The country of origin of an electrical connector

N305429 August 8, 2019 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:220 CATEGORY: Origin Anne Edgington Consolidated Electronic Wire and Cable 11044 King Street Franklin Park, IL 60131 RE: The country of origin of an electrical connector Dear Ms. Edgington: In your letter dated July 23, 2019 you requested a country of origin ruling. The merchandise under consideration is described as an electrical connector, Item RSX17-39253. The connector consists of three parts, which you identify as the connector body, three 6” 22 AWG insulated copper wires, and heat shrink tubing. The connector assembly is said to be used with HVAC systems where a sensor is attached onto the bare wires. In your request, you state that the connector body is manufactured in Japan. After purchasing in the United States, you ship the connector body to China where the three insulated wires are soldered onto the connector and the heat shrink tubing is applied. The connector assembly is then shipped to the United States from China. We would note that the copper wires and heat shrink tubing is sourced from China. 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), in pertinent part, 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.” 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). Further, 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. In Energizer the court reviewed the “name, character and use” test in determining whether a substantial transformation had occurred in determining the origin of a flashlight, 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 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. Regarding the country of origin of the subject connector, in our opinion the assembly operations performed in China, which consists of soldering the three insulated connector wires onto the connector, is neither complex nor does the addition of connector wires effect a change in the connector. In our view, the wires merely serve as a means to attach a sensor, and the connector does not undergo a physical change as a result of the assembly process described. Therefore, based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the assembly process performed in China does not result in a substantial transformation of the Japanese connector. The components themselves are not transformed in China into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the articles exported from China. Therefore, the electrical connector, Item RSX17-39253, is considered a product of Japan for origin and 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 Karl Moosbrugger at karl.moosbrugger@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division