NY B87555 - COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING OF IMPORTED Leather Work Aprons - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

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 > 1997 NY Rulings > NY B87534 - NY B87595 > NY B87555

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY B87555

August 26, 1997

MAR-2 RR:NC:WA:353 B87555

CATEGORY: MARKING

Ms. Sue Baiz
CLC - Custom Leathercraft
811 West 58th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90037

RE: COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING OF IMPORTED Leather Work Aprons

Dear Ms. Baiz:

This is in response to your letter dated July 14, 1997, received in our office on July 16, 1997 requesting a ruling on whether the imported work aprons can be marked "Made in USA" after further processing in the United States.

You state that two style of leather work aprons, #1370X3 and 1427X, essentially similar to eachother, will be imported from India in an unfinished state. As imported they will not have a buckle, rivets, tape holder, hammer holder, eyelets and packaging. The rivets, buckle, tape holders, hammer holders, eyelets and packaging are added to the imported items at your factory in the United States.

The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. 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 U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.

The country of origin for marking purposes is defined at section 134.1(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), to mean the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the U.S. 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 Part 134. A substantial transformation occurs when articles lose their identity and become new articles having a new name, character, or use. Koru North America v. United States, 12 CIT 1120, 701 F.Supp. 229 (1988). The question of when a substantial transformation occurs for marking purposes is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F.Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd, 1 Fed.Cir. 21, 702 F.2d 1022 (1983).

In C.S.D. 85-25, (HQ 071827), (September 25, 1984), Customs held that an assembly will not constitute a substantial transformation unless the operation is "complex and meaningful." Customs criteria for whether an operation is "complex and meaningful" depends on the nature of the operation, including the number of components assembled, number of different operations involved, and whether a significant period of time, skill, detail and quality control are necessary for the assembly operation. This criteria for determining whether a substantial transformation occurs is applied on a case-by-case basis. In C.S.D. 80-111, HQ 710564, (September 24, 1980), Customs considered whether the domestic manufacturing processes through which imported ceiling fan components become finished fans constituted a substantial transformation. In this ruling, it was stated that mere assembly of parts will not constitute a substantial transformation. We concluded that the assembly of the fan was not a substantial transformation because the processes were basically assembly line procedures which did not physically alter the components. Furthermore, we noted that the manufacturing processes were mere combining processes that were not complex or did not require a great deal of skill.

In National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 92-61 (April 27, 1992), the Court of International Trade held that imported hand tool components which were used to produce flex, sockets, speeder handles, and flex handles were not substantially transformed when further processed and assembled in the U.S. One of the factors considered by the court in reaching its conclusion was that the name of the imported components did not change as a result of the U.S. processing and assembling operations. The court recognized, as imported, each article already had the name of a completed tool. The court also considered whether the use of the imported components changed as a result of the processing and assembling operations performed in the U.S. In finding that the use of the imported components did not change, the court stated that the use of the imported articles was predetermined at the time of importation due to the fact that each component was intended to be incorporated in a particular finished mechanics' hand tool.

Accordingly we find that because the important component of the leather work aprons is foreign and the manufacture of the finished work aprons results from a simple assembly of already finished components, the finished work apron is not substantially transformed in the U.S. Accordingly we find that Custom Leathercraft Mfg. Co. is not the ultimate purchaser of the importer leather aprons under 19 CFR 134.35. Therefore the imported leather work aprons must be marked with their country of origin.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 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, contact National Import Specialist Martin Weiss at 212-466-5881.

Sincerely,

Paul K. Schwartz
Chief, Textiles & Apparel Branch

Previous Ruling Next Ruling