Country of origin marking of imported finger cots

HQ 732895 December 13, 1989 MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 732895 KG CATEGORY: Marking Thomas E. Moser North, Inc. P.O. Box 587 Maiden, North Carolina 28650 RE: Country of origin marking of imported finger cots Dear Mr. Moser: This is in response to your letter of November 22, 1989, requesting a country of origin ruling regarding imported finger cots. You submitted two finger cots for examination. FACTS: Finger cots are used on the ends of the fingers to protect products from body oils that would otherwise damage parts, particularly electronic components. They are also used by persons filing papers to protect their fingers from paper cuts. The cots are manufactured in Akron, Ohio. During the manufacturing process, they are coated with talc so that the cots can be removed from the production forms. As they are removed mechanically, the cots are rolled up, trapping the talc inside the cots. In order to remove the talc, they are unrolled and washed. The cots cannot be unrolled mechanically. The cots are shipped to Haiti to be rerolled only. There is no further manufacturing conducted in Haiti. You submitted two cots for examination; one is rolled up and the other is unrolled. ISSUE: Whether the imported cots are subject to the country of origin marking requirements of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 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. The Court of International Trade stated in Koru North America v. United States, 701 F.Supp. 229, 12 CIT (CIT 1988), that: "In ascertaining what constitutes the country of origin under the marking statue, a court must look at the sense in which the term is used in the statute, giving reference to the purpose of the particular legislation involved. The purpose of the marking statute is outlined in United States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 CCPA 297, 302 C.A.D. 104 (1940), where the court stated that: "Congress intended that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will." Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines the country of origin as 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 with the meaning of 19 CFR Part 134. A substantial transformation occurs when articles lose their identity and become new articles having a new name, character or use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270 (1940), National Juice Products Association v. United States, 10 CIT ___, 628 F.Supp. 978 (CIT 1986), Koru North America v. United States, 12 CIT ___, 701 F.Supp. 229 (CIT 1988). The issue in this case is whether the rerolling done in Haiti constitutes a substantial transformation. If not, the finger cots are a U.S. product and therefore, not subject to country of origin marking requirements. When the articles in question arrive in Haiti, they are completed finger cots which are rolled up. The article that leaves Haiti is a completed finger cot which is unrolled. There is no new article created, the article does not change its name, and the use of the article does not change. The only characteristic of the article that changes in Haiti is whether the finger cots are rolled or unrolled. This change in characteristic alone is not sufficient to create a substantial transformation. Therefore, the finger cots are not substantially transformed in Haiti. The finger cots are manufactured in Ohio and therefore, are domestic goods and pursuant to 19 CFR 134.32(m) products of the U.S. exported and returned are not subject to country of origin marking requirements. HOLDING: The finger cots are not substantially transformed in Haiti. Therefore, the finger cots are considered domestic goods for country of origin marking purposes and are not subject to country of origin marking requirements. Sincerely, Marvin M. Amernick Chief, Value, Special Programs and Admissibility Branch