H355349

HQ H355349 August 26, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H355349 MJD CATEGORY: Origin Center Director Agriculture and Prepared Products CEE U.S. Customs and Border Protection 6601 NW 25th Street Miami, Florida 33122 RE: Internal Advice Request; Country of Origin of Tuna Imported from the Republic of the Marshall Islands Dear Center Director: This letter is in response to a request for internal advice made pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.11 regarding the country of origin of fresh, chilled, headed, and gutted tuna (“H&G Tuna”) imported from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (“RMI”) to the United States. The request was filed by Neville Peterson LLP on November 18, 2025, on behalf of HKH JVC LLC dba Norpac Fisheries Export (“Norpac”). On December 22, 2025, Neville Peterson LLP submitted a supplemental letter to the internal advice request. As such, December 22, 2025, will be considered the date that Norpac perfected its request for internal advice. Pursuant to a request from Neville Peterson LLP, on behalf of Norpac, a meeting was held with Neville Peterson LLP on March 4, 2026. FACTS: The product at issue is Yellowfin and Bigeye tuna caught in the RMI’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”). The catching vessels are flagged in the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the Federated States of Micronesia (“Micronesia”). The tuna is caught and processed in the following manner: H&G Tuna is caught by line. On the catching vessel, the tuna is gutted and gilled. The gutted and gilled tuna is landed in the RMI from the catching vessels. At an onshore processing facility, the Marshall Islands Fishing Vessel, Inc. Processing 1 Facility, in Majuro, the tuna is headed, detailed, washed, scanned, labeled, wrapped in bubble wrap with approximately 6 to 10 gel ice packs, and packaged 1 Removing of the fish tail. two to three tunas together in approximately 150-pound boxes and palletized for air shipment to Honolulu. Norpac provides that the Chinese- and Micronesian-flagged vessels are chartered by the Government of the RMI and operate under fishing permits issued by the RMI. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of H&G Tuna caught by Chinese- and Micronesian- flagged vessels in the EEZ of the RMI? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Country of Origin When determining the country of origin for customs purposes, the substantial transformation analysis applies. 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. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982). However, if the manufacturing or combining process is merely a minor one that leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) stated in Koru North America v. United States, 701 F. Supp. 229, 232 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), that the “Law of the Flag” applies to the country of origin of seafood, which means that the country of origin of the seafood follows the flag of the catching vessel. However, the CIT also indicated that we need to consider whether the seafood is subsequently substantially transformed in another country. Id. at 234. In Koru, Koru North America imported New Zealand Hoki fish that were caught in the EEZ of New Zealand. Id. at 230. The catching vessels were “ships chartered by Fletcher Fishing, Ltd (Fletcher), the largest fishing company in New Zealand while flying the flags of New Zealand, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic{s}.” Id. The fish were later sent to South Korea where they were “thawed, skinned, boned, trimmed, glazed, refrozen and packaged for exportation to the United States.” Id. The CIT concluded that the fish had been substantially transformed in South Korea and were therefore a product of South Korea. Id. at 235. Specifically, the court noted that the fish’s name was changed due to the processes in South Korea. Id. When the fish arrived in South Korea it was identified as “headed and gutted” Hoki, and when it was exported to the United States it was called “individually quick-frozen fillets.” Id. The character of the fish had also changed due to the processes in South Korea. Id. When the fish arrived in South Korea it still looked like a whole fish, but when the fish was exported, it “no longer possess[ed] the essential shape of the fish” as it was turned into fish fillets. Id. Finally, the CIT provided that “the fillets are considered discrete commercial goods and are sold in separate areas and markets.” Id. As such, because of the transformation 2 mentioned above, the fish was “transformed, both in name and in character.” Id. The CIT also acknowledged that had the fish not been substantially transformed in South Korea, the country of origin of the fish would be New Zealand, Japan, or the Soviet Union, depending on the flag of the catching vessel. Id. Likewise, CBP has consistently held that absent a substantial transformation, the country of origin of seafood caught outside of the territorial waters of a foreign country is the country of the flag of the catching vessel. For example, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 732939, dated October 9, 1990, CBP determined that crabs caught by U.S.-flagged vessels in the EEZ of the Soviet Union were not substantially transformed, and following the law of the flag, the crabs were determined to be a product of the United States. Similarly, in HQ 112287, dated August 20, 1992, CBP held that fish products that were caught and processed by a U.S.-flagged vessel within the Russian EEZ and that landed at a Russian port without a change in condition were accorded duty-free status. Also, in HQ 563123, dated December 29, 2004, CBP determined that shrimp caught and headed outside the territorial sea of Nicaragua but within its EEZ by U.S.- flagged fishing vessels and then landed in Nicaragua where the shrimp was packed and frozen, did not undergo a substantial transformation and were a product of the United States for country of origin purposes. Lastly, in HQ H326814, dated August 25, 2022, affirming New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N326746, dated July 21, 2022, CBP stated that sea urchins harvested in Japan were not substantially transformed by processing in Japan and were therefore products of China, Mexico, or Russia for country of origin purposes, as determined by the flag of the catching vessel. In the instant case, the tuna is caught in the EEZ of the RMI by Chinese- and Micronesian-flagged vessels. On the vessels, the tuna is gutted and gilled, and then taken to an onshore processing facility in the RMI where it is headed and detailed. The operations in the RMI processing facility do not amount to a substantial transformation as they are minor operations that do not transform the fish into a different product with a new name, character, and use. The tuna retains the essential shape of a fish and is still recognized as a fish despite being gutted, gilled, headed, and detailed. Additionally, the name and use of the tuna fish remains unchanged. Thus, absent a substantial transformation, the country of origin of the tuna is the flag of the catching vessel, in this case China or Micronesia. Norpac disagrees with CBP’s determination and argues that the RMI is the country of origin of the tuna. Duty-Free Treatment of RMI Imported Articles Norpac opens its country of origin argument by asserting that the H&G Tuna is accorded duty-free treatment under the Compact Free Association between the United States and the 2 and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Marshall Islands (“Compact”), General Note 10 (“General Note 10”), because the tuna is imported from the RMI. Norpac further notes that neither the Compact nor General Note 

Country of Origin When determining the country of origin for customs purposes, the substantial transformation analysis applies. 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. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982). However, if the manufacturing or combining process is merely a minor one that leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) stated in Koru North America v. United States, 701 F. Supp. 229, 232 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), that the “Law of the Flag” applies to the country of origin of seafood, which means that the country of origin of the seafood follows the flag of the catching vessel. However, the CIT also indicated that we need to consider whether the seafood is subsequently substantially transformed in another country. Id. at 234. In Koru, Koru North America imported New Zealand Hoki fish that were caught in the EEZ of New Zealand. Id. at 230. The catching vessels were “ships chartered by Fletcher Fishing, Ltd (Fletcher), the largest fishing company in New Zealand while flying the flags of New Zealand, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic{s}.” Id. The fish were later sent to South Korea where they were “thawed, skinned, boned, trimmed, glazed, refrozen and packaged for exportation to the United States.” Id. The CIT concluded that the fish had been substantially transformed in South Korea and were therefore a product of South Korea. Id. at 235. Specifically, the court noted that the fish’s name was changed due to the processes in South Korea. Id. When the fish arrived in South Korea it was id