The country of origin of optical lenses

N317317 February 18, 2021 CLA-2-90:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Oksana Gazelka USG Logistics 1355 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: The country of origin of optical lenses Dear Ms. Gazelka: In your letter dated February 2, 2021, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client, LensLink. The merchandise under consideration, identified by part number 6400-5, is described as an Eyepiece Assembly and is comprised of a lens, holder, and spacer. You state that the subject assembly is designed to be utilized in a variety of optical devices including telescopes, riflescopes, and microscopes. The eyepiece is placed within the end device closest to the eye of the user and collects light in order to magnify the viewed image. In your request, you state that lens blanks are manufactured in China and sent to Singapore for further processing. In Singapore, the lens blanks are ground and polished in order to add the desired optical effect. These lenses are then sent back to China where they are washed and coated with a thin film. Two finished lenses are then cemented together to form what is referred to as a doublet. This doublet is affixed to the spacer, using adhesive, followed by the unit being screwed onto the holder to complete the assembly. The finished assembly is cleaned, tested, and packaged for export to the United States. 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 origin of the subject assemblies, it is the opinion of this office that the finished lens imparts the critical functionality of the device. In our view, the lens blanks originating from China are substantially transformed by the manufacturing process in Singapore. This manufacturing process adds the functional capabilities to the lens and transforms the lens blanks into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the imported article. The process of attaching the finished lens to the spacer and holder in China is not considered complex and it does not substantially transform the lens. Based on the facts presented, the country of origin of the Eyepiece Assembly, part number 6400-5, is Singapore. 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