. As a result, the country of origin of the rings is the
United States. Therefore, the finished rings will be considered products of the United States for marking
purposes and for purposes of trade remedies. Since the country of origin will be the United States, the rings
will be excepted from country of origin marking requirements and will not be subject to additional trade
remedy measures, such as reciprocal or global tariffs. The tariffs and additional duties cited above are current
as of this ruling’s issuance.
Your request also concerns the eligibility of the rings under subheading 9802.00.5060, HTSUS. Subheading
9802.00.5060, HTSUS, provides a partial or complete duty exemption for articles returned to the U.S. after
having been exported to be advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or
other means, provided that the documentary requirements of Section 10, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.8)
are satisfied. Pursuant to 19 CFR 10.8, the importer must submit a declaration executed by the person who
performed the repairs or alterations and a declaration of his own containing various attestations. Articles
eligible under subheading 9802.00.5060 are subject to duty upon the value of the repairs, alterations,
processing, or otherwise changes in condition abroad, pursuant to Note 3 to Subchapter II, Chapter 98,
HTSUS.
We find the described foreign processing acceptable for the purposes of 9802.00.5060, HTSUS. Accordingly,
upon reimportation, the rings will be eligible for tariff treatment under 9802.00.5060, HTSUS, provided the
documentary requirements of 19 CFR 10.8 are satisfied.
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 Vikki Lazaro at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(for)
James Forkan
Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director
National Commodity Specialist Division