The country of origin of a gold, diamond, and gemstone ring

N347011 April 17, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N4:462 CATEGORY: Origin David Murphy GDLSK 225 East 57th Street, Apt 7J NYC, NY 10022 RE: The country of origin of a gold, diamond, and gemstone ring Dear Mr. Murphy: In your letter dated March 21, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling. The product under consideration is a gold, diamond, and gemstone ring. In your letter, you outline a scenario in which a gold ring is cast in Thailand. The casting is then sent to China. In China, the casting undergoes minor finishing (polishing, setting, and packaging) before being sent to the United States. The ring is produced in a nine (9) step process detailed below. Step 1: Designing the Ring Setting. This is performed in the United States. Step 2: Creating the Wax Model. This is performed in Thailand. Step 3: Spruing and Investing. This is performed in Thailand. Step 4: Wax Burnout (Lost-Wax Process). This is performed in United States. Step 5: Metal Casting. This is performed in Thailand. Step 6: Cooling and Mold Breakout. This is performed in Thailand. Step 7: Sprue Cutting. This is performed in Thailand. Step 8: Logo Engraving. This is performed in Thailand. Step 9: Stone Setting & Final Finishing. This is performed in China. Step 9: Packaging & Tagging. This is performed in China. 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. The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). CBP has previously considered whether the assembly of a ring with a stone is considered a substantial transformation of the components. CBP has consistently held that the setting of gold rings with precious stones does not constitute substantial transformation. In New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N308134, dated December 23, 2019, CBP held that a gold ring, cast in Hong Kong, and diamonds from India, which were set in China where the finishing processes were performed, were not substantially transformed. Accordingly, CBP found that the country of origin of the gold ring was Hong Kong, where the gold ring was cast. In NY N271750, dated January 13, 2016, gold cast in the United States into rings was sent to the Dominican Republic to be set with melee diamonds, solitaire diamonds, and other solitaire stones for polishing and setting of the diamonds and stones. After assembling the rings in the Dominican Republic, the rings were sent back to the United States for final polishing. CBP held that the setting of the diamonds and other stones onto gold ring castings of U.S. origin did not substantially transform the rings into goods of the Dominican Republic. Accordingly, CBP found that the country of origin of the final rings was the United States, where the gold was cast. See also NY N251883, dated April 17, 2014. Based on the facts you have submitted regarding the production of the gold, diamond, and gemstone ring, the operations that have taken place in China do not effect a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the ring is Thailand. Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the United States, the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.” See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940). Part 134 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” 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 the marking laws and regulations. You state that each product will be marked with a hangtag or sticker designed to be sufficiently permanent to reach the ultimate purchaser (consumer) unless deliberately removed. Hang tags or adhesive stickers indicating the country of origin of the ring is an acceptable method of marking the rings. 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 Sandra Sary at sandra.sary@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division