The country of origin of a bicycle helmet

N349972 July 1, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N1:358 CATEGORY: Origin Robert Calandra Attorney at Law 4 Henning Drive Fairfield, NJ 07004 RE: The country of origin of a bicycle helmet Dear Mr. Calandra: In your letter dated June 9, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on a bicycle helmet for purposes of Section 301 duties and marking under Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304). The submitted documentation includes images, a bill of materials and detailed descriptions of the manufacturing process. The submitted sample is a hard-shell ventilated bicycle helmet. The outer shell is constructed from Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic, while the inner lining consists of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam. The helmet features multiple elongated ventilation slots, adjustable chin straps, and secure buckles. The production process for the helmet begins in Taiwan with pre-production quality control, followed by drying the ABS raw material and performing injection molding to form the shell. Once molded, the shell is cooled and ejected, then hand-trimmed and sanded or buffed to remove mold lines. After surface finishing, the shell undergoes final inspection and quality control. Production then moves to China, where the EPS liner is injected and formed. Various components are then added. A metal plate is heat staked into the shell, the fit system and poplock are molded, magnets are glued into the poplock and elastic strings are attached. Straps and buckles are sewn together, and both the shell and poplock are painted. Decals are applied, piping is glued onto the shell, and the straps are riveted in place. For final assembly, the EPS liner is installed and glued into the shell, and all remaining components—fit system, padding, and poplock—are installed to complete the helmet. When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301 and other duties, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter 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). 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. Friedlaender & 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. A substantial transformation occurs when, as a result of manufacturing process, a new and different article emerges, having a distinct name, character or use, which is different from that originally possessed by the article or material before being subjected to the manufacturing process. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940). In this case, the production process conducted in China does not result in a new and distinct article of commerce that has a different name, character or use compared to its individual components. Therefore, to determine the country of origin of the bicycle helmet, we must consider the outer shell, as it imparts the essential identity to the helmet and is also the most costly component of the product. Consequently, the country of origin of the bicycle helmet is Taiwan. 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 Katherine Souffront at katherine.souffront@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division