The country of origin of an electrical cable assembly

N312171 June 12, 2020 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Tara Mgrdichian TE Connectivity 2800 Fulling Mill Road Middletown, PA 17057 RE: The country of origin of an electrical cable assembly Dear Ms. Mgrdichian: In your letter dated June 1, 2020, you requested a country of origin ruling. The merchandise under consideration, identified by part number 2829295–1/2/3/4, is described as an electrical cable assembly for use with electrical lighting applications. The cable consists of a length of insulated cable equipped with an 8-position connector at each end. You state that the assembly is used in lighting systems within industrial and commercial buildings. In your request, you state that insulated, unterminated, copper conducting cable is manufactured in Mexico and sent to China for further processing. In China, the conducting cable is cut and the ends are stripped to expose the individual copper wires that are then trimmed. Terminals are then crimped onto each wire and the connector housing is attached. The remainder of the connector is molded onto the housing to create the finished cable assembly. We note that no mention is made within the request concerning country of origin marking and this ruling is issued only with regard to the application of Section 301 trade remedies. As such, the substantial transformation test will determine the country of origin. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. 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, “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. With regard to the subject cable assembly, it is the opinion of this office that the Mexican cable conductor imparts the essential functional component of the finished good. While the processing and assembly completed in China is integral to the function of the assembly in its finished state, we find that the addition of the connectors does not substantially transform the Mexican parts into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the article exported. Based upon the application of substantial transformation analysis, it is our opinion that the origin of the electrical cable assembly, part number 2829295–1/2/3/4, is Mexico. Therefore, the cable assembly will not be subject to Section 301 trade remedies. 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