The country of origin of a tamper

N350656 July 1, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N1:118 CATEGORY: Origin Fay Jin GreatStar Industrial USA, LLC 9836 Northcross Center Court, Suite A Huntersville, NC 28078 RE: The country of origin of a tamper Dear Mr. Jin: In your letter dated June 26, 2025, you requested a country of origin determination for purposes of Section 301 and IEEPA duties. Pictures of the merchandise in different stages of manufacture were included with your submission, along with a narrative of the manufacturing processes. The item under consideration is a tamper. It is a hand tool used for tamping down asphalt, gravel, stone, and soil. The tool is made of steel and consists of a 10" x 10" base, four diagonal reinforcement ribs, and a steel handle with a soft-grip applied to its end. You state that the tamper will be manufactured in two countries, Vietnam and China, and propose the following two manufacturing scenarios: Scenario one: In Vietnam, raw steel is laser-cut into the 10" x 10" base and the four diagonal reinforcement ribs. These articles are then sent to China, where they are welded together into the fully formed head of the tamper. The tamper head is then welded onto a steel handle. Finally, the steel is powder coated and a soft-grip is applied to the end of the handle. Scenario two: This scenario is the same as the first, except the 10" x 10" base and the four diagonal reinforcement ribs are welded together in Vietnam to form the fully formed head of the tamper. The tamper head is then sent to China where it is welded onto a steel handle. Finally, the steel is powder coated and a soft-grip is applied to the end of the handle. 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). In regard to your first manufacturing scenario, there is no dispute that the 10" x 10" base and the four diagonal reinforcement ribs, which are produced in Vietnam, are dedicated for use in the finished tamper. In other words, they have a pre-determined use at the time they are exported from Vietnam to China. However, while this is a consideration, as noted by the court in National Hand Tool, this does not preclude a finding of substantial transformation. Unlike the tools in National Hand Tool that were in the final form at the time they left Taiwan and were clearly recognizable by name, the 10" x 10" base and the four diagonal reinforcement ribs that leave Vietnam are not clearly recognizable as parts of a finished tamper. As the court stated in National Hand Tool, we must look at the totality of the evidence. We also must consider the product at issue, how it functions, and the purpose of the components within it carrying out its function. The tamper is used for tamping down asphalt, gravel, stone, and soil. Without the reinforcement ribs, the flat base would not be able to perform this task. Furthermore, it is the assembly of the base with the ribs that forms the fully formed head of the finished tamper. It is the tamper head that provides the principal characteristics of the finished tamper, is dedicated for use as such, and cannot be used for any other purpose. Therefore, the totality of the evidence leads our office to conclude that the country of origin of the finished tamper in your first manufacturing scenario is China. Regarding your second manufacturing scenario, it is our view that a substantial transformation occurs in Vietnam. It is here that the 10" x 10" base and the four diagonal reinforcement ribs are welded together to form the fully formed head of the tamper. It is the tamper head that provides the principal characteristics of the finished tamper, is dedicated for use as such, and cannot be used for any other purpose. Based on the provided descriptions and pictures of the additional processing and assembly operations performed in China, the tamper head is not substantially changed so as to transform it into a new article with a different name, character, or use. It is therefore the opinion of this office that the country of origin of the tamper in your second manufacturing scenario is Vietnam. 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 Anthony Grossi at anthony.e.grossi@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division