10 newer rulings cite the same tariff codes.

Classification can shift over time. Review the more recent rulings below before relying on this one.

N346582 N3 Ruling Active

The country of origin of a STP barge

Issued March 27, 2025 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Cite this ruling

Copies to clipboard

N3 N346582 (March 27, 2025)

Tariff classification

HTS codes: 2025, 2010, 1993, 1982, 1201, 2018, 1992

Headings: 2025, 2010, 1993, 1982, 1201, 2018, 1992

Product description

The article under consideration is a STP Barge, which is designed to support sustained oil production by treating seawater for injection into subsurface reservoirs. The barge, which is a floating vessel designed to house the STP, is manufactured in South Korea. The STP, which includes several filtration, sulphate removal, power generation systems and modules and drains, is manufactured in Indonesia, and will be integrated into the barge in Indonesia. Once the integration is complete, the asset will operate as a single, cohesive floating unit. When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). You suggest that the country of origin of the STP barge is Indonesia, since the treatment plant is manufactured and installed onto the barge in Indonesia.

CBP rationale

substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). You suggest that the country of origin of the STP barge is Indonesia, since the treatment plant is manufactured and installed onto the barge in Indonesia. We disagree. Although the STP is an important component that enhances the barge and provides a defined purpose, the barge nonetheless remains a floating vessel with or without the STP installed.

Full text

N346582
March 27, 2025
OT:RR:NC:N2:206
CATEGORY: Origin Sam Aspinall Global Trade Consulting Pty Ltd 81-83 Campbell Street Surry Hills 2010 Australia RE: The country of origin of a STP barge Dear Mr. Aspinall: In your letter dated March 9, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on the seawater treatment plant (STP) barge, which you filed on behalf of Santos Limited - Oil Search (Alaska). The article under consideration is a STP Barge, which is designed to support sustained oil production by treating seawater for injection into subsurface reservoirs. The barge, which is a floating vessel designed to house the STP, is manufactured in South Korea. The STP, which includes several filtration, sulphate removal, power generation systems and modules and drains, is manufactured in Indonesia, and will be integrated into the barge in Indonesia. Once the integration is complete, the asset will operate as a single, cohesive floating unit. When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993). You suggest that the country of origin of the STP barge is Indonesia, since the treatment plant is manufactured and installed onto the barge in Indonesia. We disagree. Although the STP is an important component that enhances the barge and provides a defined purpose, the barge nonetheless remains a floating vessel with or without the STP installed. As it leaves Korea, the barge is a fully functional vessel capable of floating in shallow waters as designed. As a result, it is the opinion of this office that the country of origin of the STP barge is South Korea. Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of merchandise between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a vessel built in, documented under the laws of,

and owned by citizens of the United States. Such a vessel, after it has obtained a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement from the U.S. Coast Guard, is said to be ?coastwise-qualified.? The coastwise law applicable to the transportation of merchandise, often referred to as ?the Jones Act,? is found at 46 U.S.C. ? 55102. Inquiries regarding the applicability of the Jones Act to your case can be sent to the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Attention: Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, Washington, DC 20229, or by emailing [email protected] or [email protected]. The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 C.F.R. 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, please contact National Import Specialist Liana Alvarez at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division

View original on CBP CROSS →

Ruling history

More rulings on the same tariff codes

Follow N346582

Get an email if this ruling is revoked or modified, or a newer ruling supersedes it.

One email per day at most. Confirm your address once, unsubscribe anytime.

Searching CBP rulings the smart way

Rulings are precedent. See which ones apply to your product: TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.