The country of origin of fiber optic cassettes

N328169 October 4, 2022 CLA-2-90:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin Paula Connelly Sandler Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. 100 Trade Center Woburn, MA 01801 RE: The country of origin of fiber optic cassettes Dear Ms. Connelly: In your letter dated September 15, 2022, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client, Senko Advanced Components, Inc. There are three items at issue with this request, which are identified as below. ENC-0822-1537 Black Ribbon Cassette ENC-0822-1538 Ribbon Cassette Assembly ENC-0822-1539 Loose Tube Cassette Assembly The subject articles consist of a fiber optic cable jumper assembly with connectors affixed at each end enclosed within a plastic tray. The subject assemblies function identically and are used to provide fiber optic network connection within a commercial or private installation. In your request, you state that the manufacturing process is the same for all three models, as described in the following. In China, US origin optical fibers are cut to length, fanned out, and connectors are added to create a finished jumper assembly. You state that this process has been previously ruled upon in Ruling N300603 where it was found the origin of the jumper assembly is the U.S. Further in China, this jumper assembly is combined with the remainder of the components, which originate from China and Taiwan. This process involves loading the jumper assembly into an adapter plate then placing this into a splice tray. The jumper assembly inside of the tray is then inserted within the cassette housing to complete the cassette. The cassette is then inspected, tested for functionality and packaged for shipment to the U.S. 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 origin of the subject fiber optic cassettes, it is the opinion of this office that the jumper assemblies with incorporated U.S. optical fibers and previously deemed U.S. origin, impart the essential functional component of the finished item. Further, the assembly process performed to manufacture the finished product in China is not significantly complex to substantially transform the optical jumper assemblies. As noted in the referenced ruling above, the jumper assemblies are considered US origin based on the optical fibers. As such, based upon the facts presented, it is our opinion that the origin of the “ENC-0822-1537 Black Ribbon Cassette,” the “ENC-0822-1538 Ribbon Cassette Assembly,” and the “ENC-0822-1539 Loose Tube Cassette Assembly” is the United States. Whether an article may be marked with the phrase "Made in the USA" or similar words denoting U.S. origin, is an issue under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). We suggest that you contact the FTC Division of Enforcement, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is made in the USA. 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