The country of origin of an external cylindrical grinding machine

N352189 August 25, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N1:164 CATEGORY: Origin Richard Bembas Ecotech Machine Tool LLC 716 Morning Glory Way Atlanta, GA 30324 RE: The country of origin of an external cylindrical grinding machine Dear Mr. Bembas: In your letter dated August 8, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on an external cylindrical grinding machine. Technical information was submitted with your request. The item under consideration is the Omicron 8000 PS T7, described as a computer numerical control (CNC) external cylindrical grinding machine designed for large scale industrial applications. You assert the machine is not a centerless grinding machine because the workpiece is supported between centers during operation. However, you confirm the machine is considered a universal cylindrical grinder which is capable of plunge, traverse, angular, and optional internal grinding. The machine features servo-driven axes, integrated coolant systems, a control interface, and customizable part programming software. The machine consists of several main and optional subsystems. The wheelhead is a dual-carriage design with hydrodynamic spindle, anti-friction bushings, high-speed capability, and manual or automatic indexing. The workhead is equipped with high precision ball bearings, programmable speed, and air-facilitated positioning. The tailstock operates with hydraulic actuation with optional micrometric correction for cylindricality. As an option, internal grinding can be performed with drop-down or rear-mounted high-speed spindles. Other features include in-process measurement and control systems, dressing units, coolant and hydraulic pump units, and a dust and mist collection system. Based on the submitted information, the machines are designed, engineered, and manufactured in Italy by a team of machinists, mechanical fitters, electrical technicians, CNC programmers, and surface treatment operators. Prior to export to the U.S. the machines are partially assembled and tested to ensure alignment, fit, and disassembly for shipment. In your request, you clarify that if fully assembled, the machine is capable of its intended grinding operations in Italy. Additionally, you state that three main structural sections will be shipped using two 40-foot shipping containers and two 40-foot flat racks. After importation, professional rigging crews unload and position the large components including the machine bed, wheelhead, coolant tanks, tailstock, and enclosures. Following that, a team of four engineers reassemble all components and perform leveling, CNC software installation, testing, and on-site customer training. 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 C.F.R. 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. 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. In this scenario, the totality of manufacturing in Italy results in a substantially complete external cylindrical grinding machine. Prior to export, the machine is disassembled into main structural sections for modular shipment and ease of reassembly in the U.S. The reassembly, calibration, and testing in the U.S., although labor and time intensive, is to perform final installation and prepare the machine for operation. Consequently, no article emerges from the processes in the U.S. with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior. Accordingly, the country of origin is Italy. 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 (C.F.R.), 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 C.F.R. 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 Paul Taylor at paul.m.taylor@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Acting Director National Commodity Specialist Division