The country or origin of patient cables for Section 301 Trade Remedy Purposes

N343808 November 14, 2024 CLA-2-85:OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Country of Origin; Trade Remedy Alexander Chinoy Covington & Burling LLP One City Center, 850 10th St NWWashington, DC  20001 RE:  The country or origin of patient cables for Section 301 Trade Remedy Purposes Dear Mr. Chinoy: In your letter dated November 5, 2024, you requested a country of origin ruling specifically for the application of Section 301 Trade Remedies on behalf of your client, Masimo Corporation. The merchandise at issue is identified as the Red Diamond Patient Cable.  The cable is comprised of an insulated wire conductor fitted with connectors at each end.  One connector is a standard 20-pin D-style connector while the other is a proprietary, Red Diamond connector meant to fit specific medical devices.  In use, the proprietary Red Diamond connector is attached to a Masimo pulse oximeter designed to be worn on the finger of a patient.  The monitor end of the cable is then connected to an output device that displays registered patient pulse and oxygen levels to a clinician.  We note that neither the pulse oximeter, nor the monitor is part of this ruling request, as they are not imported with the subject cable. In your request, you state that the manufacturing process begins in Thailand with the creation of the unterminated insulated cable conductor. This includes the stranding, bundling, extruding, and jacketing of the finished conductor.  This conductor is then sent to Mexico for further processing.  In Mexico, the cable is cut to the desired length, the ends are exposed, and the individual strands are prepared for the connector assembly.  A D-style connector is then added to one end by soldering the strands to the connector and assembling the shell.  The proprietary instrument-end connector is then assembled on the other end of the cable. The individual wire strands are soldered to a PCBA, the assembly is shielded, and the remaining parts are molded onto the connector.  The finished cable is then electrically tested for function.    Regarding the applicability of additional duties under Section 301, when determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable.  See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018.  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). Regarding the origin of the subject cables for Section 301 trade remedy purposes, it is the opinion of this office that the Thai origin insulated conductor imparts the character of the finished cable as it functions as the primary electrical component of the device. Additionally, the addition of the connectors in Mexico does not substantially transform the conductor into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, and use distinct from that of the imported article. For purposes of the application of Section 301 trade remedies, the origin of the Red Diamond Patient Cable will be Thailand. 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (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. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs and Border Protection 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 Luke LePage at luke.lepage@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division