The country of origin and marking of USB car chargers from Vietnam

N302289 February 6, 2019 MAR-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:209 CATEGORY: Marking Howard Wang Protop International Inc. 10F-8, No.237, Sec.1, Datong Rd., Xizhi Dist New Taipei City 22161 Taiwan RE: The country of origin and marking of USB car chargers from Vietnam Dear Mr. Wang: In your letter dated December 13, 2018, you requested a country of origin marking ruling. The item concerned is a referred to as a USB car charger. It’s a power adapter that plugs into the power port of an automobile and provides a USB port to charge or provide power to a variety of electronic devices. Based on the information supplied, all of the components are of Chinese origin (PCB, electrical elements, housing, etc.). The Chinese components are shipped to Vietnam where they are assembled into the finished device (i.e. the electrical components are soldered to the printed circuit board, the circuit board is assembled into the housing). The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article. The “country of origin” is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b) 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 this part; however, for a good of a NAFTA country, the NAFTA Marking Rules will determine the country of origin.” For tariff purposes, the courts have held that a substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 CCPA 267, C.A.D. 98 (1940); National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F. 2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Anheuser Busch Brewing Association v. The United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908) and Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982). However, if the manufacturing or combining process is merely a minor one that leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Substantial transformation determinations are based on the totality of the evidence. See Headquarters Ruling (HQ) W968434, date January 17, 2007, citing Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 470, 478, 664 F. Supp. 535, 541 (1987). Based upon the facts presented and the pertinent authorities, it is the opinion of this office that the Chinese components which are exported to Vietnam and processed as described above, does not result in a substantial transformation of the Chinese goods. The components themselves are not transformed in Vietnam into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the article exported. Therefore, the car charger is considered a product of the China for marking purposes at time of importation into the United States. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Steven Pollichino at steven.pollichino@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division