N336580

N336580 November 30, 2023 OT:RR:NC:N2:220 CATEGORY: Origin; Marking; Trade Remedies Molly Yang BenQ Corporation No.16 Jihu Road NeiHu, Taipei Taiwan RE: The country of origin, marking, and applicability of Section 301 remedies of a wireless mouse set Dear Ms. Yang: In your letter dated November 16, 2023, you requested a country of origin and marking on behalf of BenQ America Corporation. The merchandise under consideration is referred to as the wireless mouse (Mouse), which is described as a plastic body shell with actuating buttons and scroll wheel on the top, and two additional button switches on the side. Internally, the Mouse incorporates a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) which functions to communicate with attached Bluetooth adapters and provides for the functionality of the input operations to the connected personal computer. The Mouse is said to be retail packaged with wireless receivers, USB adapters, Skatez, and a USB cable. In your request, you state that the PCBA is manufactured in Taiwan by surface mount and through hole insertion of electronic components, and then is sent to China where it will be incorporated into Chinese origin plastic body parts. The Mouse is subsequently tested packaged in a retail box with its accessories, namely the Chinese origin receivers, adapters, Skatez, and cable, for export to the United States. General Rule of Interpretation (GRI) 1, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), states in part that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings, any relative section or chapter notes and, unless otherwise required, according to the remaining GRI’s taken in order. Goods that are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, are classifiable in accordance with GRI 3. GRI 3(a) states that the heading that provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings refer to only part of the items in a composite good or set, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to the goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the good. As such, they are regarded as equally specific and classification of the composite good or set is to be determined by GRI 3(b) of GRI 3 (c) taken in the appropriate order in which they are set out in GRI 3. GRI 3(b) states in part that composite goods or sets, which cannot be classified by reference to GRI 3(a), are to be classified as if they consisted of the component that gives them their essential character. The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Tariff System, although not legally binding, provide guidance in the interpretation of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System at the international level. Explanatory Note X to GRI 3(b) provides that the term “goods put up for retail sale” means goods that: (a) consist at least two different articles which are, prima facie, classifiable in different headings; (b) consist of articles put up together to meet a particular need or carry out a specific activity; and (c) are put up in a manner suitable for sale directly to users without re-packing. Goods classifiable under GRI 3(b) are classifiable as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, which may be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight, or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the article. The subject wireless mouse set consists of two or more articles that are, prima facie, classifiable in different headings. This set also consists of articles put up together to carry out a specific activity (i.e., inputting, manipulating data into an automatic data processing system). Finally, the articles are put up in a manner suitable for sale directly to users without repacking. Therefore, the subject wireless mouse set is described within the meaning of “goods put up for retail sale.” In accordance with GRI 3(b), which states in part that goods put up in sets for retail sale, that cannot be classified by reference to GRI 3(a), are to be classified as if they consisted of the component which gives them their essential character. In our opinion, the article that provides the essence of the wireless mouse set is the Mouse. 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 (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article. The “country of origin” is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b) 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”. 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, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (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). Regarding the country of origin of the Mouse, in our view, the assembly of the PCBA in Taiwan by soldering the individual components onto the bare board results in a substantial transformation of those components to produce a PCBA of Taiwanese origin. Furthermore, it is the opinion of this office that the PCBA establishes the functionality of the Mouse because it is the article within the assembly that detects the movement via the optical sensors, performs the scrolling functions, wirelessly transmits the data to the attached personal computer, and more. Moreover, it is the view of this office that the assembly operations performed in China are not complex and do not substantially transform the PCBA by combining with the wheel, the plastic housings, etc. As such, we find that the components that make up the Mouse set are not transformed in China into a new and different article of commerce with a distinct name, character, and use. Therefore, the Mouse is considered a product of Taiwan for origin and marking purposes at the time of importation into the United States. In your request, you also inquire about the appropriate country of origin marking of the Mouse and its retail box and provide detailed drawings indicating the proposed marking schema. As provided in section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b)), the country of origin marking is considered conspicuous if the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. is able to find the marking easily and read it without strain. The marking must also be permanent, and section 134.41(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(a)), provides that as a general rule marking requirements are best met by marking worked into the article at the time of manufacture. For example, it is suggested that the country of origin on metal articles be die sunk, molded in, or etched. However, section 134.44, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.44), generally provides that any marking that is sufficiently permanent so that it will remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate purchaser unless deliberately removed is acceptable. The proposed markings indicates that the Mouse will be marked with a permanent label containing various device certifications and individual lines detailing the importer’s address for the United Kingdom, European Union, and United State

set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at the time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP.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 Karl Moosbrugger at karl.moosbrugger@cbp.dhs.gov.Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division