The country of origin of bee pollen mixtures from Spain

N348774 June 5, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N5:232 CATEGORY: Origin Kate Eckhoff Geodis 5101 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19112 RE: The country of origin of bee pollen mixtures from Spain Dear Ms. Eckhoff: In your letter dated May 8, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on bee pollen mixtures. You suggest the following scenarios of multi-country pollen mixtures that are combined, processed and packaged in Spain. Scenario 1: The bee pollen will be sourced from the following four countries: Bulgaria (25%), China (20%), Turkey (25%), and Ukraine (30%). Scenario 2: The bee pollen will be sourced from the following five countries: China (20%), Latvia 14%), Romania (26%), Spain (30%), and Ukraine (10%). Scenario 3: The bee pollen will be sourced from the following two countries: Bulgaria (40%) and Turkey (60%). The manufacturing process is described as follows: Pollen is collected from beekeepers’ farms in their respective country and shipped to the processor in Spain. You have stated that the pollen does not undergo any processing prior to delivery to Spain. Upon receipt, the pollen is put through quality control analysis. It is inspected and analyzed to ensure suitability for human consumption. The pollen undergoes organoleptic tests, fumigation, if necessary, transfer of the pollen in drums, passing the pollen through a pollen cleaning matching and then through a selector. There all foreign bodies are removed with the help of air and a magnet, and also the black grains are removed from the pollen with the help of the pollen selector. Suitable pollen is blended into batches. After blending the mixture is screened to remove size inconsistencies, unsuitable grains, and any remaining foreign matter. If necessary, sorting by color is then performed. The mixture is placed in bulk or unit packaging and labeled; some will be selected for sampling and analysis. Final analysis by a third-party laboratory is then completed to ensure that the blend meets industry standards and specifications for human consumption. If not cleared by the lab analysis, the mixture is withdrawn or send for reprocessing. If cleared by the laboratory analysis, the mixture is cleared to ship. Once imported into the United States, the pollen is delivered to customers that will pack it as such for retail sale under their own brands. The bee pollen will be directly used for human consumption. When determining the country of origin, 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). In this case, we must first determine if the product undergoes a substantial transformation. 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. In HRL 732260 dated June 20, 1989, whiskey was imported from Scotland and Ireland and blended In the U.S., adding about 2 1/2 percent blenders by volume. In that case, we noted that both single type whiskeys and blended whiskeys are alcoholic beverages, and that there was no change in use of the product. As a result, we found that the blending of the whiskeys did not result in a substantial transformation and that the marking had to reflect the country of origin of each of the constituent whiskeys. See also C.S.D. 84-112 dated July 2, 1984 (blending of foreign honey with domestic honey) and HRL 724872 dated March 1, 1984 (blending of Canadian maple syrup with domestic syrup), where we found that blending of foreign and domestic products in the U.S. did not result in a substantial transformation. The Court of International Trade has also held that the blending of imported orange juice concentrate with domestic concentrate did not result in a substantial transformation. (National Juice Products v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986).) Therefore, it is our opinion that blending the bee pollen from multiple countries as presented in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, does not substantially transform the bee pollen mixtures into a product of Spain. The countries of origin for the bee pollen mixtures are as follows: Scenario 1: Bulgaria, China, Turkey, and Ukraine. Scenario 2: China, Latvia, Romania, Spain, and Ukraine. Scenario 3: Bulgaria and Turkey. 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 Frank Troise at frank.l.troise@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division