The country of origin of brake shoes

N352073 August 22, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N2:206 CATEGORY: Origin Laura Oliver A N Deringer 173 West Service Road Champlain, NY 12919 RE: The country of origin of brake shoes Dear Ms. Oliver: In your letter dated August 6, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on a brake shoe, which you filed on behalf of Exxin Canada. The articles under consideration are “bare steel” brake shoes, Part Numbers 4707Q, 5415Q, and 4709E2, which are used in heavy duty trucks. Each brake shoe lacks the friction material that is typically attached to the shoe using rivets. They measure 16 and ½" in length by 7" in height. When a driver hits the brake pedal, the service changer activates the pushrod, which in turn moves the slack adjuster. The slack adjuster rotates the S-cam, pushing the brake shoes against the brake drum. The friction between the brake shoes and the drum brings the heavy-duty truck to a halt. The brake shoes consist of a table and two pieces of webs, which are imported into the Philippines from China. In the Philippines, the table and webs are welded together, and the completed assembly is heat treated and painted. When determining the country of origin for purposes of applying current trade remedies under Section 301 and additional 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). Additionally, 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 suggest that the substantial transformation occurs in the Philippines. You cite 19 CFR 10.16 (b) and (c), as well as rulings HQ 733979, dated 6/17/1991, and HQ H315296, dated 7/30/2021, to support your analysis. We disagree. 19 CFR 10.16 (b) and (c) pertain to the articles assembled abroad with United States components. It bears no relevance to the substantial transformation requirements, as cited above. Rulings HQ 733979 and HQ H315296 are also distinguishable from the current case. In HQ 733979, the substantial transformation analysis involved applying the asbestos lining to the brake shoe. In HQ H315296, the components of the automotive seat back frame were sourced from multiple countries. As a result, none of these rulings apply to your scenario. Here, all of the components are sourced from China. They do not lose their individual identities when they are welded together, heat-treated, and cleaned in the Philippines. Therefore, no substantial transformation occurs in the Philippines and the country of origin of the brake shoes, Part Numbers 4707Q, 5415Q, and 4709E2, will be China for marking purposes and for purposes of applying current trade remedies. 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 Liana Alvarez at liana.alvarez@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division