The country of origin of Maple Syrup

N334849 September 18, 2023 CLA-2:OT:RR:NC:N5:232 CATEGORY: Origin Ms. Angela Herbert A N Deringer, Inc 173 West Service RoadChamplain, NY 12919 RE:  The country of origin of Maple Syrup Dear Ms. Herbert: In your letter dated August 20, 2023, you requested a country of origin ruling.  Product specifications, processing steps, packaging images, and related data were included with the request. The merchandise under consideration is maple syrup.  The product is mixed in Canada using barrels of maple syrup originating from United States and Canadian producers to reach a desired taste, color, and sugar content.  The United States-origin maple syrup that is imported to Canada for blending enters Canada in drums and is stored in facilities there.  In Canada, the drums are selected, opened, and its contents are pumped into a mixing tank, then heated, filtered and bottled.  You state that traceability can be demonstrated as part of the quality assurance process. You further state that the maple syrup is privately labeled for retailers such as Wegmans, ADUSA (Ahold) Banners, Giant Foods, Food Lion, and Stop & Shop, and that no independent marketing or advertising activities are performed.  The syrup will be sold in store sections that include breakfast food and bakery aisles.  The finished product will be packaged twelve bottles per case of either 8.5 ounces (250 ml) or 12.5 ounces (370 ml) each; six bottles per case of 32 ounces (946 ml) each; and four containers per case of a half-gallon (1.89 L) each.  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).  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has consistently held that a substantial transformation does not typically occur as a result of processing in the form of blending or mixing identical components.  See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling HQ 560944 dated April 27, 1998, in which Spanish olive oil imported to Italy for refining or blending with Italian olive oil did not undergo a substantial transformation in Italy.  That ruling affirmed CBP’s longstanding position that the mere refining, purification, or blending of a crude substance does not effect a substantial transformation of that substance into a new and different article of commerce with a new name, character or use. NY N204142 dated March 1, 2012 is similarly instructive since it concerned marking requirements, which in that ruling involved the North American Free Trade Agreement, the predecessor pact to the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement.  The instant matter does not directly implicate USMCA issues, yet NY N204142 is informative because it also addressed the country of origin marking of a blended product; in that case, Mexican and United States crabmeat, as follows: In the outlined scenario, the live crabs originate within the NAFTA territory (in Mexico and the United States), and all subsequent processing also takes place within the NAFTA territory (in those same two countries). Therefore, the NAFTA marking rules govern here. Applying the NAFTA Marking Rules set forth in Part 102 of the regulations to the facts of this case, we find that the finished, repackaged crabmeat blend is a good of Mexico and the United States. The Mexican crabmeat does not undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in Section 102.20 (d) by virtue of the mixing and repackaging operation.  Crabmeat, which in your scenario originates in two different countries, is the single material that imparts the essential character of the finished (blended) good.  The applicable section of the regulations, 102.11(b)(1), provides that in this circumstance the country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of such material. [Emphasis added.] Acknowledging that maple syrup is not crab meat, requester aptly notes the facts under consideration in the instant origin-related analysis are indistinguishable; namely, blending in Canada of maple syrup from two USMCA countries, the United States and Canada, does not effect a substantial transformation of that syrup in Canada.  As such, both countries of origin, the  United States and Canada, must be declared and marked on the finished maple syrup blend. In sum, the maple syrup at issue is not substantially transformed as a result of processing that is performed in Canada on dual-sourced (Canada and United States) syrup.  Therefore, the finished maple syrup imported to the United States must be marked to reflect the countries in which the syrup originated; namely, Canada and the United States.  The marking for the product at issue should therefore be, “Product of Canada and the United States.” This merchandise is subject to The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (The Bioterrorism Act), which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Information on the Bioterrorism Act can be obtained by calling the FDA at 301-575-0156, or at the Web site www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/bioact.html.This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request.  This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1).  This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect.  In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of CBP and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2.  Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP. 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 questions regarding the above, contact National Import Specialist Frank Troise at Frank.L.Troise@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division