The country of origin of an automotive armrest.

N318280 April 8, 2021 MAR-2:OT:RR:NC:N2:206 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Jeremy Page Page Fura, P.C. 939 W. North Avenue, Suite 750 Chicago, IL 60091 RE: The country of origin of an automotive armrest. Dear Mr. Page: This is in response to your letter dated March 12, 2021, requesting a ruling on the country of origin of an automotive armrest for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, from China, which you filed on behalf of your client, Yanfeng Seating Mexico S.A. de C.V. (YFS). The item under consideration is an automotive armrest incorporating a cup holder. You state that there are five components that are involved in the production of the armrest: polyurethane foam of U.S. origin that forms the internal "stuffing" for the armrest; fabric of Mexican origin; the armrest frame of Chinese origin; chemicals of Mexican origin used in the assembly process; and the cupholder of either Taiwanese, Chinese or Mexican origin, depending upon the qualified source of supply. 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". You state that the initial step involves the cutting to shape and sewing of the Mexican origin fabric in Mexico to form the skin/external surface area of the finished armrest. Different colors/patterns/materials could be used depending upon OEM specification and vehicle type/designation. The complete shell is then combined at YFS with the polyurethane foam to establish the overall shape of the armrest. From there, the armrest assembly is further combined at YFS with the frame and cupholder to produce the finished seat armrest. It appears that the assembly process in Mexico is a minor one and did not result in a substantial transformation of the articles, except for the fabric, which is of Mexican origin. Therefore, we need to determine the “essence” of the automotive armrest. Based on the pictorial diagrams, which you submitted with your request, all components comprising the armrest are of the shape and contour of the Chinese frame. We agree that the cupholder is not the essence of the armrest, as it only provides an additional function of holding cups. The fabric provides an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The polyurethane foam provides cushion for the armrest. However, it is the frame that holds all the components together and determines their shape and form. As a result, the frame is the essence of the armrest. Therefore, the country of origin of the automotive armrest will be China for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a Customs Service field office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.” 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