Application for Further Review of Protest No. 280923110395; [ ]; Country of Origin of Imported Electrical Inverters and Battery Chargers; Section 301 Trade Remedy

H338596 February 27, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H338596 AMW CATEGORY: Origin Center Director Electronics CEE U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1 World Trade Center Long Beach, CA 90831 Attn: Elizabeth Carrick, Import Specialist RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 280923110395; [ ]; Country of Origin of Imported Electrical Inverters and Battery Chargers; Section 301 Trade Remedy Dear Center Director: This is in response to an Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest Number 280923110395, timely filed on behalf of [ ] (the “Protestant” or “Importer”), concerning liquidation and assessment of duties pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for the entry of certain electric inverters, battery chargers, and inverter/chargers. The Protestant asked that certain information submitted in connection with the protest be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 CFR § 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets and all attachments to this ruling request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this decision. FACTS: The following facts are based on the protest submitted August 4, 2023, and follow-up submissions provided on September 14, 2024, October 10, 2024, June 2, 2025, and September 5, 2025. On August 16, 2022, the Protestant entered into the United States various models of electrical inverters, battery chargers, and inverter chargers (collectively, the “products” or “devices”). Upon entry, the Protestant declared the country of origin of the products to be Hong Kong. Upon reliquidation, CBP changed the country of origin of the products to China. 2 The Protestant purchased and imported the subject devices from an unrelated exporter, [ ] (the “Exporter”), which is based in Hong Kong. The Exporter, in turn, owns two additional entities: [ ] (the “China Entity”), which sourced the individual components and produced the underlying printed circuit board assemblies (“PCBAs”) in China; and [ ] (the “Hong Kong Entity”), which conducted final assembly of the subject merchandise in Hong Kong. The electrical inverters transform direct current (“DC”) electricity stored in batteries, which are imported and installed separately, into alternating current (“AC”) electricity that can be used to power household devices such as television sets and air conditioners. The battery chargers do the opposite: they convert AC power from an external power source (e.g., a wall socket) into DC power to recharge batteries. The inverter/chargers, meanwhile, are equipped to perform both functions. The devices are composed of a variety of subassemblies and components that are combined and partially assembled in China before undergoing final assembly in Hong Kong. In particular, each device contains five PCBAs: the main PCBA (i.e., “motherboard”), display PCBA, control PCBA, auxiliary power PCBA, and connector PCBA. The motherboard PCBA controls power management, energy scheduling, and the switching logic from DC input and AC output (or vice versa) to ensure the reasonable flow of electrical energy. A variety of components are affixed to the PCBA in either Hong Kong or China, including the metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (“MOSFET”) and insulated gate bipolar transistor (“IGBT”) switches. The MOSFET and IGBT switches are important to the overall function of the devices, facilitating the conversion of the electric current by controlling the direction of the current and determining the output frequency. Overall, most individual components were sourced from China and a majority of the component value for each model was also associated with components originating in China. The Protestant has provided costed bills of material (“BOMs”) for seven models of devices subject to the instant protest. The BOMs show the following component and cost breakdown: Product No. Total No. of Component Types1 No. of Component Types Produced in China Total Component Value China Component Value Inverter [ ] 344 326 $91.56 $83.31 Inverter [ 359 340 $112.27 $100.92 1 This column reflects the number of different component line items reported in the BOMs. This number does not reflect the total number of components incorporated because the BOMs do not report a consistent unit of measurement for components used. For instance, for some components (e.g., nuts, transistor clamps) the BOMs provide the total number incorporated. However, for other components (e.g., tape, tubing, adhesives), the BOMs provide the length or volume used. 3 ] Inverter Charger [ ] 397 385 $147.88 $122.11 Battery Charger [ ] 326 317 $85.51 $76.44 Inverter [ ] 366 305 $188.02 $122.79 Inverter [ ] 364 301 $201.96 $140.18 Inverter Charger [ ] 446 440 $159.67 $139.44 Although the products differ in purpose, the Protestant notes that they are similar in construction, and, for the purpose of conducting a substantial transformation analysis, underwent an identical manufacturing process. The products underwent manufacturing and assembly operations in both China and Hong Kong. The initial stages of production occurred in China at a facility owned by the China Entity. To begin with, each device’s components are procured and the bare printed circuit boards (“PCBs”) were printed, creating the conductive pathways. Following this, the PCBs underwent a surface-mount technology (“SMT”) process in which various components were added, including diodes, capacitors, resistors, circuit breakers, and certain MOSFET/IGBT switches. Following this, the PCBAs were placed into a reflow oven in which soldering paste was melted and various components were affixed. Next, an automated optical inspection of the PCBA was conducted to detect any defects or device failures. Finally, an automated insertion (“AI”) process occurred to further attach discrete components, including additional capacitors and diodes. Once the AI process is complete, the components were packaged and sent as kits to Hong Kong. Based on photographs provided by the Protestant, the motherboard PCBAs left China with pre-punched holes to which additional components were added during the Hong Kong assembly. The final assembly occurred in Hong Kong at a facility owned by the Hong Kong Entity. Upon arrival at the Hong Kong facility, the kits’ components were unpacked and prepared for assembly. Next, various components were added to the motherboard PCBAs via through-hole insertion process (described in your request as a “stuffing” process), including resistors, resonators, displays, fuses, insulators, heatsinks, and additional switches. Afterwards, the PCBAs underwent a wave soldering process in which they were run through a conveyor and passed over a molten solder “wave” that created solder joints for the components inserted during the stuffing process. Next, a hand soldering process occurred by which employees added and 4 soldered additional components, including LED displays and lights, transistor clamps, and certain connectors. Once the additional components were affixed to the PCBAs, the boards underwent programming with firmware that was written in a variety of countries followed by in-circuit testing.2 Lastly, the PCBAs were assembled with the remaining components, including AC/DC power adapters, fuses, cables, connectors, fan, chassis, and cover, to form the complete unit. The devices then underwent final testing and were packed and exported. The Protestant claims that the applicable country of origin is Hong Kong, arguing that the individual components were substantially transformed into the finished devices in that country. On April 4, 2024, the Electronics CEE denied the protest on the following basis: “There is an ISO and IATF Certificate for [the China Entity] showing them designing, manufacturing, and selling the associated power products. Both certificates show China as the [c]ountry where operations are performed….” In support of its protest, the Protestant has provided the following documents: • CBP Form 7501 Entry documents for the underlying entry; • CBP’s invoice to the Importer for outstanding duties; • An ACE extract for the underlying entry; • Annual corporate returns for the Exporter and Hong Kong Entity; • BOMs for the specific SKUs in the underlying entry; • Importer’s purchase order for the underlying entry; • Exporter’s purchase orders to the Hong Kong Entity; • Schedule of China SMT process and translation; • China Customs export declaration; • Exporter kit invoice to Hong Kong Entity; • Hong Kong production schedule for relevant time period; • Annotated photos and recorded videos of manufacturing process in occurring in both China and Hong Kong; • Photographs of kits arriving in Hong Kong and after assembly in China; • Equipment purchase and shipment information for production equipment at Hong Kong facility; • Product kit material and packing lists; • Standardized work procedures for hand soldering process; • Certificate of Origin issued by Hong Kong Federation of Industries; • Timecards for employees working at Hong Kong Entity’s assembly facility; • Product “flow chart” containing a costed BOM for an exemplary inverter model, photographs and descriptions of underlying PCBAs, and costed list of manufacturing steps; and 2 The submission states that the firmware was written in a variety of different countries, and the origin would differ for each device. For each device, the firmware was written in the following countries: [ ] (United States and Thailand), [ ] (Malaysia and Thailand), [ ] (China), [ ] (Hong Kong), [ ] (United States and Philippines), [ ] (Canada), [ ] (Canada), [ ] (Hong Kong). 5 • Corporate documents, affidavits, and negotiation records demonstrating Exporter and Importer are unrelated parties ISSUE: Whether the country of origin for the subject devices is Hong Kong or China for the application of Section 301 duties. LAW AND ANALYSIS: To begin, 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 filed, within 180 days of liquidation for the entry. See Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii)-(iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) (2006)). Further review of this protest is properly accorded to the importer pursuant to 19 CFR § 174.24(b) because the issues protested involve questions of law or fact, which have not been ruled upon. The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an 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”). See Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20, HTSUS. The relevant Section 301 measures apply to products of China enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20(e), which provides in pertinent part that for the purposes of subheading 9903.88.15, products of China that are classified in the subheadings enumerated in U.S. note 20(f), shall be subject to an additional 25% percent ad valorem rate of duty. Products of China classifiable in subheading 8504.40.95, HTSUS, are subject to the additional tariff under subheading 9903.88.03, HTSUS. When determining the country of origin for applying trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. A substantial transformation is said to have occurred when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, and use which differs from the original material subjected to the process. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982). If the manufacturing or combining process is a minor one which leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In a number of rulings, CBP has stated: “in our experience these inquiries are highly fact and product specific; generalizations are troublesome and potentially misleading.” See e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 735608 (Apr. 27, 1995) and HQ 559089 (Aug. 24, 1995). The determination is in this instance ‘a mixed question of technology and Customs law, mostly the latter.’” Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 783 (CCPA 1982). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) more recently interpreted the meaning of “substantial transformation” in Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2016). Energizer Battery involved the determination of the country of origin of a flashlight, referred to as the Generation II flashlight. Every component of the flashlight was of Chinese origin, except for a white LED and a hydrogen getter. The components were imported into the 6 United States and assembled into the finished Generation II flashlight. The Energizer Battery court reviewed the “name, character and use” test utilized in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred and noted, citing Uniroyal, Inc., 3 C.I.T. at 226, that when “the post-importation processing consists of assembly, courts have been reluctant to find a change in character, particularly when the imported articles do not undergo a physical change.” Energizer Battery at 1318. In addition, the court noted that “when the end-use was pre-determined at the time of importation, courts have generally not found a change in use.” Energizer Battery at 1319, citing as an example, National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 312 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), CBP held that for purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), the assembly of a large number of fabricated components onto a printed circuit board in a process involving a considerable amount of time and skill resulted in a substantial transformation. In that case, over 50 discrete fabricated components (e.g., resistors, capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits, sockets, and connectors) were assembled onto a PCB. CBP determined that the assembly of the PCBA involved a very large number of components and a significant number of different operations, required a relatively significant period of time, skill, attention to detail, and quality control. See C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 544 (1985), (the assembly of a large number of fabricated components onto a printed circuit board in a process involving a considerable amount of time and skill resulted in a substantial transformation); see also, HQ H326574, dated June 21, 2023 (holding that the country of origin of a network CATV amplifier is that in which the PCBA is manufactured via SMT). The Protestant has presented two arguments as to why the subject devices originate in Hong Kong. First, the Protestant argues that the CEE erroneously relied on an ISO Certificate issued to the Chinese Entity, which stated that the products originated in China and that the Exporter performed a logistics function as opposed to being a manufacturer. Second, the Protestant argues that the assembly operations performed in Hong Kong are sufficient to affect a substantial transformation of the underlying components. To begin with, the Protestant has provided documentation purporting to substantiate the manufacturing processes occurring in Hong Kong. Even if we were to accept these documents as sufficient, however, the level of operations the Protestant claims to occur in Hong Kong would still not produce a substantial transformation of the underlying merchandise as analyzed below. Given the above, the saliant question is whether the assembly operations occurring in Hong Kong were sufficient to substantially transform the underlying components into an article with a different name, character, and use. We will analyze each in turn. For the change in name, the Protestant does not present an argument as to when the components underwent a change in name. However, throughout its submissions, the Protestant describes the PCBA produced in China as a “bare PCB,” which suggests the Protestant believes the components underwent a change in name in Hong Kong from their individual names to become the final motherboard PCBA and the inverter, charger, and inverter/chargers. We observe, however, that the court in Energizer Battery analyzed a similar argument, noting: “[t]he 7 issue is not whether Plaintiff imported approximately fifty ‘flashlights,’ but rather whether the Plaintiff’s imported components retained their names after they were assembled into the Generation II flashlight. Thus, the proper query would be whether the . . . components would still be called by their pre-importation name after assembly into the finished flashlight, or whether they would be indistinguishable in name from the finished product.” Energizer Battery at 1322. The court found that “[t]he constitutive components of the Generation II flashlight do not lose their individual names as a result of post-importation assembly [accordingly] no such name change has occurred.” Id.; see also, HQ H322417, dated February 23, 2022 (“when incorporated into the printed circuit board, the individual components and the blank printed circuit board develop a new name, a PCBA.”) Similar to Energizer Battery, we find that the individual components such as the PCB and PCBA components undergo a change in name when they are incorporated into the PCBA via SMT in China. In contrast, and again similar to Energizer Battery and HQ H327417, the Chinese-constructed PCBA itself does not undergo a change in name when it undergoes further through-hole processing and incorporation into the final device in Hong Kong. Importantly, CBP has consistently recognized that a bare PCB undergoes a change in name when it undergoes printing and SMT. See, e.g., HQ H325450, dated Nov. 17, 2022 (noting a bare PCB becomes a PCBA when an integrated circuit is “surface mounted onto a bare [pcb] along with components such as diodes, capacitors, resistors, switches….”) As such, although additional components are added to the motherboard PCBAs in Hong Kong, this does not change the fact that the PCB had already undergone the requisite name change to a PCBA in China. With respect to character, for courts to find a change in character, there often needs to be a substantial alteration in the characteristics of the articles or components. See e.g., Energizer Battery, 190 F. Supp. 3d at 1318 (citing National Hand Tool, 16 C.I.T. at 311). Courts have not found a change in character when changes are cosmetic or when the “form of the components remained the same.” Energizer Battery at 1318. In other cases, courts have looked to the “essence” of a completed article to determine whether an imported article has undergone a change in character as a result of post importation processing. Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1318 (2016) (citing Uniden America Corp. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1091, 1095-1098 (2000) and Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (imported shoe uppers were the “essence of the finished shoe” and were not substantially transformed by the addition of an outer sole in the United States”). With respect to the incorporation of an imported PCBA in a third country, CBP has frequently determined that the PCBA imparts the character of a device when it possesses the components necessary to impart a device’s functionality. In HQ H322417, dated February 23, 2022, CBP considered the country of origin of an imported smartwatch. CBP determined that the smartwatch’s PCBA imparted the character of the device because it incorporates the electronic components that together gave the device its functionality and allowed the device to operate as intended. In rendering its determination, CBP observed that once the various components were incorporated into the smartwatch, they “‘become an integral part of the new article’ and develop the functionality of the smartwatch capable of capturing and exchanging data and tracking the user’s fitness and activity, among other functions.” See HQ H322417, citing HQ H287548, dated March 23, 2018, New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N303008, dated March 8, 2019, and HQ H301910, dated August 5, 2019. 8 In the instant matter, the motherboard PCBA provides the character of the devices in that it combines and controls the components necessary to convert AC and DC power. We further determine that the various components undergo a change in character via the PCBA creation in China, and that no subsequent change of character occurs in Hong Kong. Similar to HQ H322417, the underlying documentation indicates that a variety of electronic components are added to the raw PCB via SMT in China to create the subject PCBAs. This includes many of the IGBT/MOSFET chips that enable the devices to function as inverters and/or chargers. Additionally, we note that the processing and assembly in Hong Kong does not impart a physical change in the items imported from China. See Energizer Battery at 1318, citing Uniroyal, Inc., 3 C.I.T. at 226 (when “the post-importation processing consists of assembly, courts have been reluctant to find a change in character, particularly when the imported articles do not undergo a physical change.”) Instead, as outlined above, the components assembled in Hong Kong are typically added to pre-created holes via through-hole technology or soldering, but are otherwise unaltered from their form as imported. This process is analogous to that described in HQ H326574, dated June 21, 2023, in which CBP determined that no change in character occurred when additional components were added to a pre-existing PCBA via “pushpin assembly” into “holes pre-drilled in China or via soldering while the housing, power supply, and chassis are attached with screws.” Furthermore, in a follow-up submission provided to CBP on September 5, 2025, the Protestant confirmed that, although additional Chinese-origin MOSFET/IGBT chips may have been added to the PCBAs during the Hong Kong assembly process, no physical alteration occured to the switches during this process. As outlined in Energizer Battery and confirmed in HQ H326574, this level of assembly is not sufficient to create a change in character because, although various components were assembled together, no physical change occurred. With respect to use, courts have found that a change in use occurs when the end use of the imported product was no longer interchangeable with the end use of the product after post importation processing. In contrast, courts have typically not found a change of use when the end use was predetermined at the time of importation. See Energizer Battery, 190 F. Supp. 3d at 1319 (citing Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 535, 540-41 (1987); National Hand Tool, 16 C.I.T. at 311-12; Ran-Paige Co., Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 117, 121-22 (1996); Uniroyal, 3 C.I.T. at 226). “When articles are imported in prefabricated form with a pre-determined use, the assembly of those articles into the final product, without more, may not rise to the level of substantial transformation.” Id. (citing Uniroyal, 3 C.I.T. at 226). In relation to both character and use, the Protestant asserts that the Hong Kong processes were “significant and necessary to transform the numerous components into a new and functional” product. In so doing, the Protestant asserts “Customs has consistently ruled that a substantial transformation occurs when a PCB and components are combined to form a completed PCBA, whether that process includes SMT (with reflow soldering), wave soldering, hand soldering, or a combination thereof.” Citing HQ 734021, dated May 21, 1991 (“[T]he assembly of the components into the completed circuit board constitutes a substantial transformation”); HQ 733690, dated February 22, 1991 (“[W]e conclude that assembling the components onto the blank printed circuit board and putting the populated boards into the larger 9 systems such as computer power units constitute a substantial transformation”); NY N323710 (finding substantial transformation when discrete components undergo SMT and wave soldering and other components are created via injection molding). The rulings cited by the Protestant are distinguishable, however, in that they involve scenarios in which a PCBA is manufactured entirely in one location. Instead, and as discussed above, the present matter is more like HQ H326574 where the devices’ PCBAs underwent printing and SMT in China, but experienced the additional “push pin” insertion of various components into pre-drilled holes and were soldered into place. In that matter, CBP determined that the PCBA was “merely augmented by simple ‘push pin’ insertion of additional components into premade holes and via soldering….” Furthermore, as with Energizer Battery, it can be said that the end use of the motherboard PCBA was pre-determined when it arrived in Hong Kong. See Energizer Battery at 1319 (“[W]hen the end-use was pre-determined at the time of importation, courts have generally not found a change in use.”) Here, the PCBAs produced in China already possessed the applicable pathways, a significant amount of components attached (diodes, capacitors, resistors, circuit breakers, and certain MOSFET/IGBT switches), and insertion holes for additional components. Although it is true that the motherboard PCBA produced in China were not yet fully functional, the pathways and components attached created a PCBA that could only be used in the completed devices; the additional assembly operations in Hong Kong merely augmented this use. In addition to the foregoing, the Protestant argues that the CIT’s decision in Cyber Power Sys. (USA) v. United States, 622 F. Supp. 1397 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) further supports a finding of substantial transformation in Hong Kong. In Cyber Power, the court reiterated its prior caution of an “essence”-based analysis and “component-by-component” analysis that would per se decide whether substantial transformation had occurred. See id. at 1411-12. While Cyber Power may have asserted that the essence test is a separate test that was used, stemming from a result of prior court decisions using different and potentially confusing terminology, the court nevertheless determined that the country of origin of five of the six models of devices in question was China, where it was undisputed, and found by CBP as well, to be where the underlying PCBAs were manufactured. In so doing, the Cyber Power court observed that for the particular article considered, the main PCBA “controls the function of the device in which it is installed.” Id at 1403. The court also determined that, although the subsequent assembly in the Philippines caused a change in name (i.e., from a set of PCBA and component parts to the finished UPS Model), the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence for the court to analyze whether the finished PCBAs underwent a further change in character or use in the Philippines. In contrast, for the remaining device, the court found the Philippines to be the country of origin because the “entirety of the [device’s] manufacture occurred in the Philippines,” which therefore satisfied all three prongs of the name, character, and use test. In line with Cyber Power, our determination regarding the origin of the subject devices is not based solely on the character (or in other words essence) test. Rather, it is clear that the form of the subject PCBAs remained the same after assembly in Hong Kong, as supported by the fact that the PCBA and other components were merely augmented by “through-hole” insertion of additional components into premade holes and via soldering. See, e.g., Energizer Battery at 1318. In addition, although the motherboard PCBA can be said to impart the “brains” of the devices, the IGBT/MOSFET switches also perform an essential function in enabling the devices to translate AC to DC or vice versa. And as outlined in 10 the illustrative BOM, these switches were typically produced in China and were not physically altered in Hong Kong. Aside from the name, character, and use criteria, the Protestant asserts that various subsidiary factors support a finding of substantial transformation. Indeed, courts have considered subsidiary or additional factors, such as the country of origin of the item’s components, the extent and nature of operations performed, value added during processing, a change from producer to consumer goods, or a shift in tariff provisions. See, e.g., Energizer Battery at 1319. Some courts have attempted to distinguish between minor manufacturing and combining operations or simple assembly, and processing that is more complex and meaningful. Id. (citing, e.g., Uniroyal, 3 CIT at 226, 542 F. Supp. At 1301). Consideration of subsidiary or additional factors is not always necessary, and there is no uniform or exhaustive list of factors to consider, and they are mainly examined based on available information. Id. Indeed, CBP has never outlined a bright line rule in which the number of manufacturing steps or time taken in a country would render an article substantially transformed. See, e.g., HQ H317645, dated October 5, 2021 (“a review of each ruling reveals that the outcomes do not rely simply on the number of components, the number of assembly steps, the time it takes to complete assembly, or the number of workers.”) With respect to the country of origin of the item’s components, the BOMs provided by the Protestant indicate that the vast majority of the components used in manufacturing and packaging the devices, including those incorporated in Hong Kong, originate in China. Indeed, as outlined in the illustrative BOMs provided by the Protestant, only two of the seven devices contained any physical components originating in Hong Kong whereas the vast majority of physical component types were manufactured in China. As such, this factor weighs in favor of a determination that China is the country of origin. In addition, the greatest proportion of value of the components used in the construction of the subject devices was also imparted by the Chinese-origin components. Throughout its submissions, however, the Protestant argues the opposite, asserting that, “the manufacturing activities in Hong Kong are calculated to be more valuable in the overall cost of the relevant Products.” In support, the Protestant provides an assembly “flow chart” alongside its illustrative BOM asserting, for the exemplary unit, that a majority of the “material cost” related to the Hong Kong operations. In making this assertion, the chart appears to attribute the component value of all components assembled into the devices in Hong Kong, regardless of origin, to the value of the operations occurring in Hong Kong. This is misleading. A review of the BOMs makes clear that the material components incorporated in Hong Kong consisted almost entirely of those components imported from, and originating in, China. The fact that the Chinese-origin components were assembled into the device in Hong Kong does not change their country of origin when accounting for the underlying origin of the products’ components. Based on the foregoing, we determine that the manufacturing process occurring in China constitutes a substantial transformation such that the country of origin of the products is China. The subsequent operations occurring in Hong Kong, meanwhile, did not result in a substantial transformation. As a result, Section 301 remedies are applicable to the subject devices. 11 HOLDING: This protest should be DENIED. Based on the analysis above, the available evidence demonstrates that the subject merchandise was produced in CHINA. Protest No. 280923110395 is referred back to your Center for appropriate action. You are instructed to notify the Protestant, through its counsel, 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 the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (“CROSS”) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/, or other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, For Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division