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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0734312 - HQ 0734544 > HQ 0734526

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 734526


August 4, 1992

MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 734526 KR

CATEGORY: MARKING

Anna Fu, President
Rotex Sportswear Inc.
50 W. 34th Street Rm. 3B2
New York, NY 10118

RE: Country of origin marking of imported men's swim wear; substantial transformation; 19 CFR 12.130

Dear Ms. Fu:

This is in response to your letter dated January 23, 1992, and forwarded to Headquarters on February 24, 1992, and received February 26, 1992, on behalf of Rotex Sportswear Inc., requesting a ruling on the country of origin of imported men's swim wear. A sample of a finished swim trunk, style number 2929, was submitted for examination. This ruling will apply only to swim wear matching the sample submitted with this request for ruling.

FACTS:

You stated that Rotex intends to import swim trunks, style 2929, which are made from material produced in China then shipped to Chile for further processing. There are two different production scenarios. In both cases the parts sent from China to Chile are: draw strings, elastic, thread, poly bags, tissue paper, hangers, name labels, care/size labels, hang tags, twill tape and Velcro. In case one China supplies 100% nylon taslon shell fabric and 100% polyester mesh liner fabric to Chile. There are no cutting lines on the fabric. In Chile the fabric is cut, sewn, assembled, screen printed with a logo, trimmed ironed, folded and packed into cartons supplied by Chile.

In case two the fabric and the liner are cut to shape in China prior to being sent to Chile. The screen printing of a logo also takes place in China. In Chile the pre-cut pieces are sewn, assembled, trimmed, ironed, folded, and packed in cartons supplied by Chile.

ISSUE:

What is the country of origin of the imported swim wear as processed in each of the two cases.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

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 U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.

Section 12.130, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130), sets forth the principles for country of origin determinations for textile and textile products. 19 CFR 12.130(b), provides that a textile product that is processed in more than one country or territory shall be a product of that country or territory where it last underwent a substantial transformation. A textile product will be considered to have undergone a substantial transformation if it has been transformed by means of substantial manufacturing or processing operations into a new and different article of commerce.

19 CFR 12.130(d) sets forth criteria for determining whether a substantial transformation of a textile product has taken place. This regulation states that these criteria are not exhaustive; one or any combination of criteria may be determinative, and additional factors may be considered.

Section 12.130(d)(1) states that a new and different article of commerce will usually result from a manufacturing or processing operation if there is a change in:

(i) Commercial designation or identity,

(ii) Fundamental character or

(iii) Commercial use.

Section 12.130(d)(2) states that in determining whether merchandise has been subjected to substantial manufacturing or processing operations, the following will be considered:

(i) The physical change in the material or article as a result of the manufacturing or processing operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S.

(ii) The time involved in the manufacturing or processing operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S.

(iii) The complexity of the manufacturing or processing operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S.

(iv) The level or degree of skill and/or technology required in the manufacturing or processing operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S.

(v) The value added to the article or material in each foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S., compared to its value when imported into the U.S.

Section 12.130(e)(1) provides that an article or material usually will be a product of a particular foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the United States, when, prior to importation into the United States, it has undergone in that foreign territory or country or insular possession, any of the following:

(i) Dyeing of fabric and printing when accompanied by two or more of the following operations: bleaching, shrinking, fulling, napping, decating, permanent stiffening, weighting, permanent embossing, or moireing;

(ii) Spinning fibers into yarn;

(iii) Weaving, knitting or otherwise forming fabric.

Section 12.130(e)(1) of the Customs Regulations describes manufacturing or processing operations from which an article will usually be considered a product of the country in which those operations occurred. Sections 12.130(e)(1)(v) provides that an article or material usually will be a product of a particular country when it has undergone:

Substantial assembly by sewing and/or tailoring of all cut pieces of apparel articles which have been cut from fabric in another foreign territory or country, or insular possession, into a completed garment (e.g. the complete assembly and tailoring of all cut pieces of suit-type jackets, suits and shirts).

In general, Customs has stated that "cutting garment parts from fabric will result in a substantial transformation of the fabric." T.D. 85-38, 19 Cust. Bull. 58, 67 (1985). See HQ 734405 (April 3, 1992); HQ 734215 (November 13, 1991). Generally, the country of assembly after the fabric is cut is not the country of origin, but the country of origin remains where the fabric is cut. HQ 734405 (April 3, 1992); C.S.D. 90-19; C.S.D. 90-20. See HQ 731028 (July 18, 1988); HQ 731306 (July 17, 1989); HQ 732485 (January 18, 1990); HQ 556070 (July 1, 1991).

Customs has long held that the mere assembly of goods, entailing simple combining operations, trimming or joining together by sewing is not enough to substantially transform the components of an article into a new and different article of commerce. See HQ 086696 (June 8, 1990); HQ 088283 (February 28, 1991); HQ 089539 (April 22, 1992). Customs held this applied specifically to men's swim shorts in HQ 734019 (June 18, 1991). In that case, Customs determined that the sewing of 17 components to form swimming shorts was not a substantial transformation and that the country of origin was where the fabric was made and cut.

Because the article in question is a textile product subject to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1854), 19 CFR 12.130 is applicable.

In case one, the fabric is cut and assembled in Chile. This constitutes a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the swim wear in case one is Chile. In case two, no information was submitted detailing the number of pieces, the time it takes to assemble them, the difficulty in assembling the pieces, the training required to assemble the pieces, etc. Based on a sample of the product, case two appears to be a simple assembly operation. Because the fabric is pre-cut and undergoes only a simple assembly in case two, there is no substantial transformation and the country of origin remains China. See HQ 734019 (June 18, 1991).

HOLDING:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.130, there is a substantial transformation of the item in case one and the country of origin of the men's swim wear is Chile. However, in case two, the item undergoes a simple assembly and the country of origin remains China.

The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in 177.9(b)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(b)(1)). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication is accurate and complete in every material respect. Should it subsequently be determined that the information furnished is not complete and does not comply with 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1), the ruling will be subject to modification or revocation. In the event there is a change in the facts previously furnished this may affect the determination of country of origin. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new ruling request be submitted in accordance with 177.2, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.2).

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling