Modification of NY N344694; Country of origin of an e-scooter

H344999 May 6, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H344999 RRB CATEGORY: Origin C.J. Erickson Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. 114 West 47th Street New York, NY 10036-1525 RE: Modification of NY N344694; Country of origin of an e-scooter Dear Mr. Erickson: This is in response to your submission, dated February 10, 2025, requesting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to reconsider New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N344694, dated January 14, 2025, which was issued to your client, Lightfoot Electric, Inc. (“Lightfoot”). NY N344694 addressed the classification and country of origin of an e-scooter. On March 19, 2025, our office held a teleconference meeting with you and your client. Subsequent to this meeting, in an email dated April 18, 2025, you submitted more detailed information and clarification regarding the structure of the e-scooters. In NY N344694, CBP found that the country of origin of the e-scooter will be China for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. After reviewing the ruling in its entirety, along with the information in your reconsideration request and in your April 18, 2025, email, we find NY N344694 to be incorrect only with respect to the country of origin of the e-scooter for purposes of applying Section 301 trade remedies. For the reasons set forth below, we are modifying NY N344694. Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1625(c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI, notice proposing to modify NY N344694 was published on September 17, 2025, in Volume 59, No. 38 of the Customs Bulletin. No comments were received in response to the proposed action. 2 FACTS: In NY N344694, the e-scooter is identified as the “Lightfoot,” a solar and regenerative braking-powered seated e-scooter. It will be primarily used as a personal conveyance by adults to commute to work or to other activities of up to a dozen miles a day, primarily in urban or other locations with bike lanes. As stated in NY N344694, the inner frame, stem, suspension, brakes, seating, and lights are all sourced from vendors within Taiwan. The battery is sourced from Germany. The wheel hub motors, tires, tubes, throttles, grips, end caps, display, wiring harness, horn, on-board charger, solar panels1, and Maximum Power Point Tracking (“MPPT”) system are all manufactured in China. The Lightfoot e-scooter will ship fully assembled from a factory located in Taiwan. It will arrive in the United States ready to ride out of the box. The Lightfoot e-scooter, while solar powered, does not have the capability to charge other devices. NY N344694 states as follows: It has been CBP’s position that the frame imparts the character of the scooter, which in this case is a product of BOTH China (Solar Panels) and Taiwan (Inner Frame). It is the opinion of this office that the solar panels, which provide not only power, but are integral parts of the frame body of the e-scooter, imparting the character of the product. Based on the information provided, the culmination of production processes performed in Taiwan to the Chinese solar panel and inner Taiwanese frame does not substantially transform the solar panels. Accordingly, the merchandise will be a product of China, and the Section 301 measures will apply. In its reconsideration request, Lightfoot asserts that NY N344694 incorrectly states that the e-scooter frame consists of both solar panels from China and an inner frame from Taiwan, and that the solar panels are “integral parts” of the frame body. Lightfoot further explains that the solar panels only provide limited supplemental power to the e-scooter and are not the only, or even primary source of power. Moreover, Lightfoot clarifies that the solar panels attached to the frame are removable and the e-scooter is fully functional for its intended purposes without the solar panels. In response to our request for further documentary evidence of its assertions that the solar panels are not structurally part of the frame or scooter in any way, Lightfoot submitted additional information and accompanying photos and videos via email, dated April 18, 2025. First, Lightfoot provided video identifying the e-scooter frame as the rigid underlying aluminum alloy skeleton that supports the integrity of the vehicle and the weight of the rider. Additionally, Lightfoot provided videos showing the plastic side panels mounted to the frame with hinges on the right and left sides, with the right side panel opening to expose the cargo area. Lightfoot further posits that based on the flexible nature of the plastic side panels that are attached to but not part of the frame, they serve no structural or integral aspect of the frame. Another video provided by Lightfoot shows an individual riding the e-scooter with the plastic side panels attached to the frame, but without the solar panels glued on. Lightfoot also explains that the e-scooter can be ridden without the plastic sides or solar panels attached. With respect to the flexible plastic side 1 NY N344694 identifies the solar panels as “120 -watt photovoltaic Solar Panels. Each side panel consists of 46 monocrystalline solar panels, measuring 52.7? x 20.8? x 12?.” 3 panels, this is because they simply serve as doors for the cargo area, but do not provide any structural integrity to the frame. With respect to the solar panels, Lightfoot explains that the e-scooter can be ridden without the solar panels because the e-scooter’s primary source of power to charge its lithium ion battery is a standard 110 volt plug-in on the rear of the e-scooter. Using the 110 volt plug-in, the e-scooter’s lithium ion battery can be charged to 80% capacity in under 90 minutes. On the other hand, charging the same lithium ion battery to 80% capacity on a sunny day with the solar panels would take 14 hours. Lastly, Lightfoot submitted a detailed explanation and accompanying photos describing how the solar panels are glued or taped onto the plastic side panels with several adhesive materials. Based on these photographs, Lightfoot explains that the ultra thin solar panels, measuring 0.12 inches in thickness, are relatively flexible and unable to serve any structural purpose, nor otherwise be considered integral to the frame itself. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of an e-scooter assembled in Taiwan, using components from Taiwan, China, and Germany, for purposes of applying trade remedies? LAW AND ANALYSIS: When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying trade remedies, 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, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (1982). In order to determine whether a substantial transformation has occurred, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. CBP has stated that a new and different article of commerce is an article that has undergone a change in commercial designation or identity, fundamental character, or commercial use. A determinative issue is the extent of the operations performed and whether the materials lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. 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 Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2016), the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) interpreted the meaning of “substantial transformation” as used in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”) for purposes of government procurement. Energizer involved the determination of the country of origin of a flashlight, referred to as the Generation II flashlight, under the TAA. All of the components of the Generation II flashlight were of Chinese origin, except for a white LED and a hydrogen getter. The components were imported into the United States where they were assembled into the finished Generation II flashlight. The court reviewed the “name, character and use” test in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred and reviewed various court decisions involving substantial transformation determinations. The court noted, citing Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. 220, 226, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1031, aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983), that when “the post-importation processing consists of assembly, courts have been 4 reluctant to find a change in character, particularly when the imported articles do not undergo a physical change.” Energizer 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 at 1319, citing as an example, National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308, 310, 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. The court applied the “essence test” in Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d per curiam, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). There, the court held that imported shoe uppers added to an outer sole in the United States were the “very essence of the finished shoe” and were not substantially transformed into a product of the United States. The attachment of the outsole to the upper was a minor manufacturing or combining process which left the identity of the upper intact. CBP has consistently found that the essence of a bicycle is its frame. For example, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H302358, dated January 23, 2020, CBP determined that a bicycle manufactured in Taiwan with its frame sourced from China, and the remaining components sourced from Taiwan, China, Japan, and the United States, was a product of China. CBP stated that the frame was the most essential component of the bicycle as it imparts the overall shape, size, and character of the product. CBP further stated that the other parts of the bicycle lose their separate identity once they are attached to the frame and become a new article of commerce, the finished bicycle, with a new name, character, and use. Therefore, the assembly operations of the various parts of the bicycle in Taiwan did not result in a substantial transformation of the bicycle frame, and the bicycle was deemed a product of China. See also NY N302992, dated March 27, 2019; NY N295820, dated May 3, 2018; NY N292674, dated December 26, 2017; HQ H253522, dated February 5, 2015; and HQ 735368, dated June 30, 1994 (determining that the frame is the essence, essential character, or most significant or essential component of a bicycle). Similarly, CBP has held that the essence of an e-bike is also its frame. In NY N309404, dated February 12, 2020, CBP found that the essence of an e-bike was its frame and that the frame was not substantially transformed when it was imported from China and assembled in Taiwan with other products also imported from China, but also Taiwan (where among other parts, the electric motor controller and electric battery was sourced), Indonesia, and Japan. In HQ H312767, dated September 24, 2020, CBP also found that the essence of the subject e-bikes was the frame from Taiwan and that the frame was not substantially transformed by the simple assembly process in China involving minor operations with parts that have a pre-determined end use as parts for the e-bikes. In NY N344694, pursuant to CBP’s long-standing position that the essence of a bicycle is its frame, CBP found that the frame of the Lightfoot e-scooter was imparted by its frame. Based on the facts presented in the ruling request for NY N344694, CBP made the assumption that the frame of the e-scooter consisted of both the Chinese-origin solar panels and what was described as the Taiwanese-origin inner frame. Also based on the information provided, CBP determined that “the solar panels, which provide not only power, but are integral parts of the frame body of the e-scooter, impart[] the character of 5 the product”, and that “the culmination of production processes performed in Taiwan to the Chinese solar panel and inner Taiwanese frame does not substantially transform the solar panels.” In Lightfoot’s reconsideration request, they submitted additional information in support of their clarification that the solar panels are not part of the frame of the e-scooter. According to photos and videos submitted with their reconsideration request, the solar panels are merely attached to plastic side panels that are also not structurally part of the rigid underlying aluminum alloy skeleton frame that supports the integrity of the vehicle and the weight of the rider. This supplemental information also confirmed the flexible nature of the plastic side panels that provide no structural integrity or support to the frame. Rather, according to Lightfoot, the mounting of the plastic side panels onto the left and right of the frame is merely meant to serve as doors for the cargo area of the e-scooter. With respect to the solar panels, Lightfoot’s reconsideration request clarified that the solar panels are glued or taped onto the plastic side panels with several adhesive materials. Lightfoot also provided photographs confirming that the ultra-thin solar panels are relatively flexible and serve no structural purpose with respect to either the separate frame or the plastic side panels. Lightfoot’s reconsideration request also states that the e-scooter can be ridden without the plastic side panels mounted onto the frame and without the solar panels that are glued onto the plastic side panels. In support, Lightfoot submitted a video that shows an individual riding the e-scooter without the solar panels glued onto the plastic side panels. Upon review of the information submitted in Lightfoot’s reconsideration request with respect to the role of the solar panels vis-à-vis the rigid aluminum alloy frame of the e-scooter, we agree that the solar panels are not part of the frame. Accordingly, pursuant to CBP’s prior determinations with respect to such merchandise, the essence of the e-scooter is imparted by the frame from Taiwan. Therefore, the country of origin of the e-scooter is also Taiwan. Moreover, based on the information submitted with this reconsideration request, we are also convinced that the solar panels do not provide the primary power source to the e-scooter. Nevertheless, even if the solar panels did serve as the primary power source, that would not distinguish the subject e-scooter from similar e-bikes. For example, in HQ H312767, CBP held that the frame imparted the essence of the e-bikes despite the existence of complex components such as a Pedal Assist Drive Unit, which was the motor of the e-bike that provided ease of use for the rider and powered the e-bike to go faster while peddling. CBP specifically noted in HQ H312767 that while the Pedal-Assist Drive Unit is what specialized the e-bikes and set them apart from other non-electric bikes, it was not the unifying component present among all types of bicycles, which gives them their shape, size, and character, i.e. the frame. Similarly, while the solar panels are a unique feature of the Lightfoot e-scooter in providing a supplementary power source, the unifying component and essence of the e-scooter, as well as other types of bicycles/scooters, is the frame. In sum, because the solar panels are not part of the frame, which imparts the essence of the subject-scooter, CBP erred in concluding in NY N344694 that the country of origin of the e-scooter is China. Accordingly, based on the information submitted with 6 Lightfoot’s reconsideration request, we find that the country of origin of the subject e-scooter will be Taiwan. HOLDING: The country of origin of the e-scooter for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is Taiwan. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: NY N344694, dated January 14,2025, is hereby MODIFIED. This ruling will become effective 60 days from the date of publication in the Customs Bulletin. Sincerely, Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division