OT:RR:NC:N2:201
Shanshan Liang
Liang + Mooney, PLLC
2104 Delta Way, Suite #1
Tallahassee, FL 32303
RE: The country of origin of automotive staters
Dear Ms. Liang:
In your letter dated February 6, 2026, you requested a country of origin ruling on automotive starters on
behalf of your client, Jinghe (M) SDN BHD, located in Johor, Malaysia.
In your request you state that your client, Jinghe intends to import remanufactured automotive starter
assemblies of various models from Malaysia. The subject merchandise will be processed in Malaysia from
used starter cores that are sourced from the United States. For these reasons you claim that the country of
origin (COO) of the returned starters is the United States. We disagree.
Starter assemblies are electromechanical devices that engage the engine flywheel to initiate ignition of an
automobile. These assemblies consist of many components, including the armature, solenoid, drive assembly
(pinion and clutch gear), housings, brackets, and electrical terminals.
The Remanufacturing Process:
The process begins by exporting used starter cores from the United States into Malaysia. In the United
States, Jinghe sources used starter cores that it uses to remanufacture and ultimately re-export to the United
States. The used starter cores are removed from used cars of various makes and models in the United States.
This disassembling renders the removed starters as COO United States. In Malaysia, the core components
from the U.S.-sourced, used starter cores undergo disassembly, processing, and reassembly intended to
restore mechanical tolerance and functional performance to the starters. You state that the following
processing and assembly operations are conducted in Malaysia to include the following:
Receiving & Identification – Cores are sorted by model and specification; initial inspection and
recording are performed.
Surface Preparation & Cleaning – Degreasing, abrasive blasting, and corrosion removal to restore
metal surfaces.
Dimensional Check & Selective Machining – Critical areas (e.g., bushing bores, commutator surfaces,
gear shafts) are verified and reworked to specification where necessary.
Component Verification – Armature insulation and commutator tests; solenoid plunger travel and
return force checked; gear assembly inspection.
Assembly & Fitting – Press-fit operations using hydraulic and pneumatic tools; torque-controlled
fastening and alignment with dedicated jigs.
Functional Testing – No-load and load tests for current draw and speed; solenoid pull-in and hold-in
tests; engagement verification and noise check.
Protection & Packing – Anti-rust application, final visual inspection, labeling, and packaging for
export.
In your request you provided a chart explaining the remanufacturing process. During this remanufacturing
process, certain auxiliary fittings, such as S-terminals, drain tubes, lever grommets, bushings, covers, rollers,
springs, and washers, may be installed. These components are sourced from China. The remanufactured
starter can only be used in the vehicle of the same make and model as the vehicle from which the original
starter was removed.
You claim that the returned automotive starters are classifiable under 8511.40.0000, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) which provides for, “Electrical ignition or starting equipment of a
kind used for spark ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines (for example, ignition
magnetos, magneto-dynamos, ignition coils, spark plugs and glow plugs, starter motors); generators (for
example, dynamos, alternators) and cut-outs of a kind used in conjunction with such engines; parts thereof:
Starter motors and dual purpose starter-generators.” We agree with this analysis.
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.
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).
You state that in a collection of rulings, CBP has previously ruled on the country of origin of remanufactured
automobile components. In these cases, CBP determined that the remanufacturing process in a third country
does not constitute a substantial transformation.
In HQ H171035 (Aug. 22, 2012), (“In summary, CBP finds that used parts imported from non-NAFTA
countries are not substantially transformed by the remanufacturing process in the United States…”) and HQ
561939 (Dec. 20, 2000), (“The reconditioning in the U.S. of used automotive cores imported from NAFTA
and non-NAFTA countries does not result in the cores becoming goods of the U.S.”). Rather, the country of
origin of such cores reconditioned for resale is the original country of origin of the used parts.
HQ 561939 also addresses the issue of cores which are marked with their country of origin at the time of
importation into the third country for assembly. CBP held: The origin of imported cores which are marked
with their country of origin is the country as marked on the parts upon importation. [ ] Where imported cores
are not marked with their country of origin and the origin of the articles cannot otherwise be determined, the
country of origin of the cores is considered to be the country in which the parts were used.
This rule is based on the principle established by the Court of International Trade in the case Ashdown,
U.S.A. v. United States, 12 C.I.T. 808, 696 F. Supp. 661 (1988). There, a printing press which originated
from a communist country was used continually in West Germany for nine years and was not originally
intended for sale to the United States. The Court determined that the printing press was a bona fide article of
commerce of West Germany, not a product of a communist country. Applying a similar principle in HRL
951072 (May 22, 1992), CBP determined that a Russian jet which was reassembled and used in Egypt for 16
years was a product of Egypt for tariff purposes. As explained in HQ 561939, “Ashdown supports the
proposition that the connection to the country where an article was produced may be broken due to the
extended period of time that the article was in use in another country.”
In this case, you claim, that the starter cores were removed from used cars of various makes and models in
the United States. Moreover, the U.S.-sourced starters come from vehicles that were used in the United States
prior to the extraction of the starters. You conclude that the automotive starters are of U.S. origin because:
1. there is no substantial transformation in Malaysia; and
2. the used starters, which are remanufactured in
Malaysia, were previously used in the United States for a substantial amount of time.
Upon review, we conclude that while the starters were not marked by the original manufacturer, they were
previously used in the United States. Moreover, the work performed in Malaysia did not effect a substantial
transformation. Accordingly, we find that the country of origin of the starters is the United States.
You also request clarification of the marking requirements. 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. Friedlaender &
Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940).
Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. 134) implements the
country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP
Regulations (19 C.F.R. 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. As we discussed above, further work
performed in Malaysia did not effect a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the
subject automotive starters is the United States.
If a good is determined to be an article of United States origin, it is not subject to the country of origin
marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. §1304. Whether an article may be marked with the phrase “Made in the
USA” or similar words denoting United States origin, is an issue under the authority of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). We suggest that you contact the FTC Division of Enforcement, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is
made in the U.S.
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
Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director
National Commodity Specialist Division