Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-22-160379; Country of Origin of Leaf Blowers; Section 301 Measures

H334437 May 21, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H334437 RRB CATEGORY: Origin Center Director Machinery Center of Excellence and Expertise 109 Shiloh Dr., Suite 300 Laredo, TX 78045 Attn: Dekeisha D. Thomas, Import Specialist RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-22-160379; Country of Origin of Leaf Blowers; Section 301 Measures Dear Center Director: This is in response to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 2704-22-160379, timely filed on May 17, 2022, by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, on behalf of The Toro Company (“Toro” or “Protestant”). This decision concerns the country of origin of leaf blowers and the assessment of Section 301 duties. Pursuant to a request from the Protestant, a teleconference meeting was held between counsel for the Protestant and members of my staff on February 26, 2026. Subsequent to this meeting, the Protestant submitted additional information in support of their claims. Our decision below takes into account all of the information presented in the above-referenced submissions and meeting. FACTS: The protested merchandise consists of cordless leaf blowers used for home and light commercial applications. The blowers generate a supercharged airflow that can go from 0 to 157 mph in one second and produce over 600 CFM of air volume. The protestant explains that the leaf blowers were manufactured by an unrelated supplier, Greenworks (Vietnam) Company Limited (“Greenworks”) at several plants in 2 Vietnam. Prior to sourcing the leaf blowers from Greenworks’ production facilities in Vietnam, the Protestant sourced the merchandise from a facility in China. The Protestant avers that beginning in November 2020, production was completely and permanently transitioned to Greenworks’ production facility in Vietnam. In support of its claims, the Protestant submitted production videos, entry documents and a bill of materials. The Protestant also submitted a statement from Greenworks attesting to the manufacturing transition and identifying the initial shipments of leaf blowers that were exported from the plant in Vietnam. The key manufacturing processes to produce the leaf blowers in Vietnam include production of the injection molded housings and blower tube nozzle, production of the motor (including the rotor and stator subassemblies), electrical wiring, and final assembly of the finished leaf blower, each described in further detail below. However, we note that according to the bill of materials, the printed circuit board assembly (“PCBA”) used to produce the subject leaf blower was sourced from China. Injection Molded Housings In support of its claim that the injection molded housings were manufactured in Vietnam, the Protestant submitted a video produced by Greenworks, which shows their plastic injection molding site and identifies the production lines used to mold the leaf blower components, all occurring at the supplier’s facility within an industrial park in Vietnam. Motor Production The Protestant submitted videos and a bill of materials in support of its claim that motor production, including manufacture of the rotor and stator from Chinese origin components, occurred in Vietnam. 1. Rotor Subassembly The Protestant states that the rotor subassembly was manufactured in Vietnam using the following components of Chinese origin: core lamination, magnets, stainless steel sleeve, rotor shaft, front and rear insulating sleeves, spring, and rotating disk. In Vietnam, the shaft was first machine pressed into a retaining ring that holds the rotor components in place. This was followed by gluing and pressing the lamination stack and permanent magnets onto the shaft and retaining assembly. Subsequently, the bearing and rotor housing were pressed onto the shaft and magnet assembly to form the rotor subassembly. 2. Stator Subassembly The stator subassembly was also manufactured in Vietnam using mostly Chinese origin components, including the following: slot insulation paper, slot wedge, wires, core lamination, copper strip, terminal, insulating varnish, and dual-wall heat shrink tubes. In 3 Vietnam, the stator core was first pressed into a plastic stator housing. The stator core and plastic housing were then placed into a winding machine where they were wound with enameled copper wire from Vietnam. These coiled armatures were then pressed through another machine where they were joined to the stator housing while the lamination stack was secured to the outside of the stator subassembly. 3. Final Motor Assembly The rotor and stator subassemblies were connected manually by fitting the rotor shaft into the stator housing and pressing the two subassemblies together. Then, the entire assembly was fit into a motor housing, and the components were screwed into place. The rotor cap, which controls the fan’s movement, was then pressed into place and the motor was tested for quality and functionality. Electrical Wiring and Final Assembly of the Leaf Blower During the next phase of production in Vietnam, the electrical connections were soldered together with the fan and placed into the plastic fan housing. Next, the Chinese-origin PCBA and the electrical switching components were connected to the motor and fan subassembly. All of these components were then fitted into the plastic blower housing and the electrical wiring was fitted into place. Lastly, the plastic housing was screwed into place to cover all of the functional components, resulting in the main leaf blower unit. This was followed by testing and packaging with the plastic tube nozzle that was produced in Vietnam.1 The Protestant explains that the entire production process requires over 60 individual workstations across multiple factory floors and production lines, involving between 57-76 workers, including 18-25 specially trained, skilled workers that manage the motor production, injection molding, electrical circuitry and safety at the production site in Vietnam. Producing each leaf blower unit takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The protested merchandise consists of 15 entries of leaf blowers that were entered between December 22, 2020, through June 4, 2021. The Customs Form (“CF”) 7501 identified the country of origin of the protested merchandise as China. We note that while the Protestant’s submission refers to Greenworks as the Protestant’s supplier, the original invoices submitted with the protest commercial invoices were issued by a company called “HongKong Sun Rise Trading Limited” (“HKSR”), with the name and address of a manufacturer located in China, identified as Changzhou Globe Co., Ltd. (“Changzhou”). The accompanying commercial invoices also identified the country of origin of the protested merchandise as China. The Protestant stated in their protest submission that “revised commercial invoices with the corrected country of origin for all 1 Some entries are imported with a battery sourced from Vietnam and a charger sourced from China, both of which are packed separately. 4 of the entries impacted by this issue are available, if necessary, upon request from CBP.” Accordingly, in an email dated January 12, 2026, our office requested copies of these revised commercial invoices. On January 30, 2026, counsel submitted revised commercial invoices, which continued to identify the manufacturer as Changzhou, located in China, but with a country of origin as Vietnam. The Protestant also provided bills of lading, packing lists, and airway bills for the protested entries, which identified the port of loading and departure as Haiphong, Vietnam. Following our meeting with counsel for the Protestant on February 26, 2026, they submitted a second set of revised commercial invoices on March 30, 2026, which identified Greenworks as the manufacturer, with a factory address located in Vietnam. In response to subsequent questions about the entity that issued the invoices, counsel for the Protestant explained that HKSR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Changzhou. In November 2022, Changzhou as the parent company changed its name to Greenworks (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (“Greenworks (Jiangsu)”). Up until November 2020, Changzhou was both the parent company of HKSR and the manufacturer of the leaf blowers. Counsel further explained that the Protestant has privity of contract with HKSR as the trading company of the manufacturer, Greenworks (and Changzhou prior to the manufacturing shift to Vietnam in November 2020). Along with HKSR, Greenworks is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of Greenworks (Jiangsu) (formerly, Changzhou).2 The Protestant is unrelated to all of these parties. The protested entries were liquidated between November 11, 2021, through April 29, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the Protestant filed this protest and AFR, asserting that the country of origin of the protested merchandise is Vietnam, and therefore, the merchandise is not subject to Section 301 duties. According to their protest submission, “[d]ue to an inadvertent gap in communication, Toro’s customs broker was not made aware of the manufacturing transition to Vietnam and continued to enter these goods as they had under the previous sourcing scheme with a Chinese origin.” ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the protested leaf blowers for purposes of Section 301 trade measures? LAW AND ANALYSIS: We note that this matter is protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5) as a decision relating to the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry. The protest was timely 2 In an email, dated April 14, 2026, counsel for the Protestant stated that “[w]ith respect to our last set of invoices from January, we misunderstood your request. We thought you simply needed the original invoices with a corrected country of origin. We did not want to make additional changes to the documents so as to not cause confusion, but now we realize it may have made the confusion worse. The bottom line, the last set of invoices [submitted on March 30, 2026] reflect the actual nature of the parties involved in the transaction.” The relationship between HKSR, Changzhou, Greenworks, and Greenworks (Jiangsu) was confirmed via email correspondence, dated April 27 and 28, 2026, 5 filed within 180 days of liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). Further Review of Protest Number 2704-22-160272 was properly accorded to the Protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been decided on by CBP or by the Customs courts. The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that additional ad valorem duty will be imposed on certain Chinese imports pursuant to USTR’s authority under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301 measures”). The Section 301 measures apply to products of China enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20, HTSUS. When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. 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 (CCPA 1982). In deciding 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. See Belcrest Linens v. United States, 6 CIT 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff’d, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally not result in a substantial transformation. Factors which may be relevant in this evaluation may include the nature of the operation (including the number of components assembled), the number of different operations involved, and whether a significant period of time, skill, detail, and quality control are necessary for the assembly operation. See C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D. 85-25, C.S.D. 89-110, C.S.D. 89-118, C.S.D. 90-51, and C.S.D. 90-97. If the manufacturing or combining process is a minor one which leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Historically, CBP has concluded that press-fitting or connecting fan or pump components to a motor does not result in a substantial transformation when considering the country of origin of a fan or pump assembly. The country of origin of a fan or pump assembly is based on the country of origin of the motor, as it is the essence of these types of assemblies. For example, in Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) H304126, dated February 13, 2020, the country of origin of a dishwasher pump assembly was determined to be Serbia based on the manufacturing and assembly processes of the motor in Serbia. In HQ H304126, the majority of the discrete parts were sourced from China and then shipped to Serbia to be manufactured into the rotor subassembly and the stator subassembly, and then combined to form the finished centrifugal dishwasher pump. The assembly of the motor involved magnetization of the rotor, pneumatic pressing of multiple components, ultraviolet glue curing, and induction soldering. CBP 6 held that the assembly was complex and, as such, the country of origin of the motor, which is the essence of the pump assembly, was determined to be Serbia. Therefore, the origin of the pump assembly was also Serbia. Furthermore, it is generally CBP’s position that the country of origin of an electric motor will be determined by where the two most essential components of an electric motor, the rotor and the stator, are made. In turn, the country of origin of the stator and rotor will often be based upon the country where the cores of these components are made. In New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N305251, August 1, 2019, CBP considered the origin of an electric stepper motor under three manufacturing scenarios. In the first scenario, the stator and the rotor were manufactured in Japan by stamping the steel slits from coils that were then pressed into a stator and rotor stack. The balance of the stepper motor components (the pulley, the bearing, the shaft, the end caps, etc.) were sourced from China. The assembly of the stepper motor components into a functional motor was also performed in China through operations such as machining the stator and rotor, painting, winding of the wire, affixing the shaft and bearing onto the rotor, soldering the wire onto the connector board, and screwing the housing and endcaps together, etc. CBP found that the stator and rotor imparted the essence of the finished stepper motor and were not substantially changed by the assembly of the remaining motor components. CBP held that the assembly operations were not complex enough to transform the stator and rotor into a new article and, therefore, the country of origin of the electric stepper motor was Japan, where the stator and rotor stack were produced. In addition, CBP has held that whether an assembly process is sufficiently complex to rise to the level of substantial transformation is determined upon consideration of all of the operations that occur within that country, including any subassembly processes that take place in that country. For example, in HQ H303529, dated June 6, 2019, the subject merchandise was an incomplete postage meter, which functioned as a specialized printer in a mail handling system. While one of the major subassemblies was made in Malaysia, the remaining subassemblies were made in China, and the final assembly process of connecting the subassemblies also occurred in China. CBP found that the assembly process that occurred in China was sufficiently extensive and complex as to substantially transform the components into a product of China. In doing so, CBP noted that the question of the complexity of the assembly process which occurred in China was not limited to an examination of the assembly of the various subassemblies to one another, but included an examination of all the assembly processes involved in China in the production of the incomplete postage meter. See Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1318 (CIT 2016) (“…case law…indicates that a determination of substantial transformation must be based on a totality of factors”) (citing National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 312 (1992), and Ran-Paige Co., Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 117, 121 (1996)). With regard to motors, the extent of processing that occurs after the stator and rotor core are created must also be taken into account. For example, in NY N309707, dated March 11, 2020, CBP considered the country of origin of a fan blower that was 7 produced in Mexico from parts largely of Chinese origin. The stator core and the rotor shaft and yoke, as well as the magnetic wire, insulator sheets, bottom housing, bearing housing, ball bearings and lead wire harness were all sourced from China. However, the motor’s stator subassembly was itself assembled in Mexico by winding magnetic wire onto the Chinese stator core. The PCBA and the Chinese insulator sheets were then connected and soldered onto the stator assembly, and the stator assembly was in turn installed and bonded to the Chinese bottom housing. A lead wire harness from China was then soldered to the contacts of the PCBA and a Japanese seal was installed in the bottom housing. The stator assembly then underwent a curing process. Next, the rotor assembly was created by installing a retaining ring on a Chinese shaft to form a shaft assembly. Washers from Mexico or the United States were then installed onto the shaft, and ball bearings were bonded to bearing housings and the shaft using adhesive. During the rotor assembly curing process, a magnet yoke assembly was created by bonding a magnet to the rotor yoke using adhesive, and then magnetizing the magnet using specialized equipment. The magnetic yoke assembly was then bonded to the rotor assembly. Finally, once the completed rotor assembly was cured, a Chinese impeller was press fit and bonded onto the rotor assembly with adhesive and cured. Then, the fan assembly and the rotor assembly were fastened to the stator assembly and a Chinese top housing was fitted and screwed onto the impeller attached to the completed rotor and stator assemblies, thus completing the fan blower. Each complete fan blower assembly was then tested. CBP found that the various manufacturing and assembly processes in Mexico created a new and different article of commerce, as the air circulating and motor components of each unit, to include the Chinese and Japanese components, were subjected to operations resulting in the individual parts losing their separate identities to become a new article, i.e., a fan blower assembly that consisted of an impeller and a motor. In HQ H318255, dated November 3, 2021, CBP considered the country of origin of a fan blower for CPAP machines that was assembled in Mexico from subassemblies that were also assembled in Mexico. Many of the components that formed the subassemblies were sourced from various countries, including China, Japan, Mexico, and the United States. A stator core, rotor yoke, and impeller were assembled into four subassemblies, namely, a rotor assembly, stator assembly, fan assembly, and magnet yoke assembly, using a variety of processes, including bonding and curing, soldering, winding, screwing, magnetization, and press-fitting, which included joining the impeller to the motor. Where various components were assembled into four subassemblies in Mexico using the above-referenced processing, and where such subassemblies were then assembled together to form the fan blower in Mexico, CBP found that the various components of the fan blower assembly were substantially transformed as a result of these processes. In the instant protest, we find that the processing of the leaf blowers is similar to the processing that occurred in NY N309707 and HQ H318255. As in NY N309707 and HQ H318255, we must consider the extent of processing that occurred after the stator and rotor core are created as part of an examination of how the various subassemblies were assembled to one another, along with all of the assembly processes that took 8 place to produce the finished leaf blower. Here, various base level components were sourced from China and Vietnam to manufacture the motor (including the stator and rotor subassemblies) in Vietnam. We note that while the base component stator and rotor cores were sourced from China, they were processed into a stator and rotor subassembly, then into a motor, and finally into a leaf blower, all of which occurred in Vietnam, where additional subassemblies, including the processing of injection molded housings, electrical wiring, and final assembly of the leaf blower all occurred. Therefore, we find that the various components of the leaf blower were substantially transformed by the processing operations in Vietnam. As noted above, the Protestant asserts that due to an inadvertent gap in communication with its customs broker regarding the manufacturing shift from China to Vietnam, the entry documents initially failed to capture its claims that the merchandise is of Vietnamese origin. Accordingly, our office carefully examined the supplemental information submitted by counsel for the Protestant in support of its claims that the country of origin of the leaf blowers is Vietnam. For example, in the initial version of Invoice No. SUN202342, dated November 27, 2020, which is tied to Purchase Order (“PO”) No. 5500476459, the country of origin was identified as China and the name and address of the product manufacturer was identified as Changzhou, also in China. The packing list and bill of lading submitted with this initial invoice identified Vietnam as the port of loading and departure. The product quantity and name of the ocean vessel on the packing list and bill of loading match those identified on the commercial invoice. On January 30, 2026, the Protestant submitted a revised version of Invoice No. SUN202342, with a notation on the invoice that it was corrected on January 25, 2026. The first corrected invoice was also tied to PO No. 5500476459, identified Vietnam as the country of origin but continued to list the name and address of Changzhou in China. In response to our inquiry regarding why the invoice continued to identify Changzhou in China, counsel explained that Changzhou was the manufacturer before the manufacturing shift to Vietnam in November 2020, that Changzhou changed its name to Greenworks (Jiangsu) in November 2022, and that it is also the parent company of Greenworks, which started manufacturing the merchandise in Vietnam in November 2022. In support, the Protestant submitted a second set of revised commercial invoices, including Invoice No. SUN202342, on March 30, 2026, which identified the country of origin as Vietnam and listed Greenworks and its factory in Vietnam as the name and address of the manufacturer. It also submitted videos showing production of the various subassemblies and final assembly in Vietnam. We note that while production videos submitted by the Protestant are relevant to its claims regarding country of origin, these alone are not sufficient. However, when these videos are considered in conjunction with the revised commercial invoices, the bills of lading and packing lists identifying Vietnam as the port of loading, we are satisfied with the Protestant’s explanation regarding the manufacturing transition from China to Vietnam and why the entry documents initially failed to capture that shift. Accordingly, the country of origin of the protested leaf blowers is Vietnam, and Section 301 duties do not apply. 9 HOLDING: The protest should be GRANTED. Based on the analysis above, the Protestant has provided sufficient information in demonstrating that the subject leaf blowers were produced in Vietnam. You are instructed to notify the Protestant of this decision no later than 60 days from the date of this decision. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to this notification. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (“CROSS”) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/, which can be found on the CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, For Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division