The country of origin of a headband.

Product description

Images were provided in lieu of a sample.The product under consideration is a semi-rigid polypropylene (PP) plastic horseshoe-shaped headbandcovered entirely with black fabric. On top of the band will be leopard print animal ears made of fabric andfilled with poly-cotton material.Your submission indicates all the components to make this headband are sourced from China. They are sentto Cambodia where the fabric is cut, sewn together, and the finished headband is assembled. It will then bepackaged and inspected prior to exportation out of Cambodia.When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. , e.g.,SeeHeadquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether asubstantial 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. SeeTexas Instruments Inc., 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. v. United States , 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).SeeNational Hand Tool Corp. v. United StatesIn order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components are assembled intocompleted products, all factors such as the components used to create the product and manufacturingprocesses that these components undergo are considered in order to determine whether a product with a newname, character, and use has been produced. No one factor is decisive, and assembly/manufacturingoperations that are minimal will generally not result in a substantial transformation. This office holds the opinion that the plastic headband has a predetermined end use, holds the basic nature ofthe finished headband with animal ears, and that it is not substantially transformed to become a new articlehaving a new name, character, or use after the textile components are added in Cambodia. Accordingly, thecountry

CBP rationale

substantial transformation analysis is applicable. , e.g.,SeeHeadquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. The test for determining whether asubstantial 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. SeeTexas Instruments Inc., 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. v. United States , 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).SeeNational Hand Tool Corp. v. United StatesIn order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components are assembled intocompleted products, all factors such as the components used to create the product and manufacturingprocesses that these components undergo are considered in order to determine whether a product with a newname, character, and use has been produced. No one factor is decisive, and assembly/manufacturingoperations that are minimal will generally not result in a substantial transformation. This office holds the opinion that the plastic headband has a predetermined end use, holds the basic nature ofthe finished headband with animal ears, and that it is not substantially transformed to become a new articlehaving a new name, character, or use after the textile components are added in Cambodia. Accordingly, thecountry of origin for this headband will be China.The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description asidentified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations(“CFR”), Section 177.

Full text

Ruling history

More rulings on the same tariff codes