The country of origin of lightning cable from Taiwan.

N304016 May 8, 2019 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Julie Li Taiwan Master Hill Technology Co. No 5 Keyun N Rd Huwei Township Yunlin County 632 Yunlin, Taiwan RE: The country of origin of lightning cable from Taiwan. Dear Ms. Li: In your letter dated April 18, 2019 you requested a country of origin ruling determination. The merchandise under consideration is a three-foot insulated electrical cable with a male USB connector on one end and a male lightning-style connector on the other. The cables are referred to as lightning cables and used to connect mobile devices to a variety of host units or charging stations. You state that the cable is manufactured in Taiwan using materials of both Chinese and Taiwanese origin and that the country of origin should be Taiwan. The manufacturing process is as follows: Copper wire of Taiwanese origin is drawn, annealed, and coated with plastic in Taiwan. These wires are then twisted and stranded together, jacketed with plastic, and cut to a length of three feet. Chinese originating connectors are then affixed to both ends of the cable. The finished cable is then packaged for retail sale. The above production process is done within your manufacturing facility in Taiwan. 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. 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). With regard to the origin of the subject lightning cable, CBP has previously held that the combination of drawing, bunching, twisting, and subsequent steps of annealing and encapsulating wires constitutes substantial transformation.  As such, it is the opinion of this office that the production of the cable assembly in Taiwan is significant and one which substantially transforms the Taiwanese wire into a cable where the addition of the Chinese connectors does not alter this outcome.  Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the origin of the subject lightning cable is Taiwan. 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 Luke LePage at luke.lepage@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division