MAR 2-05 CO:R:C:V 733941 RSD
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