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 > 2000 HQ Rulings > HQ 561660 - HQ 961050 > HQ 561746

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 561746

---

July 20, 2000

MAR-2-05 RR:CR:SM 561746 CW

CATEGORY: MARKING

Trinity Industries
2525 Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75207

RE: Modification of HRL 730416; country of origin marking of socket weld and threaded pipe fittings; substantial transformation; Midwood

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is in reference to Headquarters Ruling Letter 730416 dated May 11, 1987, which was issued to you regarding the country of origin marking of certain forgings to be imported and processed into socket weld and threaded pipe fittings.

We have reviewed HRL 730416 and believe that the portion pertaining to whether a substantial transformation results from the U.S. processing of the imported castings is incorrect. It is this aspect of the ruling that we are modifying for the reasons set forth below. The portion of the ruling relating to the applicability of the marking requirements for certain pipes and pipe fittings under 19 U.S.C. 1304(c) remains in effect.

Pursuant to section 625(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)), notice of the proposed modification of HRL 730416 was published on June 7, 2000, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 34, Number 23.

FACTS:

The imported items are solid forgings used in the production of socket weld and threaded pipe fittings. They are subject to the mandatory marking provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1304(c). In the U.S., the imported forgings are subjected to processing which includes machining, drilling the waterways, and either threading or machining for socket welding. You asked whether these machining and finishing operations performed in the U.S. result in a substantial transformation, and if so, whether the country of origin marking need not survive, or be replaced after, such processing.

In HRL 730416, Customs determined that the above-described machining and finishing operations constitute a substantial transformation of the forgings into finished socket weld and threaded pipe fittings. Accordingly, the U.S. processor was determined to be the ultimate purchaser of the imported forgings.

ISSUE:

What are the country of origin marking requirements applicable to the finished socket weld and threaded pipe fittings?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

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.

Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134) implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. In order for the country of origin of imported articles to be considered the U.S., and excepted from marking, the work or material added to the articles in the U.S. must effect a substantial transformation. 19 CFR 134.1(b).

For country of origin marking purposes, a substantial transformation of an imported article occurs when it is used in the U.S. in manufacture, which results in an article having a name, character, or use differing from that of the imported article. In such circumstances, the manufacturer or processor in the U.S. who converts or combines the imported article into the different article will be considered the “ultimate purchaser” of the imported article, and the article is excepted from marking and only the outermost container is required to be marked. See 19 CFR 134.35(a).

In Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 499, 313 F. Supp. 951 (1970), imported rough steel forgings were subjected to several processes by the U.S. importer/processor. Excess material was removed, the forgings were faced, bored, threaded or beveled, and drilled and spot faced. In certain instances, the flanges were subject to both heating and reducing one end in size and diameter by compression.

The court noted that the imported forgings were made as close to the dimensions of the ultimate finished form as possible. Nevertheless, the court stated that the products remained forgings unless and until converted by some manufacturer into consumers’ goods, that is, flanges and fittings. The court held that the imported forgings and the fittings and flanges made therefrom were different articles of commerce, and the importer/processor was the ultimate purchaser of the forgings.

The machining and other operations performed on the imported forgings in this case are similar to those involved in Midwood. Although not explicitly stated in HRL 730416, it appears that its determination that the U.S. processing resulted in a substantial transformation was based upon the Midwood decision.

The Customs Service has on a number of occasions expressed its views with respect to the decision in Midwood. More recently, on March 14, 2000, following notice and comment, Customs stated, "It is Customs opinion that based on subsequent court decisions applying substantial transformation analysis, Midwood would be decided differently today". Accordingly, we announced that we would no longer be following the analysis in Midwood.

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the issue of substantial transformation in this case must be decided in accordance with the facts presented applying the reasoning employed by the court in a number of decisions in this area, namely whether a change in name, character or use has occurred. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (CIT 1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983); National Hand Tool v. United States, 16 CIT 308, 312 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Superior Wire v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 472 (CIT), aff’d, 867 F. 2d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1989); National Juice Products Ass’n v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 978 (CIT 1986); Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 535 (CIT 1987).

With respect to the change in name, we note that the imported articles are referred to as “forgings” while the finished articles are referred to as “socket weld and threaded pipe fittings.” However, a change in name by itself is the least persuasive factor and is insufficient by itself to support a holding that there is a substantial transformation. See Superior Wire, 867 F.2d at 1414 (Fed Cir. 1989).

With respect to the change in use and character, we note that the imported articles are at all times intended for use as pipe fittings and imported
in dimensions that are close to their finished form. These factual conclusions are in accord with the facts as adduced by the court in Midwood. While the unfinished forgings must be machined to final dimension, we do not believe that such operations amount to a change in use or character in the article.

Since we do not find a change in character or use, it is our opinion that the importer/U.S. processor is not the ultimate purchaser. Therefore, we find that the pipe fittings processed from imported foreign forgings, as described above, will be required to be marked with the country of origin of the forgings.

HOLDING:

Based upon the information provided, Customs finds that no substantial transformation results from the U.S. processing of the imported forgings to produce the finished pipe fittings. Accordingly, pipe fittings processed from imported foreign forgings, as described above, will be required to be marked with the country of origin of the imported forgings. Consistent with this ruling, HRL 730416 dated May 11, 1987, is hereby modified.

In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Customs Bulletin.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling