H346979

H346979 December 8, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:VS H346979 RRB CATEGORY: Origin Lynlee Brown Ernst & Young LLP 18101 Von Karman Ave, #100 Irvine, CA 92612 RE: Country of Origin of EcoSyntane; Substantial Transformation; Section 301; IEEPA Dear Ms. Brown: This is in response to your correspondence, dated April 5, 2025, on behalf of your client (“Company”), requesting a ruling concerning the country of origin of EcoSyntane, a Company-branded product used in spark-ignition internal combustion engines, for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). You have requested that certain information submitted in connection with this ruling request be treated as confidential. On May 1, 2025, our office communicated with you via e-mail regarding the broad scope of your confidentiality request. On May 16, 2025, and June 6, 2025, you sent revised ruling requests that narrow the parameters of your confidentiality request. Inasmuch as the amended scope of your confidentiality 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 in this ruling or in the attachments to the ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published version of this ruling. FACTS: The Company is a leading petroleum and petrochemical trading company, specializing in the supply and distribution of crude oil, refined products, and petrochemicals. The product at issue is EcoSyntane, a Company-branded product meeting Key Specifications as defined by the [ ] (“Key Specifications”). In the instant matter, the Company will produce various grades of EcoSyntane that meet Key Specifications using imported blendstocks (“Primary Input Components”) of both U.S. and non-U.S. origin, in St. Croix Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (“USVI”) through a controlled and precise formulation process in storage tanks. EcoSyntane is used in spark-ignition internal combustion engines. It is primarily used in automobiles, motorcycles, and small engines to provide efficient combustion and reliable engine operation. Regarding the manufacturing process to produce EcoSyntane, you state that the facts and circumstances of the Company’s manufacturing operations are similar to those reviewed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in CBP ruling Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 563303, dated September 30, 2005, where CBP held that the finished product was of USVI origin because the manufacturing operations performed in USVI resulted in a substantial transformation of the imported Primary Input Components. You further explain that the Company will manufacture EcoSyntane in the same terminals, with the same methodology, and using many of the same Primary Input Components as in the cited ruling. In particular, you state that the Company will manufacture EcoSyntane with two or more of the Primary Input Components listed in HQ 563303 at the same terminal in USVI. In the instant matter, different formulations of the Primary Input Components are used to produce various grades of EcoSyntane, depending on the desired volatility and the properties and availability of the individual Primary Input Components. You assert that irrespective of the formulations used, the resulting EcoSyntane will meet Key Specifications. You also explain that in some cases, two or more of the Primary Input Components are first used to produce EcoSyntane, while in other cases, two or more of the Primary Input Components are first combined to produce an intermediate blendstock (“Intermediate Input Component”), which you state is a common industry practice to manage storage and shipping constraints by storing and transporting similar products together. The Intermediate Input Component is then processed with other Primary Input Components or other Intermediate Input Components to produce EcoSyntane. With respect to the Primary Input Components and Intermediate Input Components used in the production of EcoSyntane, they may be of U.S. or non-U.S. origin, including but not limited to Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Turkish, Canadian and European Union origin. More specifically, you state that the Company will manufacture EcoSyntane with two or more of the following Primary Input Components in USVI: • Butane • Pentane/C5 • Light Naphtha • Heavy Naphtha • Whole Naphtha • Alkylate • Light Raffinate 2 • Heavy Raffinate • Light Cat Naphtha • Heavy Cat Naphtha • Reformate • Toulene • Xylene • Heavy Aromatics As part of your ruling request, you provided a detailed specification analysis of the Primary Input Components to be used in the production of EcoSyntane, as well as detailed Certificates of Analysis for the Primary Input Components.1 You assert that all Primary Input Components fail at least one Key Specification. You also state that all Primary Input Components are classified in a different subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) than EcoSyntane. In addition, you provided a detailed specification analysis for Intermediate Input Components that could be created from mixtures of the Primary Input Components for manufacture into EcoSyntane. Similar to the Primary Input Components, you state that all Intermediate Input Components fail at least one Key Specification and that all Intermediate Input Components are classified in a different subheading of the HTSUS than EcoSyntane. You argue that the country of origin of EcoSyntane will be USVI because the Company’s manufacturing operations in USVI to produce EcoSyntane from imported Primary Input Components and/or Intermediate Input Components result in a product with a new name, character and use. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of EcoSyntane for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 and the IEEPA? LAW AND ANALYSIS: The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an additional ad valorem duty 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, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining 1 Although not dispositive to our decision in this ruling, we note that while relatively pure Certificates of Analysis were provided as examples for toluene and xylene, the distillation values for toluene and xylene set forth in the detailed specification analysis in Table 1 of your ruling request did not reflect the Certificates of Analysis. 3 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). 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 proces

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an additional ad valorem duty 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, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining 1 Although not dispositive to our decision in this ruling, we note that while relatively pure Certificates of Analysis were provided as examples for toluene and xylene, the distillation values for toluene and xylene set forth in the detailed specification analysis in Table 1 of your ruling request did not reflect the Certificates of Analysis. 3 

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). 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 proced