N348003

N348003 May 6, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N1:118 CATEGORY: Origin M. Jason Cunningham Sonnenberg & Cunningham PA 780 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 RE: The country of origin of a Digging Hoe and Cultivator Tool Dear Mr. Cunningham: In your letter dated April 18, 2025, on behalf of your client, Great Star Industrial USA, LLC, you requested a country-of-origin determination for purposes of Section 301 and IEEPA duties. Pictures of the item in different stages of manufacture were included with your submission, along with a detailed narrative of the manufacturing processes. The merchandise under consideration is a hand tool that is commonly and commercially known as a digging hoe and cultivator tool. It is made primarily from bulk, raw steel with a wooden handle. The working part of the tool has two sides. One side is the cultivator and the other is the hoe. The digging hoe side of the tool is primarily used for tasks like digging trenches, breaking up hard soil, and removing weeds. The angled blade allows for penetration into the soil, making it suitable for excavation work. The cultivator side incorporates three tines that are designed for loosening and aerating soil. You state that the manufacturing process begins in Vietnam, where raw steel coils are stamped to make the hoe side of the tool. Raw steel is also cut, bent, punched, and tipped into the straight and U-shaped tines of the cultivator side. Still in Vietnam, raw steel is cut to make the handle hole (i.e., center piece), which also serves as the connecting point between the hoe and cultivator sides. These four Vietnamese components are then sent to China where the tines are welded together to form the completed cultivator side. The hoe side is then welded to the center piece and the cultivator is welded to the opposite side. The finished head of the tool is then milled, deburred, sharpened, and surface treated before the wooden handle is inserted into the working head. When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301 and any other duties, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter 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). Regarding the digging hoe and cultivator tool, it our view that raw still is substantially transformed in Vietnam into four recognizable components of the finished head of the tool.? Before leaving Vietnam, the steel is stamped, bent and punched into all four pieces of the head of the tool. ?These articles provide the principal characteristics of the finished tool, are dedicated for use as such, and cannot be used for any other purpose.? Based on the provided descriptions and pictures of the welding, machining and assembly operations performed in China, these components are not substantially changed so as to transform it into a new article with a different name, character, or use. ?It is therefore the opinion of this office that the country of origin of the digging hoe and cultivator tool is Vietnam. The holding 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 of 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 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 and Border Protection 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, please contact National Import Specialist Anthony Grossi at anthony.e.grossi@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division

is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter 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). Regarding the digging hoe and cultivator tool, it our view that raw still is substantially transformed in Vietnam into four recognizable components of the finished head of the tool.? Before leaving Vietnam, the steel is stamped, bent and punched into all four pieces of the head of the tool. ?These articles provide the principal characteristics of the finished tool, are dedicated for use as such, and cannot be used for any other purpose.? Based on the provided descriptions and pictures of the welding, machining and assembly operations performed in China, these components are not substantially changed so as to transform it into a new article with a different name, character, or use. ?It is therefore the opinion of this office that the country of origin of the digging hoe and cultivator tool is Vietnam. The holding 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 of 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 time of importation, you should bring this to the attention