The country of origin of optical communication modules

N359369 March 17, 2026 OT:RR:NC:N2:209 CATEGORY: Origin Jilly Wang Landing Law Offices 16/F, East Tower, Raffles City in the North Bund 1089 Dongdaming Road, Hongkou District Shanghai 200082 China RE: The country of origin of optical communication modules Dear Ms. Wang: In your letter dated March 3, 2026, you requested a country of origin ruling on three models of optical transceiver modules on behalf of your client, Source Photonics Taiwan, Inc The items concerned are high-speed optical communication modules, model numbers SPQ2-8E2-8FO (800G 2 × FR4 QSFP), SPQ-4E-DR (400G-DR4 QSFP-DD), and SPQ-4E-FR (400G-FR4 QSFP-DD). They are widely deployed in data centers, telecommunications networks, and high-performance computing systems. These products are high-speed optical communication modules comprising of printed circuit board assemblies (PCBA), optical sub-assemblies (OSA), and other structural components. In use, these modules would be mounted on opposite ends of a fiber optic cable and used to transmit data along that cable. They execute an electro-optic conversion on the transmitter side and opto-electronic conversion on the receiver side. The three different optical transceiver modules undergo the same manufacturing process. Manufacturing is undertaken in China and Taiwan. In China, the main PCBA is manufactured using surface mount technology. At this point, the Digital Signal Processors (DSP), Microcontroller Units (MCU), and other Integrated Circuits (IC) are mounted to the printed circuit board along with various other active and passive components. The optical sub-assembly (OSA) is manufactured in Taiwan. The process includes manufacturing the optical chip, and then packaging that chip and performing alignment processes. 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). Based upon the facts presented, it is the opinion of this office that the character of this product is imparted by the main PCBA which is considered the dominant component of this assembly (see rulings, H335829, dated February 26, 2025, N358465, dated February 27, 2026, N352670, dated September 10, 2025, N344720, dated January 13, 2025, and N342247, dated September 20, 2024). The manufacturing processes that take place within China to create the main PCBA are both substantial and complex. The manufacturing process that takes place in Taiwan does not change the end use of the main PCBA. The PCBA does not undergo a substantial transformation as a result of the Taiwanese processing. Therefore, since a substantial transformation does not occur as a result of the Taiwanese processing, the country of origin for purposes of applying trade remedies under Section 301 will be China. 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 Steven Pollichino at steven.pollichino@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) James Forkan Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director National Commodity Specialist Division