The country of origin of electrical wires

N318743 April 19, 2021 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Cindy Zhang Talway Vietnam Company Limited T-2-1-1 and T-2-1-2, Que Vo Industrial Zone Bac Ninh City, 16000 Vietnam RE: The country of origin of electrical wires Dear Ms. Zhang: In your letter dated April 6, 2021, you requested a country of origin ruling. The merchandise under consideration is described as a primary wire, which you state is a general purpose electrical wire intended for use at or under 50 volts. The wires are comprised of a length of copper conductor covered with PVC insulation and are not fitted with any connectors. You state that the subject item is intended to be used for electrical wiring within automobiles, boats, buses and other motor-driven equipment. In your request, you state that the copper conductor wire is manufactured in China and shipped to Vietnam for further processing. In Vietnam, the copper conductor is stranded and insulated through the extrusion of PVC particles. These insulated conductors are then cut to desired lengths and inspected before being packaged for shipment 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. Regarding the country of origin of the subject wire, it is our opinion that the copper conductor originating from China imparts the essential functional component of the finished wire. The operations completed in Vietnam do not substantially transform the copper conductor into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from the individual components. Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the origin of the primary wire is 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, contact National Import Specialist Luke LePage at luke.lepage@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division