H350728

H350728 July 1, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H350728 RRB CATEGORY: Origin Junyeong Park Dream Customs Consulting Company 611-ho, 3-dong, Ace Hitech City Building 775, Gyeongin-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, 07299 South Korea Re: Affirmation of NY N348411; Country of Origin of a Cosmetic Brush; Substantial Transformation Dear Mr. Park, This is in response to your request, dated July 11, 2025, for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N348411, issued on May 22, 2025. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) determined the country of origin of a cosmetic brush. While CBP also opined on the proper method of marking for the cosmetic brush at issue, you specifically request reconsideration of CBP’s country of origin determination. There, CBP found that the country of origin of the cosmetic brush was China. We have reviewed NY N348411 and determined that it is correct. For the reasons set forth below, we are affirming that ruling. NY N348411 described the cosmetic brush as follows: The product under consideration is described as a cosmetic brush, model number SMB2534. It is a beauty tool used to apply, blend, or contour various makeup products, such as foundation, powder, blush, eyeshadow, and eyeliner. Your submission indicates that the brush components are imported into Indonesia from China. They include the polybutylene terephthalate (“PBT”) fibers, the metal ferrule, and the painted wood handle. The PBT fibers are imported pre-cut to a fixed length and portioned to match the quantity required to make the brush. The ferrule and handle are both already in their finished forms. Furthermore, NY N348411 provides comprehensive descriptions of the various 2 processing operations that the cosmetic brush is subjected to in Indonesia, which include the following: 1. The shaped brush bristles are inserted into the metal ferrule. 2. The brush head inserted into the metal ferrule is bonded in place using adhesive. 3. The portion of the ferrule, into which brush bristles have been inserted, is pressed (crimped) to physically secure the bristles in place. 4. Excess portions of the brush bristles are removed through a taping process to achieve a uniform and refined shape. 5. Any excess or unnecessary portions of the brush bristles are removed. 6. The aligned brush bristles are precisely hand-trimmed to complete the final shape of the brush head. 7. The completed brush head is bonded to the handle using adhesive finishing the construction of the cosmetic brush. 8. The completed cosmetic brush undergoes a final quality inspection. Accordingly, CBP concluded in NY N348411 that “the imported bristles have been processed to the extent that they now hold the basic nature of the finished brush head and do not become a new article having a new name, character, or use. Therefore, the origin of the finished brush will remain the same as the origin of the bristles as a substantial transformation does not occur in Indonesia.” As noted in the ruling, CBP based its conclusion on the country of origin analysis discussed in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 561279, dated November 30, 1999, and HQ 733199, dated July 19, 1990. 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., 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). A “substantial transformation” occurs when an article loses its identity, and a new and different article emerges from the processing having a distinctive name, character or use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270 (1940). In Gibson-Thomsen, imported wood block articles became toothbrushes after manufacturing in the United States. After importation, holes were bored into the wood blocks and then bristles were inserted into the holes. The court determined that after further manufacturing of the wood blocks and the insertion of the U.S.-origin bristles into the wood blocks to produce the finished product, the imported wood blocks lost their identity and became new articles having a new name, character, and use. 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 3 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 your request for reconsideration, you contend that the country of origin of the cosmetic brush is Indonesia. You note that CBP’s decision in NY N348411 was based on the precedent set forth in HQ 561279, dated November 30, 1999, where the processing in the country of export was considered to be a substantial transformation; as well as HQ 733199, dated July 19, 1990, where the processing in the country of export was not considered a substantial transformation. You explain that in HQ 731999, which addressed the country of origin of imported paint brushes, “Chinese hog bristles attached to metal ferrules were imported to the Philippines, where they were simply trimmed and had handles attached, and thus the country of origin was determined to be China.” You attempt to distinguish the subject cosmetic brush from the merchandise in HQ 733199. In particular, you note that unlike the paint brush in HQ 733199, the subject cosmetic brush is shipped to Indonesia with brush fiber bundles separated from the metal ferrules and simply tied with thread, where it is then manufactured through “a full process involving ferrule insertion, epoxy fixation, pressing, trimming, shaping, and handle attachment.” You argue that through this processing, the brush fiber bundles lose their identity as a material and undergo a substantial transformation. Without further explanation, you then imply that such processing to produce the cosmetic brush is similar to the processing in HQ 561279, where CBP found that the processing in the country of export was considered to be a substantial transformation. We disagree. In HQ 561279, raw, untreated hog bristles of Chinese origin were imported into Holland in bulk where they were blended, aligned, trimmed on the ferrule end, measured by weight for each size brush, inserted into the ferrule and permanently set with the ferrule through epoxy fixation. In particular, the processing of the bristles in Holland was noted to be significantly different from those used by competitors. For example, to achieve a bristle blend that works best with solvent and water-based paints, the raw Chinese bristles were placed in a machine that mixes and blends the different varieties of bristles, which were then visually inspected and manually aligned so that the ends were portioned and lined up in the same direction. This was followed by machine-measuring a specific weight of bristles and placing them into a specifically designed device which gave the brush a unique shape. CBP noted that before any processing in Holland of the Chinese-origin raw bristles, the raw bristles were not dedicated to use solely as paint brush heads. Therefore, the raw br

discussed in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 561279, dated November 30, 1999, and HQ 733199, dated July 19, 1990. 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., 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). A “substantial transformation” occurs when an article loses its identity, and a new and different article emerges from the processing having a distinctive name, character or use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270 (1940). In Gibson-Thomsen, imported wood block articles became toothbrushes after manufacturing in the United States. After importation, holes were bored into the wood blocks and then bristles were inserted into the holes. The court determined that after further manufacturing of the wood blocks and the insertion of the U.S.-origin bristles into the wood blocks to produce the finished product, the imported wood blocks lost their identity and became new articles having a new name, character, and use. 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 
3 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 dev