H320225

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H320225 September 21, 2021 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H320225 MJD CATEGORY: Origin Mr. Edgar Lozano USA Bouquet LLC 1500 NW 95 Avenue Miami, Florida 33172 RE: Country of Origin of Flower Bouquets Dear Mr. Lozano: This is in response to your request for a binding ruling, dated July 19, 2021, regarding the country of origin of flower bouquets. Your request, submitted as an electronic ruling request, was forwarded to this office from the National Commodity Specialist Division (“NCSD”) for review. Our ruling is set forth below. FACTS: You provide that your company, USA Bouquet LLC (“USA Bouquet”), imports into the United States fresh cut flowers in bulk from South America, North America, Central America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Once the flowers are received at the USA Bouquet facility in the United States, they are inspected by Quality Control and then go to the Work in Process area where the flowers are segregated and set up in conveyor machines to be made into assorted mixed flower bouquets. The flower bouquets are then distributed to mass market chains, large supermarkets, and e-commerce fulfillment accounts nationally. You have specifically provided three examples of the type of flower bouquets that USA Bouquet manufactures. The following is a description of the three flower bouquets: Everyday Bouquet 1: Number of Stems: Flower/Color: Country of Origin:  2 Alstroemeria White Colombia  3 Rose Color Yellow Ecuador  1 Statice Purple Ecuador  2 Pompon Lavender Daisy Colombia  1 Pompon White Daisy Colombia  2 Pompon Yellow Daisy Colombia  2 Pompon Lavender Daisy Colombia  2 Sunflower Yellow Ecuador  2 Rubellini Palm United States  2 Disbud Zembla Green Colombia   Everyday Bouquet 2: Number of Stems: Flower/Color: Country of Origin:  4 Sunflower Yellow Ecuador  4 Rose Color Orange Ecuador  4 Matsumoto Dark Pink Colombia  3 Statice Purple Colombia  2 Eucalyptus Seeded United States  3 Fern Myrtle United States  2 Salal United States   Everyday Bouquet 3: Number of Stems: Flower/Color: Country of Origin:  2 Hypericum Peach Ecuador  4 Fern Leather Leaf Colombia  4 Ranunculus White Ecuador  2 Leucadendron Safari Sunset Ecuador  2 Eucalyptus Seeded United States  3 Scabiosa Atropurpurea Pk/Bur Ecuador  3 Anemone White Ecuador  4 Dianthus Solomio Tino Colombia  3 Garden Rose Caraluna P Colombia  6 Garden Pink Charming Corniell Colombia  2 Garden Rose Wasabi Green Colombia   ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the flower bouquets? LAW AND ANALYSIS: The marking statute, section 304, 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 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.” United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302; C.A.D. 104 (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. A substantial transformation is said to have occurred when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, and use which differs from the original material subjected to the process. United States v. GibsonThomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982). In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of the operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest Linens v. United States, 6 C.I.T. 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the manufacturing or combining process is a minor one that leaves the identity of the imported article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, 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, or use are primary considerations in such cases. No one factor is determinative. CBP has previously considered whether a substantial transformation occurs when making flower bouquets. For example, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 558656, dated March 15, 1995, a country of origin marking case on flowers, CBP found that cleaning, cutting, trimming, and arranging of flowers in Mexico did not substantially transform the flowers into a new and different article. The constituent flowers required country of origin marking. See also HQ 957198, dated December 21, 1995. Similarly in New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) R01956, dated June 9, 2005, CBP determined that China was the country of origin of artificial floral arrangements made in Canada from Chinese artificial foliage. Making the floral arrangements consisted of “placing the artificial floral pieces into a pot or vase and injecting high and low-density foam” then topping the foam with real moss. In deciding that the country of origin of the floral arraignments was China, CBP stated that “[i]n this case, the assembly process does not result in a substantial transformation. The assembled floral arrangement does not have a distinctive name, character or use different from the unassembled artificial foliage, and therefore is a good of China for marking purposes.” Likewise, in NY J86187, dated July 17, 2003, CBP determined that each item in several fresh flower floral arrangements “[retained their] identity as a product of the country in which it was produced and should be marked accordingly.” We find that in the instant case, the process of putting together these fresh cut flowers into flower bouquets is similar to the rulings cited above. Here, the process begins with ordering flowers in bulk from various countries including the United States. Once the flowers arrive at the facility in the United States, they are inspected by Quality Control. Next the flowers go to the Work in Process area where they are segregated and set up in conveyor machines to make the assorted mixed flower bouquets. Lastly, the flower bouquets are distributed to mass market chains, large supermarkets, and e-commerce fulfillment accounts nationally. Based on this information, we find that the process of making the flower bouquets consist of simply putting the different flowe

The marking statute, section 304, 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 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.” United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302; C.A.D. 104 (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. A substantial transformation is said to have occurred when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, and use which differs from the original material subjected to the process. United States v. GibsonThomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982). In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial tr