N317262

N317262 February 11, 2021 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Jane Lee D and S Industries (Philippines) Corporation Unit 1-5 of Orient Goldcrest Suntrust Ecotown Building 2 Cavite, Philippines RE: The country of origin of charging cables Dear Ms. Lee: In your letter dated February 1, 2021, you requested a country of origin ruling. The merchandise under consideration, identified by part number BAWG0766, is described as a USB-C to Lightning cable. The cable consists of a 10-foot length of insulated conductor affixed at one end with a USB-C connector and a lightning-style connector at the other. The subject cable is used to connect and charge a variety of mobile devices to host units and charging stations. You state that the manufacturing process is fully completed in the Philippines. This process begins with bulk wire conductor being extruded, twisted, braided, jacketed, and insulated prior to being cut to the desired length. The ends are then prepared for the addition of the connectors, which both originate in Taiwan. The connectors are soldered to each end before the cables are tested and packaged for shipment to the United States. The “country of origin” is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b), in pertinent part, 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 this part.” For tariff purposes, the courts have held that a substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 CCPA 267, C.A.D. 98 (1940); National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F. 2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Anheuser Busch Brewing Association v. The United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908) and Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982). Further, in Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2016), the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) interpreted the meaning of “substantial transformation” as used in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”) for purposes of government procurement. In Energizer, the court reviewed the “name, character and use” test in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred in determining the origin of a flashlight, and reviewed various court decisions involving substantial transformation determinations. The court noted, citing Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 226, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1031, aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), that when “the post-importation processing consists of assembly, courts have been reluctant to find a change in character, particularly when the imported articles do not undergo a physical change.” Energizer at 1318. In addition, the court noted, “when the end-use was pre-determined at the time of importation, courts have generally not found a change in use.” Energizer at 1319, citing as an example, National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 310, aff’d 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, courts have considered the nature of the assembly, i.e., whether it is a simple assembly or more complex, such that individual parts lose their separate identities and become integral parts of a new article. Regarding the country of origin of the subject cables, it is our opinion that the Philippine originating conductor imparts the essential functional component of the finished article. The addition of the Taiwanese origin connectors does not substantially transform the cable into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the individual components. Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the origin of the USB-C to Lightning cable, part number BAWG0766, is the Philippines. Importations of this product may be subject to the provisions of Section 133 of the Customs Regulations if they copy or simulate a registered trademark, trade name or copyright recorded with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If you are an authorized importer of the product, we recommend notifying your local Customs office prior to importation. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Luke LePage at luke.lepage@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division