Country of Origin of Electric Foldable Bicycles

H360107 May 20, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:VS H360107 ACH CATEGORY: Origin Center Director Electronics Center of Excellence and Expertise U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1 World Trade Center Long Beach, CA 90831 Re: Country of Origin of Electric Foldable Bicycles Dear Center Director: This is in response to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 5203-26-100627, timely filed by counsel for [ ] (“the importer”) and received on January 12, 2026, claiming that the country of origin of foldable electric bicycles should be Paraguay. Our decision is set forth below. The protestant 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 decision or in the attachments forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from published versions of this ruling. FACTS: The articles at issue are light-weight, foldable electric bicycles designed to be easily transported on buses and trains. The bicycle includes a roller wheel for easier transportation while folded. The foldable frame is made from three different magnesium alloy castings that house the bicycle’s battery. The frame is mechanically joined in Paraguay using precision-machined interlocks, torque-controlled fasteners, and proprietary bonding. The importer states that welding of the frame is not feasible due to the foldable structure of the bicycle. The bicycle is assembled as follows: ? In China, semi-solid magnesium alloy is injected under high pressure die cast molds. The molds are cooled and the metal solidified into three raw, cast frame components and a front fork. The frame components are then shipped to Paraguay. 2 ? In Paraguay, the frame components are assembled with other materials, and the finished bicycle is produced. The assembly steps for the frame include quality control inspection; torque review and registration; drilling and threading; polishing, grinding, and chemical conversion for corrosion resistance; painting, branding, and varnish coating; quality inspection; component integration preparation (battery and brake cable installation); mechanical joining and frame subassembly; and compliance labeling and serial identification. Overall production of the frame subassembly takes two days, with the second day being primarily for varnishing and subsequent drying. ? Production in Paraguay includes workers manually inserting electronic components via Through Hole Technology (“THT”) into a printed circuit board (“PCB”). The electronic components include transistors, capacitors, connectors, coil, and an integrated circuit (“IC”) of Chinese origin. ? Bicycle assembly in Paraguay consists of front wheel assembly, rear wheel assembly, inflation of tires, fork assembly, seat assembly, handlebar assembly, insertion of additional components, quality control, and packaging. ISSUE: What is the country of origin of the foldable electric bicycle? 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 filed within 180 days of liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3). Further Review of Protest Number 5203-26-100627 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) or by the Customs courts. Regarding the entries at issue, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined that an additional ad valorem duty of 25 percent 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(b), HTSUS. When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. 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). 3 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, and the essence of the article is considered. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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.” Energizer 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 flashlight. The Energizer court reviewed the “name, character and use” test utilized in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred and noted, citing Uniroyal, 3 CIT 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 at 1318. 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 Nat’l Hand Tool Corp., 16 CIT at 311-12. Courts have also 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 considered whether the imported components retained their names after they were assembled into the finished 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 predetermined 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 as to constitute a substantial transformation. The court determined that the imported components did not undergo a change in name, character, or use as a result of their post-importation assembly into a finished Generation II flashlight. Virtually all of the components of the military flashlight, including the most important component, the LED, were of Chinese origin. Thus, the court determined that China was the correct country of origin of the finished flashlights for purposes of government procurement. The CIT has also looked at the essence of an article to determine whether the identity of an article is changed through assembly or processing. For example, in Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 C.I.T. at 225, 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 thus the character of the product remained unchanged and did not undergo substantial transformation in the United States. Similarly, in National Juice Products Association v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 48, 61, 628 F. Supp. 4 978, 991 (1986), the court held that imported orange juice concentrate “imparts the essential character” to completed orange juice and thus was not substantially transformed into a product of the United States when blended with water, oils, and essences. CBP has consistently found that the essential character of a bicycle is imparted by its frame. For example, in 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 New York Ruling Letter (“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 essential character of an E-bike is imparted by its frame. In NY N309404, dated February 12, 2020, CBP found that the essence of an E-bike was its frame and that the Chinese frame was not substantially transformed when it was assembled in Taiwan with other products imported from China, 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 determined that the country of origin of an E-bike was Taiwan, where the frame was produced, and that the assembly operations of the various components in China did not result in a substantial transformation. In the instant case, we also find that the character of the foldable electric bicycle is imparted by its frame. The frame gives the bicycle its overall shape, size, and character and enables the bicycle to fold and to be easily transported. Although the frame is not fully assembled in China, the frame components coming from China have a predetermined end use as a bicycle frame and the parts of the frame are not significantly altered in Paraguay, but rather are merely polished, painted, coated with protective coating, and combined with the other elements of the bicycle. Further, although the electrical components of the bicycle power the bicycle and enable it to function, CBP has consistently held that the frame is the essence of electric bicycles. Therefore, we believe the name, character, and use of the bicycle frame does not change after the frame components are produced in China. Furthermore, the assembly process of the bicycle in Paraguay involves minor operations with parts that have a pre-determined end use as parts for the bicycle. The assembly of the bicycle involves minor operations such as the insertion of electrical components and the addition of wheels, handlebars, seats, and other components. The simple assembly occurring in Paraguay does not change the name, character, or use of the components that is established when the unassembled frame is manufactured in China. 5 In view of these facts, we find that the frame sourced from China imparts the character of the bicycle and that the assembly operations occurring in Paraguay do not result in a substantial transformation of the bicycle frame. Therefore, the country of origin of the foldable electric bicycle is China. HOLDING: Based on the facts provided, the country of origin of the foldable electric bicycle is China. Therefore, the protest should be denied. 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 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