CLA-2 CO:R:C:T 088565 CC
Mr. Patrick D. Gill
Rode & Qualey
295 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
RE: Country of origin of lace fabric
Dear Mr. Gill:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 18,
1991, on behalf of Windy Rose Lingerie, Inc., requesting a
country of origin determination for lace fabric. Samples were
submitted for examination.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is lace fabric manufactured in
France, which is sent to the Philippines for re-embroidery. The
re-embroidery is accomplished by sewing around portions of the
design of the lace a narrow braid or cord of fabric, referred to
as gimp. After re-embroidery the lace is imported into the
United States.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin for the merchandise at issue?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Country of origin determinations for textile products are
subject to Section 12.130 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
12.130). Section 12.130 provides that a textile product that is
processed in more than one country or territory shall be a
product of that country or territory where it last underwent a
substantial transformation. A textile product will be considered
to have undergone a substantial transformation if it has been
transformed by means of substantial manufacturing or processing
operations into a new and different article of commerce.
Section 12.130(d) of the Customs Regulations sets forth
criteria in determining whether a substantial transformation of a
textile product has taken place. This regulation states that
these criteria are not exhaustive; one or any combination of
criteria may be determinative, and additional factors may be
considered.
Section 12.130(d)(1) states that a new and different article
of commerce will usually result from a manufacturing or
processing operation if there is a change in:
(i) Commercial designation or identity,
(ii) Fundamental character or
(iii) Commercial use.
Section 12.130(d)(2) of the Customs Regulations states that
in determining whether merchandise has been subjected to
substantial manufacturing or processing operations, the
following will be considered:
(i) The physical change in the material or article as a
result of the manufacturing or processing operations in each
foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the
U.S.
(ii) The time involved in the manufacturing or processing
operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular
possession of the U.S.
(iii) The complexity of the manufacturing or processing
operations in each foreign territory or country, or insular
possession of the U.S.
(iv) The level or degree of skill and/or technology required
in the manufacturing or processing operations in each
foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the
U.S.
(v) The value added to the article or material in each
foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the
U.S., compared to its value when imported into the U.S.
You contend that the application of the gimp to the lace
fabric does not create a new and different article of commerce in
the Philippines. In addition, you state that the processing
operations performed in the Philippines, attaching gimp to the
lace fabric, are not substantial and that the time, complexity,
and level or skill involved in the manufacture of the lace fabric
in France surpasses that involved in the re-embroidery operation
in the Philippines. As noted in your submission, this conclusion
is consistent with Headquarters ruling 075519, which involved
essentially the same merchandise as that at issue in this case.
We agree that the lace fabric has not been transformed into a
new and different article of commerce by substantial
manufacturing or processing operations in the Philippines.
Therefore the country of origin of the subject lace fabric is
France.
HOLDING:
The country of origin for the merchandise at issue is
France.
The holding set forth above applies only to the specific
factual situation and merchandise identified in the ruling
request. This position is clearly set forth in section
177.9(b)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.9(b)(1)). This
section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption
that all of the information furnished in connection with the
ruling request and incorporated in the ruling letter, either
directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect. Should it subsequently be
determined that the information furnished is not complete and
does not comply with 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1), the ruling will be
subject to modification or revocation. In the event there is a
change in the facts previously furnished this may affect the
determination of country of origin. Accordingly, it is
recommended that a new ruling request be submitted in accordance
with section 177.2, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.2).
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division