The country of origin of Cationic Guar Gum

N351979 August 22, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N5:231 CATEGORY: Origin Miguel Gonzalez Ashland Incorporated 1979 Atlas Street Hilliard, OH 43228 RE: The country of origin of Cationic Guar Gum Dear Mr. Gonzalez: In your letter dated August 4, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on Cationic Guar Gum. The subject merchandise is N-Hance™ 3196 (CAS 65497-29-2). The product is a cationic guar polymer obtained specifically from guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. Due to a temporary shortage of raw material, the company is considering supplementing its U.S. production with identical N-Hance™ 3196 material produced by a qualified supplier in India. The Indian-origin product is chemically and functionally identical to the U.S.-origin version. The proposed operation involves blending the two materials at the company’s facility in Texas. This blending process will not result in any chemical reaction, transformation, or further processing; it is a simple commingling of like materials. Following blending, the finished product will be packaged and distributed in the United States. You seek a determination on two issues: Whether the mixing of Indian-origin and U.S.-origin N-Hance™ 3196 in the United States constitutes a substantial transformation for marking purposes. What percentage of Indian-origin content, if any, may be included in the blend while still permitting the final product to be labeled as “Made in USA” or a similar qualifying statement. 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). Customs and Border Protection and the courts have consistently held that mere blending or commingling of materials that are chemically or functionally identical does not result in a substantial transformation, for instance, in National Juice Products Ass’n v. United States, 10 CIT 48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986), the blending of orange juice concentrates from multiple countries was held not to substantially transform the product, as the juice retained the same name, character, and use. In this case, the blending of Indian-origin and U.S.-origin N-Hance™ 3196 does not result in a commercially distinguishable product, therefore it does not constitute a substantial transformation. While Customs and Border Protection determines country of origin for marking under 19 U.S.C. §1304, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates use of “Made in USA” claims in labeling and marketing. The FTC standard requires that a product advertised as “Made in USA” be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. This means that all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and that foreign content must be negligible. See FTC Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756 (Dec. 2, 1997). The country of origin of the finished product would remain attributable to the countries of origin of the constituent materials. For CBP marking purposes, the product must reference both origins of the products, for example, “Produced from materials derived from India and the United States”. For labeling purposes, the percentage of Indian-origin content that may be included while still using “Made in USA” is governed by the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard. Any more than negligible Indian-origin content will preclude an unqualified “Made in USA” claim. Qualified statements, however, may be permissible. Whether an article may be marked with the phrase "Made in the USA" or similar words denoting U.S. origin, is an issue under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). We suggest that you contact the FTC \ Division of Enforcement, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is made in the USA. 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 merchandise is subject to The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (The Bioterrorism Act), which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Information on the Bioterrorism Act can be obtained by calling the FDA at 301-575-0156, or at the Web site www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/bioact.html. 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 Ekeng Manczuk at ekeng.b.manczuk@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division