Internal Advice; Country of Origin; Section 301 Trade Remedies, Zevo Insect Trap Starter Kit

H343988 May 20, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H343988 JH CATEGORY: Valuation Center Director Consumer Protection and Mass Merchandising Center of Excellence and Expertise U.S. Customs and Border Protection 157 Tradeport Drive Atlanta, GA 30354 Attn: Linda Golf, Assistant Center Director RE: Internal Advice; Country of Origin; Section 301 Trade Remedies, Zevo Insect Trap Starter Kit Dear Center Director: This is in response to a memorandum dated December 23, 2024, forwarding a request for internal advice submitted by counsel for Procter & Gamble Company and their subsidiary, The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company (“P&G”), concerning the country of origin and applicability of Section 301 trade remedies of their Zevo Insect Starter Trap Starter Kits (“insect traps”). The request for internal advice arose in connection with an entry summary review on a Post Summary Correction (“PSC”) by the Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising Center. This decision is being issued subsequent to the following: (1) a review of the internal advice request submitted by Sandler, Travis & Rosenburg, P.A. on behalf of P&G dated October 30, 2024; and (2) a review of the documents that you forwarded to our office on December 12, 2024. FACTS: The insect traps are marketed and sold in home goods and hardware stores, as well as in big box retail and home improvement stores. Each trap has three key features that together, attract, capture, and eliminate insects without emitting chemicals. The starter kit is described to be the complete device, and it is comprised of an electrical plug-in base that incorporates a printed circuit with blue and ultraviolet (UV) LED lights optimized to attract bugs (“LED board”), and a refillable cartridge composed of a specialized glue sheet (“glue cartridge”), that is inserted into an opaque, curved shield (“shade”) that directs light a specific direction to entice bugs towards the glue sheet. Starting in June 2024, the importer began importing a newer version of the insect trap where the glue trap was made in Mexico with glue of [xx] origin. The bill of materials provided indicates that the pin bridge, LED board, PS + connectors, and glass lens covers are sourced from China, and the glue sheet and the body components including the lower housing, upper housing, tower, shade, and plug are made in Mexico. In Mexico, the glue sheets are made from rolls of polyethylene terephthalate substrate (“PET”) to which glue is applied. Protective liner film is next applied, and the glue sheets are die cut to shape. In addition, the production process in Mexico for the insect traps includes: 1. Making the body components via injection molding to create a shade, lower housing, upper housing, tower, and plug rotator. 2. Manually placing two glass squares into the upper housing light cover. The glass allows a UV spectrum to emit from the device. 3. Pressing the upper housing into the light cover to hold the glass squares. 4. Placing the shade upside down in the rotary table. The upper housing assembly is pressed, and the UV LED lights are welded to the light cover. 5. Attaching the PCBA pin bridge to the pin bridge rotator. 6. Placing the LED board in the lower housing. The plug is also placed in the lower housing. 7. Aligning the upper housing assembly with the shade, with the lower housing assembly. 8. Ultrasonically welding the device together. 9. The device goes through a current and voltage test, to test for safety and functionality. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the Zevo Insect Trap Starter Kits for Section 301 duty purposes? LAW AND ANAYLSIS: The U.S. 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(r), HTSUS. The Section 301 measures apply to products of China enumerated in Section XXII, Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 20(s)(i), 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). 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). In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. 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. Additionally, CBP considers factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative. The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) 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. All of the components of the flashlight were of Chinese origin, except for a white LED and a hydrogen getter. The components were imported into the 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). Furthermore, courts have considered the nature of the assembly, i.e. whether it is a simple assembly or more complex, such that individual parts lose their separate identities and become integral parts of a new article. In reaching its decision in Energizer, the court expressed the question as one of whether the imported components retained their names after they were assembled into the finished Generation II flashlights. The court found “[t]he constitutive components of the Generation II flashlight do not lose their individual names as a result [of] the post-importation assembly.” The court also found that the components had a pre-determined end-use as parts and components of a Generation II flashlight at the time of importation and did not undergo a change in use due to the post-importation assembly process. Finally, the court did not find the assembly process to be sufficiently complex to constitute a substantial transformation. Thus, the court found that Energizer’s imported components did not undergo a change in name, character, or use as a result of the post-importation assembly of the components into a finished Generation II flashlight. The court determined that China, the source of all but two components, was the correct country of origin of the finished Generation II flashlights under the government procurement provisions of the TAA. In Headquarter Ruling (HQ) H303177, dated May 4, 2020, CBP considered the country of origin of an air purifier in two manufacturing scenarios where Chinese-origin electric components (motor, etc.), and Mexican-origin components were imported into Indonesia where they were assembled with Indonesian-origin components to make the finished product. Notably, in the first manufacturing scenario, CBP found that the assembly operations in Indonesia, which included injection-molding the plastic parts, including the housing components, control panels, switch covers, switch boxes, handles, and brackets; installing major components and subassemblies; testing; and packaging were sufficiently complex and meaningful as to substantially transform the non-originating components. CBP highlighted how the plastic components, assembled in the subassembly stage to form the housing and exterior elements of the finished product, were an integral part of the finished device’s character and use because they formed the “structure and appearance of the device”. Further, it was explained that without the housing and exterior elements, the imported components would not be identifiable or usable as the finished product. While CBP acknowledged the important character of the Chinese-origin components, CBP found that those components lost their individual identities and became an integral part of a new article when assembled with the Indonesian and Mexican-origin components in Indonesia. Consistent with HQ H303177, the injection molding of the plastic parts to make the housing and exterior elements (shade, lower housing, upper housing, tower, plug rotator) of the finished trap also occurs in the same country where the final product is assembled, Mexico. Further, along with providing the appearance for the finished product, the exterior components contribute to the trapping capabilities of the insect trap, and allow the LED board to be kept at an optimal position to emit its light. While the LED board is an important component, we find that the last substantial transformation occurs in Mexico where most of the body components are formed and the final assembly is performed. Thus, the country of origin for 301 trade remedies purposes is Mexico. HOLDING: Based on the information submitted, we find that the country of origin for the Zevo Insect Starter Trap Starter Kits is Mexico for purposes of determining the applicability of Section 301 Trade remedies. You are instructed to provide this decision to the internal advice requester no later than sixty (60) days from the date of the decision. 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Monika R. Brenner, Chief Valuation and Special Programs Branch