USMCA Eligibility; Country of Origin Marking; Electric Motorcycles

H356468 May 28, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H356468 ACH CATEGORY: Origin Karia Herrera RL Jones CHB 1610 Landmark Rd San Diego, CA 92154 RE: USMCA Eligibility; Country of Origin Marking; Electric Motorcycles Dear Ms. Herrera, This is in response to your ruling request dated November 25, 2025, filed on behalf of Stark Future USA LLC (“Stark Future”) concerning the eligibility of the Stark Varg MX/EX Electric Motorcycle (“motorcycle”) for preferential tariff treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), and the country of origin for marking purposes. You have requested that certain information submitted in connection with this request be treated as confidential. Inasmuch as this request conforms to the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7), the request for confidentiality is approved. The information contained within brackets in this ruling or in the 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 ruling. FACTS: The Stark Varg MX/EX is a high-performance, all-electric, off-road motorcycle specifically designed for motocross (“MX”) and enduro (“EX”) applications. The requestor states that the motorcycle is built for use on unpaved terrain and closed courses, not for operation on public roads. The motorcycle integrates a fully electric powertrain, proprietary control software, and a lightweight chassis and delivers performances greater than or equal to a 450cc combustion-engine motocross bike. The motorcycle features a 6061-T6 aluminum frame, impact-resistant body panels, lithium-ion battery, 60kW brushless electric motor, hydraulic disc brakes, LED signal lights, and rubber tires. Final assembly of the motorcycle occurs in Mexico, and components will be sourced from Spain, China, Indonesia, Italy, Taiwan, Japan, India, Denmark, Hong Kong, Portugal, Romania, and Poland. 2 Stark Future provided a bill of materials which included the classification of the components incorporated into the motorcycle. The motorcycle is composed of the following main components: Component Country of Origin Classification Price Upper Frame India 8714.91.10 €[ ] Sub-Frame Spain or India 8714.91.90 €[ ] Frame Side Plate Right China 7325 or 7316 €[ ] Frame Side Plate Left China 7325 or 7316 €[ ] Battery Assembly Taiwan 8507.60.00 €[ ] Brakes Spain 8714.94.20 €[ ] Each of these components will be shipped directly and separately from their countries of origin into Mexico, where final assembly of the structural frame will occur. The assembly will take approximately 5.5 hours. Stark Future provided the following chart for the purpose of de minimis calculations: Cost Total Value of Components €[ ] Total Value of Labor and Overhead €[ ] Total Cost of the Good for De Minimis Purposes €[ ] Non-Originating Components from the BOM that Do Not Meet the Tariff Shift Rule €[ ] De Minimis Value 9.27% ISSUES: 1. Whether the motorcycle will be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA 2. What is the country of origin of the motorcycle for purposes of marking? LAW AND ANALYSIS: 1. Eligibility for Preferential Tariff Treatment under the USMCA The USMCA was signed by the Governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada on November 30, 2018. The USMCA was approved by the U.S. Congress and enacted on January 29, 2020 with the USMCA Implementation Act, Pub. L. 116-113, 134 Stat. 11, 14 (19 U.S.C. § 4511(a)). General Note (“GN”) 11, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 3 (“HTSUS”), implements the USMCA and sets forth the criteria for determining whether a good is an originating good for purposes of the USMCA. GN 11, HTSUS states, in relevant part: (b) For the purposes of this note, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States from the territory of a USMCA country … is eligible for the preferential tariff treatment provided for in the applicable subheading and quantitative limitations set forth in the tariff schedule as a “good originating in the territory of a USMCA country” only if – (i) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA countries; (ii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA countries, exclusively from originating materials; (iii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA countries using nonoriginating materials, if the good satisfies all applicable requirements set forth in this note (including the provisions of subdivision (o)); …. The motorcycles contain nonoriginating materials from Spain, China, Indonesia, Italy, Taiwan, Japan, India, Denmark, Hong Kong, Portugal, Romania, and Poland; therefore, they are not goods wholly obtained or produced entirely in a USMCA country under GN 11(b)(i). Moreover, under GN 11(b)(ii), the subject merchandise is not a good produced entirely in Mexico, exclusively from originating materials. Therefore, CBP must determine whether the non-originating materials meet the requirement of GN 11(b)(iii) and GN 11(o). The motorcycles are classifiable under subheading 8711.60.00, HTSUS. The applicable rule of origin for the subject merchandise under GN 11(o) provides, in relevant part: Change in tariff classification rules. Chapter 87 …59. (A) A change to headings 8711 through 8713 from any other heading, including another heading within that group, except from heading 8714; or (B) A change to headings 8711 through 8713 from heading 8714, whether or not there is also a change from any other heading, including another heading within that group, provided there is a regional value content of not less than: (1) 60 percent where the transaction value method is used; or (2) 50 percent where the net cost method is used. According to the provided bill of materials, some of the motorcycle’s components do not meet the change in classification required under Section A. Therefore, Section A is not satisfied. 4 Further, Stark Future acknowledges that the motorcycles do not meet the regional value content requirements set forth in Section B. However, although the tariff shift rules are not met, Stark Future believes that the Motorcycles qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA because the components that do not meet Section A or B meet the de minimis rule. The de minimis rule in GN 11(e) states: (i) In general.—Except as provided in subparagraphs (e)(ii) through (iv) below, a good that does not undergo a change in tariff classification or satisfy a regional value content requirement set forth in subdivision (o) of this note is an originating good if— (A) The value of all nonoriginating materials that are used in the production of the good, and do not undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set forth in subdivision (o) of this note— (1) Does not exceed 10 percent of the transaction value of the good, adjusted to exclude any costs incurred in the international shipment of the good; or (2) Does not exceed 10 percent of the total cost of the good; (B) The good meets all other applicable requirements of this note; and (C) The value of such nonoriginating materials is included in the value of nonoriginating materials for any applicable regional value content requirement for the good. Stark Future reports the total cost per unit of the motorcycles to be $[ ]. The nonoriginating materials used in the production of the motorcycles that do not undergo a change in tariff classification set forth in GN 11(o) is represented by the components classified under heading 8714, HTSUS. As reported in the costed bill of materials, these materials are valued at a total of $[ ]. This amount represents approximately 9.3% of the total cost of the subject motorcycles. This amount is below 10% of the total cost of the motorcycles, so, based on the information provided, we determine that the non-originating components classified under heading 8714, HTSUS, are de minimis. Therefore, the motorcycles at issue qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. 2. Country of Origin Marking 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 container) will permit in such a manner as to indicate to an 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 markings on the imported goods the country of which the good is the product. “The evident purpose is to mark the goods so 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.” United States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302 (1940). 5 Part 134, 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) 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}.” Pursuant to section 102.0, interim regulations, related to the marking rules, tariff-rate quotas, and other USMCA provisions, published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2021 (86 FR 35566), the rules set forth in §§ 102.1 through 102.18 and 102.20 determine the country of origin for marking purposes with respect to goods imported from Canada and Mexico. Section 102.11 provides a hierarchy for determining the country of origin of a good for marking purposes. See 19 C.F.R. § 102.11(a). Since the motorcycles will be imported from Mexico, section 102 will govern the determination of whether the motorcycles are products of Mexico. Section 102.11(a) provides a hierarchy for determining the country of origin of a good for marking purposes. Applied in sequential order, the hierarchy establishes that the country of origin of a good is the country in which: (1) The good is wholly obtained or produced; (2) The good is produced exclusively from domestic materials; or (3) Each foreign material incorporated in that good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification set out in Part 102.20 and satisfies any other applicable requirements of that section, and all other applicable requirements of these rules are satisfied. 19 C.F.R. § 102.11(a)(1) is inapplicable because the motorcycles are not wholly obtained or produced in a single country. 19 C.F.R. § 102.11(a)(2) is also inapplicable since the motorcycles are not produced exclusively from domestic materials (Mexican, in this case). Therefore, the foreign materials must undergo the applicable tariff shift under 19 C.F.R. § 102.20 for the motorcycles to be considered products of Mexico. The pertinent tariff shift rule for subheading 8711-8713, HTSUS, states: A change to heading 8711 through 8713 from any other heading, including another heading within that group, except from heading 8714 when that change is pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 2(a). Based on the information supplied in your submission, the motorcycle’s components undergo the requisite tariff shift under 19 C.F.R. § 102.20. Since the motorcycles will be complete upon importation to the United States, General Rule of Interpretation 2(a) does not apply, and the components classified under heading 8714, HTSUS, will also meet the tariff shift rule. Therefore, the country of origin of the motorcycles for marking purposes will be Mexico. 6 HOLDING: The motorcycles qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA when imported into the United States. The country of origin of the motorcycles for marking purposes will be Mexico. Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “{e}ach ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a {CBP} field office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.” A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Monika R. Brenner, Chief Valuation and Special Programs Branch