The country of origin of a fifth wheel.

N316066 December 14, 2020 MAR-2:OT:RR:NC:N2:206 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Robert Shapiro Thompson Coburn LLP 1909 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 RE: The country of origin of a fifth wheel. Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to your letter dated November 23, 2020, requesting a ruling on the country of origin of a fifth wheel, which you filed on behalf of your client, Fontaine Fifth Wheel. Pictures and descriptive literature were provided with your request. The product under consideration is a No-Slack® 7000 series fifth wheel, which is a coupling device used to link a towing truck or tractor and a semi-trailer. A kingpin of a semi-trailer connects with the fifth wheel device to secure the trailer to the tractor. You state that the engagement of the kingpin with the fifth wheel is the only load-bearing physical connection between the towing truck or tractor and the semi-trailer. The ability to securely lock and enable towing or rotation while remaining locked is the central purpose of the fifth wheel. Using tension and a wedge and jaw design, the No-Slack® automatically tightens its grip on the kingpin to assure that there is a snug, secure connection between the kingpin and the fifth wheel. 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. In the present case, the fifth wheel consists of twenty three components, of which three components are of Chinese origin and twenty components are made in India. In your letter, you state that only the top plate is of Chinese origin. However, in the list of components provided with your request, we note that the wedge and jaw are also made in China. The Chinese components are then assembled together with those of Indian origin in India, and the assembly takes about 10 minutes and seven workers to complete the fifth wheel. It is the opinion of this office that the assembly operations of the fifth wheel do not result in a substantial transformation. Furthermore, as you indicated in your letter and we concur, the essence of the entire assembly is the wedge and jaw. Since the end-use of the wedge and jaw was pre-determined at the time of import to India to be a part of the fifth wheel, they did not lose their separate identities and did not change in character. As a result, the country of origin for the entire No-Slack® 7000 series fifth wheel will be China. 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