The country of origin of fiber optic cables

N362266
June 30, 2026
OT:RR:NC:N2:220
CATEGORY: Origin Sophie Zhang FS Tech Pte. Ltd. 7002 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, #06-01 Singapore 569914 Singapore RE: The country of origin of fiber optic cables Dear Ms. Zhang: In your letter dated June 12, 2026, you requested a country of origin ruling on fiber optic cables. The merchandise under consideration is described as fiber optic patch cord assemblies, identified by individual model numbers 16FMTPLCOM4, 16FMTPLCSMF, 8FMTPLCOM4, and 8FMTPLCSMF. The subject assemblies are further described as multi-core fiber optic cables consisting of a fiber optic core, made of either 8 or 16 fibers which are either single-mode or multi-mode type depending on the model number. The subject cables are typically used for cabling in cabinets and systems with limited space and high cable management requirements within various telecommunications industries to transfer optical data signals. In your request, you detail two different manufacturing scenarios for all four models of fiber optic cables. In both scenarios, the optical fibers are sent to Vietnam where the fibers are colored, then jacketed with Chinese origin PVC or LSZH material and aramid yarn, and connectors from the United States are added to both ends of the cables. For certain models, Chinese origin branching kits or pull tabs are added depending on the customer’s needs. The finished fiber optic patch cord assemblies are then tested and packaged for export to the United States. In scenario 1, the optical fibers are sourced from a manufacturer in the United States where the optical fibers are drawn from the preform made in the United States. The finished optical fibers are shipped to Vietnam for further processing. In scenario 2, the optical fibers are drawn from a manufacturer in India where the preform is sourced from the United States. The finished optical fibers are shipped to Vietnam for further processing.

We note that in both scenarios, the preforms are made by the same manufacturer in the United States by depositing silica particles onto a base rod or substrate tube, gradually forming the preform. Then, other elements are added to adjust the refractive index, forming the core and cladding structure. The process for drawing the optical fibers from the preforms is the same for both scenarios. 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). In the instant case, the glass preforms are manufactured with specific attributes and qualities that are predetermined by the materials used to manufacture the preform. The drawing of fibers from the preform will preserve the key properties of the preform such as the refractive index, core and cladding structure, and chemical composition. The drawing process merely transforms the physical attributes by massively reducing the diameter of the preform into extremely thin fibers while retaining the ratio of core size and cladding size along with maintaining the chemical and optical attributes. It is the opinion of this office that the preforms manufactured in the United States impart the character of the finished cables. Further, the drawing process performed in India and the final assembly process taking place in Vietnam, including jacketing of the optical fibers and addition of connectors, do not substantially transform the preform into new and different articles of commerce. Accordingly, based on the facts presented, the origin of the fiber optic cables as presented in both scenarios, for model numbers 16FMTPLCOM4, 16FMTPLCSMF, 8FMTPLCOM4, and 8FMTPLCSMF, will be the United States. 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 Gary Chaffee at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(for) James P. Forkan Director National Commodity Specialist Division