N349850

N349850 June 30, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N4:415 CATEGORY: Origin Michael E. Roll Roll & Harris, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 RE: The country of origin of four human hair products from India. Dear Mr. Roll: In your letter dated June 5, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on four human hair products on behalf of your client, The Hair Shop, Inc. The products under consideration are hair wefts, wigs, tape-in hair extensions, and clip-in hair extensions. Each of the products are made of human hair harvested and cleaned in India and then shipped to China for construction into the final product. The complete manufacturing process is as follows: 1. The raw human hair is collected in India. 2. The hair is cleaned and prepared for coloring. 3. The hair is then shipped to China and dyed to the desired color. 4. The hair is separated into individual hair strands by length, then reorganized and bundled according to a specific ratio of lengths. 5. Hair extension attachments are affixed to the hair depending on the type of finished product, e.g., a polyurethane base is applied followed by double-sided tape for tape-in extensions. For I-Tip extensions, an adhesive base is shaped into small cylindrical tips. 6. Lastly, the finished product is packaged and prepared for shipment. When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“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). In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components are assembled into completed products, all factors such as the components used to create the product and manufacturing processes that these components undergo are considered in order to determine whether a product with a new name, character, and use has been produced. No one factor is decisive, and assembly/manufacturing operations that are minimal will generally not result in a substantial transformation. We find that the prepared hair holds the basic nature of the finished articles and that it is not substantially transformed to become a new article having a new name, character, or use after being further processed in China. Accordingly, the country of origin for these wefts, wigs, and hair extensions will be India. 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 CBP Regulations (19 CFR 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 Kristopher Burton at kristopher.burton@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division

is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“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). 

In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components are assembled into completed products, all factors such as the components used to create the product and manufacturing processes that these components undergo are considered in order to determine whether a product with a new name, character, and use has been produced. No one factor is decisive, and assembly/manufacturing operations that are minimal will generally not result in a substantial transformation. We find that the prepared hair holds the basic nature of the finished articles and that it is not substantially transformed to become a new article having a new name, character, or use after being further processed in China. Accordingly, the country of origin for these wefts, wigs, and hair extensions will be India. 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 at