|
HQ 733941 March 1, 1991 MAR 2-05 CO:R:C:V 733941 RSD CATEGORY: Marking Mr. Sergio Galindo Import/Export Coordinator Alcoa Fujikura Ltd. 121 Johnson Blvd. Del Rio, Texas 78840 RE: Country of origin marking of automotive wire harnesses; car parts, substantial transformation; 19 CFR 134.35 Dear Mr. Galindo: This is in response to your letter dated November 13, 1990, requesting a ruling on the country of origin marking requirements of imported automotive wire harnesses used in the manufacture of cars. A sample wire harness accompanied the ruling request. FACTS: Alcoa Fujikura Ltd. (AFL) imports automotive wire harnesses, which are assembled in Mexico. The wire harnesses are sold to Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan for the assembly of motor vehicles. The wire harnesses will be part of the electrical system of the motor vehicle, where they will be connected to other parts of the vehicle, such as headlights, the engine compartment, or under the dashboard of the vehicle. Once installed into a motor vehicle, the harnesses will be concealed so that a country of origin marking will not be visible. The ruling request indicates that the containers for the wire harnesses are marked "Assembled in Mexico." A letter from the Ford Motor Company was sent which states that the wire harnesses are used by Ford in the "original equipment manufacturer (OEM)." You state that AFL received several previous "marking waivers" from the Customs Laredo District regarding these wire harnesses but were denied a blanket waiver. You state further that Customs officials from the Laredo District advised AFL to write to headquarters to obtain a ruling on the country of origin marking requirements for the harnesses. We contacted the import specialist in the Laredo district who indicated that a so-called "blanket waiver" was denied because the importer had failed to provide Customs with a current list of the part numbers for the wire harnesses. ISSUE: Do automotive wire harnesses used in the manufacture of motor vehicles constitute a substantial transformation which permits them to be excepted from being individually marked with their country of origin? 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. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was 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." United States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302 (1940). 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 "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" within the meaning of the marking laws and regulations. The case of U.S. v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940), provides that an article used in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character, or use differing from that of the constituent article will be considered substantially transformed. The standard for determining the ultimate purchaser of an article used in manufacture is set forth in section 134.35, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.35), which provides that the manufacturer or processor who converts or combines the imported article into an article having a name, character or use differing from that of the imported article is considered the ultimate purchaser. Under such circumstances, the imported article is substantially transformed and the article itself need not be individually marked. Only the outermost container in which the article is imported must be marked. In HQ 731076 (November 1, 1988), Customs ruled that automobile components from Japan, Taiwan and the U.S. lose their separate identities when they are incorporated into cars in the manufacturing process and are therefore substantially transformed. We stated that the manufacture of an automobile was more than a mere assembly operation. In this case, there is a statement from Ford Motor Company that the wire harnesses will be used only as original equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Accordingly, when the wire harnesses are incorporated into a new motor vehicle as part of the manufacturing process, they lose their separate identity and become part of a new article of commerce namely, a motor vehicle. HOLDING: Wire harnesses which are used by the Ford Motor Company in the manufacture of new motor vehicles are substantially transformed. In accordance 19 CFR 134.35, the Ford Motor Company is the ultimate purchaser of wire harnesses, and they do not have individually marked with their country of origin provided the wire harnesses are imported in a container which is marked to indicate the country origin, and the district director at the port of entry is satisfied that they will be used only in the manner set forth above and the Ford motor Company will receive them in the marked package in which they are imported. The district director may require the importer to submit whatever information is deemed necessary in support of the marking exception. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division |