The country of origin of a strut assembly.

N307541 December 11, 2019 MAR-2:OT:RR:NC:N2:206 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Steven Chen, Vice GM EFFINI Shock Absorber Co., Ltd. No. 89, Aly 40, Ln 165, Sec 4 Xinglong Rd Taipei, 11661 RE: The country of origin of a strut assembly. Dear Mr. Chen: This is in response to your letter dated November 12, 2019, requesting a ruling on the country of origin for a strut assembly. A sample was provided with your request and will be returned. The item under consideration is a Strut Assembly, which consists of a shock absorber, coil spring, strut mount, bumper block, dust cover, spring cushion, and hardware. The main function of the strut assembly is to provide damping support to a vehicle’s suspension system. You state that the shock absorber is sourced in China, where it undergoes a punching and welding processes. It is then imported into Taiwan to be assembled together with the rest of the components of Taiwanese origin into a complete strut assembly. 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) (Uniroyal). 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). In Uniroyal case, the court held that an upper was not substantially transformed when attached to an outsole to form a shoe and that the upper was "the very essence of the completed shoe". In HQ 560115, dated March 7, 1997, Customs found that China was not the last country where a fishing rod underwent a substantial transformation. Rather, as the essence of the fishing rod was imparted by a U.S.-origin rod blank, the country of origin of the finished rod was the U.S. This ruling cited C.S.D. 79-443, dated January 25, 1979, which dealt with knives produced in the U.S. and exported to Japan where the handles were exchanged with Japanese handles. Customs held that the processing of the knives in Japan did not constitute a substantial transformation. It is the opinion of this office that the shock absorber is the essence of the entire strut assembly. According to the diagram showing comparison between the shock absorber and the entire assembly, which you provided with your request, the shock absorber is the most complicated component of the assembly. You state that replacing an independent shock absorber is difficult and requires professional equipment and technicians. It takes 3-4 hours for the replacement service. However, replacing a loaded strut assembly is an easier process, which only takes 1 hour. It also states that there is a higher percent of loaded strut assembly parts designed on light vehicles than shock absorbers. As a result, the shock absorber has not been substantially transformed in Taiwan and is the very essence of the strut assembly. Therefore, the strut assembly is considered a product of China for both origin and marking purposes at the 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, please contact National Import Specialist Liana Alvarez at liana.alvarez@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division