H337046

 HQ H337046 September 27, 2024 OT:RR:CTF:VS H337046 AM CATEGORY: Origin; Classification TARIFF NO.: 8544.70.00 U.S. Customs & Border Protection Industrial and Manufacturing Materials CEE 100 Los Indios Blvd. Los Indios, TX 78567 Attn: Michael E. Trevino, Supervisory Import Specialist Unit RE: Application for Further Review of Protest 5501-23-106826; Country of Origin and Tariff Classification of Fiber Optic Cables; Section 301 Measures Dear Center Director: This is in response to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 5501- 23-106826 timely filed on April 20, 2023, by Corning Optical Communications LLC (hereinafter, “importer” and “protestant”). This decision concerns the country of origin of fiber optic cables and the applicability of Section 301 duties to the merchandise. Additionally, it concerns U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) tariff classification of fiber optic cables under subheading 9001.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The protestant is challenging the liquidation, arguing that the fiber optic cables were not substantially transformed in China and are therefore a good of French origin for the purpose of Section 301 duties. The protestant requests a refund of Section 301 duties paid. The protestant has asked that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 C.F.R. §177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this decision. FACTS: The merchandise subject to the protest at issue is optical fiber cables. The merchandise was entered on January 9, 2022, and liquidated on October 6, 2023. The protestant claims the entry of the merchandise was inadvertently declared as Chinese origin by the protestant’s broker and was subject to an additional 25% duty due to Section 301 measures. The protestant filed the protest challenging the assessment of duties paid and claims the country of origin is France. The finished products are imported by Corning for sale to various customers for use in internal optical fiber communications systems. Based upon the information provided with the protest, the subject cables are all versions of the Corning Clear Track 12-fiber micro-module. The protest states that these are cables made up of 12 optical fibers inside an insulating jacket and are manufactured in varying lengths to fit the need of the end user. It is further stated that the cables have a proprietary adhesive backing to enable fast and easy installation. A weblink was provided for more information on the products. On August 19, 2024, protestant submitted supplemental documentation illustrating the production process with more detail including photos and diagrams. A meeting was subsequently held between our office and the protestant on August 29, 2024. The protestant describes the production process as follows: In France, the core and cladding glasses are vapor-deposited around a rotating target rod to form a “soot” preform. The core material is deposited first, followed by the cladding. The target rod is removed, the preform is placed in a furnace where it is consolidated into solid clear glass, and then the center hole is closed. During the consolidation process, gas flows through the preform to remove residual moisture. It is during this phase that the fiber’s attenuation properties are determined. The consolidated preform is placed in a draw tower where it is drawn into a continuous strand of fiber. First, the preform is lowered into the top of a draw furnace. The tip of the preform is heated and a piece of molten glass begins to fall from the preform. The fiber is pulled down to a diameter of 125 microns. During the draw, the fiber goes through an on-line diameter monitor to ensure the fiber conforms to the specific cladding diameter. Protective coatings also are applied and cured, using ultraviolet lamps. At the bottom of the draw, the fiber is wound onto reels. The fiber is fully functional and usable as optical fiber when it is exported from France. In China, the fiber is prepared, colored, and prepared for jacketing. The resin is melted, temperature control is done, and the fiber is rolled together, jacketed with insulation then put on a reel. The fan out assembly is then added, and connectors are added to each end of that. The protestant asserts the country of origin for the fiber optic cables is France. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the optical fiber cables for purposes of Section 301 trade remedies? What is the tariff classification of the optical fiber cables? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Country of Origin The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an additional ad valorem duty of 25 percent will be imposed on certain Chinese imports pursuant to USTR’s authority under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301 measures”). The Section 301 measures apply to products of China enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“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 Nat’l Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To determine whether a substantial transformation occurs, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item’s components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative. In HQ 560660, dated April 9, 1999, CBP ruled that the country of origin of fiber optic cables is the origin of the optical fiber preform. In this case, CBP determined that neither the drawing of the fiber or application of outer protective coatings resulted in a substantial transformation of the optical fiber preform. Similarly, in HQ 562754, dated Aug. 11, 2003, CBP confirmed the addition of Chinese-origin connectors to the end of U.S.-origin fiber optic cables in China did not result in a substantial transformation. In HQ 562754, CBP determined the fiber optic cable’s characteristics were primarily imparted at the time the fiber optic cable was manufactured in the U.S. Lastly, in HQ 561392, dated June 21, 1999, CBP considered the country of origin marking requirements of an insulated electric conductor which involved an electrical cable with pin connectors at each end used to connect computers to printers or other peripheral devices. The cable and connectors were made in Taiwan. In China, the cable was cut to length and connectors were attached to the cable. CBP held that cutting the cable to length and assembling the cable to the connectors in China did not result in a substantial transformation. In the instant case, it is our opinion

Country of OriginThe United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an additional ad valorem duty of 25 percent will be imposed on certain Chinese imports pursuant to USTR’sauthority under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301 measures”). The Section 301 measures apply to products of China enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (“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 Nat’l Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).To determine whether a substantial transformation occurs, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item’s components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.In HQ 560660, dated April 9, 1999, CBP ruled that the country of origin of fiber optic cables is the origin of the optical fi