N356998

N356998 January 8, 2026 OT:RR:NC:N2:201 CATEGORY: Origin Kevin Doucette CH Robinson International. Inc. 14701 Charlson RD Eden Prairie, MN 55347 RE: The country of origin of a Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) Dear Mr. Doucette: In your letter dated December 12, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on a UTV assembled in Vietnam from Vietnamese and Chinese components on behalf of your client, Lil Pick Up, Inc., located in Jurupa Valley, California. You presented documents/slides and multiple videos showing the production work done in Vietnam. The item under consideration has been identified as the TrailCross UTV. The TrailCross is a compact, 2-passenger electric powered UTV designed to transport people and cargo in off-road environments. The Trailcross is equipped with an integrated rear axle motor, which delivers strength and performance. The Trailcross will be produced in Vietnam using both Vietnamese and Chinese materials, but all the production steps listed below will take place in Vietnam. You state that to make one UTV involves the complex integration of 439 individual components. The production process for the Trailcross is as follows: 1 - Pipe laser cutting- Raw steel rods are precision-cut based on CAD designs. 2 - Pipe bending- Custom bending operations shape the pipes into frame and support structures. 3 & 4 - Welding- Separate welding of suspension swing arms and other non-frame metal parts. 5 - Welding- Full chassis/frame welding using welding jigs for dimensional accuracy. 6 - Surface Treatment- Powder coating and painting for corrosion protection of all welded metal components. 7 - Pre-assembly of radiator brackets, cooling systems, plastic hoods, and lighting. 8 - Installation of plastic panels, wiring harness (manufactured in Vietnam), and major sub-systems. 9 - Final assembly-Mounting of motor, body panels, suspension, and electronics. 10 - Testing and Quality Control- Each vehicle is subjected to full functional testing, alignment, safety checks, and cosmetic inspection. 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). Additionally, Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States 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 United States, the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.” See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940). Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” 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 the marking laws and regulations. The substantial transformation test is fact-specific and applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the totality of factors. The primary focus of the substantial transformation test is whether the work or material added to an article in another country changed the character or use of the article. A change in the name of materials added to an article, without more, will rarely support the interpretation that the processing in question substantially transformed those materials. In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The country of origin of the item’s components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. In binding ruling N320280 (July 22, 2021), CBP determined the country of origin of a similar all-terrain vehicle (ATV) assembled in Thailand from Chinese components. As described in this ruling, the ATV is comprised of 1,375 component parts, and went through 22 “main”, 14 “sub”, and 3 “inspection” stations during the assembly processes. Some of the assembly processes include: Engine and Front and Rear Axle Assembly Rear Suspension Assembly, which includes installation of left and right rocker arm subassemblies, the rear sway bar, and mounting brackets for shock absorbers and brake calipers Assembly of Main Cable and Middle functional parts of vehicle body, which includes the radiator and cooling system, fuel tank, voltage regulator, steering wheel and system related components, Continuous Variable Transmission (CVT), and air filters Installation of Dashboard, Upper Panel, and Headlight Sub-Assembly The fabrication of the vehicle frame, which included welding and electrophoretic painting, and was considered its own subassembly, was performed in China and shipped in bulk to Thailand. CBP held that the country of origin of the ATV was Thailand because the assembly process is sufficiently complex enough to constitute a substantial transformation and results in an article with a new name, character, and use such that the country of origin is Thailand. In many cited rulings, CBP did note that the “assembly of components is necessary for the ATV to function, and that the assembly results in a substantial transformation”. Similarly, in Headquarters ruling H330647 (October 5, 2023) CBP determined the country of origin of electric passenger vehicles assembled in Country A from globally sourced components, 75% of which were from China. The full vehicle assembly, including the power train, will be completed in Country A. The assembly includes, but is not limited to: Removal of doors from painted body and glazing; primary seal to doors and assembly of external doors finisher; latches and mirrors assembly; door glasses fitting; doors harness routing and modules fitting; speakers and door closing finisher assembly; Retractor and tailgate weatherstrip assembly; tailgate harness connection to the main harness; instrument panel fitting; anti-lock brake system subassembly and assembly. Center console subassembly; underbody assemblies (e.g., braking systems). Headlamp fitting; fluid fill; seats row fitting; steering wheels; 12v battery fit; door fitting; windshield washer reservoir filling. Rear knuckle subassembly; damper assembly, assembly of rear electric drive unit; rear suspension assembly; main harness and coupling. Motor dropped onto the front subframe, mounting of front comer 

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). Additionally, Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States 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 United States, the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.” See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940). Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” 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 rende