United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0556092 - HQ 0556319 > HQ 0556249

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 556249


January 8, 1992

CLA-2 CO:R:C:S 556249 WAW

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

Mr. David S. Simpson, Jr.
William Joffroy Customs
Brokers, Inc.
P.O. Box 698
Inogales, AZ 85628-0698

RE: Eligibility of Retractile Cord Assemblies for duty-free treatment under the GSP; substantial transformation

Dear Mr. Simpson:

This is in response to your letter dated July 22, 1991, on behalf of Whitney Blake Company, in which you request a ruling concerning whether retractile cord assemblies are eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) ( 19 U.S.C. 2461-2466). Samples were submitted for examination.

FACTS:

You state that Whitney Blake Company will ship reels of straight electronic wire which has been insulated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) hi-gloss polyurethane, to Mexico for processing into retractile cord assemblies. In Mexico, the wire undergoes the following processes:

(1) The wire is despooled and cut to length;

(2) The strain relief is molded;

(3) Wire is coiled onto mandrel rods;

(4) Coils are heated in ovens;

(5) Coils are unwound from the mandrel;

(6) Coils are reverse wound on a rotating arbor;

(7) The outer jacket of the wire is removed from the ends;

(8) The filler from the ends is trimmed;

(9) On one end of the wire, the conductors are cut back, stripped and the contacts are attached;

(10) On end two, the conductors are cut back, shroud is slid over the cord, conductors are spread out in sequence, the modular connector is attached, crimped, and the shroud is slid over the connector;

(11) The conductor cord is electronically inspected; and

(12) The final product is inspected, packaged and shipped to the U.S.

ISSUE:

Whether the electronic wire from which the retractile cord assemblies are created is subjected to a double substantial transformation in Mexico, thereby permitting the cost or value of the imported wire to be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement under the GSP.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Under the GSP, eligible articles the growth, product or manufacture of a designated beneficiary developing country (BDC) which are imported directly into the customs territory of the U.S. from a BDC may receive duty-free treatment if the sum of (1) the cost or value of materials produced in the BDC, plus (2) the direct costs of the processing operations in the BDC, is equivalent to at least 35% of the appraised value of the article at the time of entry. See 19 U.S.C. 2463(b).

If an article is produced or assembled from materials which are imported into the BDC, the cost or value of those materials may be counted toward the 35% value-content minimum only if they undergo a double substantial transformation in the BDC. See section 10.177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.177), and Azteca Milling Co. v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 949 (CIT 1988), aff'd, 890 F.2d 1150 (Fed. Cir. 1989). That is, the cost or value of the imported materials used to produce the wound retractile cords may be included in the GSP 35% value-content computation only if they are first substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce, which is itself substantially transformed into a retractile cord assembly.

A substantial transformation occurs "when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, or use which differs from those of the original material subjected to the process." See Texas Instruments Incorporated v. United States, 2 CIT 36, 520 F. Supp. 1216 (CIT 1981), rev'd, 681 F.2d 778, 69 CCPA 151 (CCPA 1982).

Mexico is a BDC. See General Note 3(c)(ii)(A), HTSUSA. Based on your description of the merchandise, it appears that the retractile cord assemblies are classified under subheading 8544.41.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), which provides for insulated (including enameled or anodized) wire, cable (including coaxial cable) and other insulated electric conductors, whether or not fitted with connectors; optical fiber cables, made up of individually sheathed fibers, whether or not assembled with electric conductors or fitted with connectors; other electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 V: fitted with connectors, which is a GSP-eligible provision. Therefore, if the retractile cord assemblies are considered "products of" mexico, they are imported directly into the U.S. from Mexico and the GSP 35% value-content minimum is met, they will receive duty-free treatment.

We believe that the cutting, coiling, heating, curing, reverse winding, stripping and assembly operations clearly substantially transform the electronic wire into a new and different article of commerce. The question that we must address is whether, during the manufacture of the rectractile cord assemblies, the electronic wire of U.S.-origin is substantially transformed into a separate and distinct intermediate article of commerce which is then substantially transformed into the final article.

We do not find that a second substantial transformation results from the processing in Mexico. Your argument for this substantial transformation is based on The Torrington Co., v. United States, 8 CIT 150, 596 F. Supp. 1083 (CIT 1984), 3 CAFC 158, 764 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We have limited Torrington to the specific factual situation found therein. See T.D. 86-7, 20 Cust. Bull. 7 (1986). Therefore, we do not recognize Torrington as precedent for this case. However, even if we were to consider Torrington, it is factually distinguishable from the present case. Torrington held that a double substantial transformation occurred abroad when wire was transformed into swaged needle blanks, which were then transformed into sewing needles. We do not believe that the manufacture of retractile cord assemblies is analogous to the manufacture of sewing needles.

It should be noted that we have held in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 556020 dated July 1, 1991, that the cost or value of brass rod imported into a BDC for use in making contact pins may not be included in the 35% requirement for purposes of determining whether a completed cable with electrical connectors qualifies for duty-free treatment under the GSP. We concluded in HRL 556020 that while the initial fabrication of the contact pins from brass rods substantially transforms the brass rods into products of the BDC, the final assembly of the electrical connectors with the cable does not result in a second substantial tranformation of the imported materials.

Consistent with HRL 556020, we find that a second substantial transformation does not occur as a result of the assembly of the connectors or contacts with other materials to create a retractile cord assembly. The assembly operation in the instant case involves a small number of components which are merely attached, inserted and affixed to one another to form the completed article. This type of operation is considered a simple assembly operation which generally will not result in a substantial transformation, as it does not involve a considerable amount of time, skill, attention to detail or quality control. See C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985) (HRL 071827 dated September 25, 1984) and HRL 555660 dated September 15, 1991 (production of an LED assembly by inserting an LED into a plastic housing, attaching LED leads to conducting wires, inserting the wires into an insulating tube, and affixing pins and terminal to the lead wires does not result in a substantial transformation). Therefore, the cost or value of the electrical wire imported into Mexico may not be counted toward the 35% value-content requirement of the GSP.

HOLDING:

On the basis of the information submitted, it is our position that the operations performed in Mexico to create the retractile cord assembles substantially transform the U.S. electrical wire into a new and different article of commerce. However, as the processing performed in Mexico does not result in a second substantial transformation, the cost or value of the materials imported into Mexico may not be counted toward the 35% value-content calculations required for eligibility under the GSP.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: