CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM H011662 CMR
TARIFF NOs.:
Henry Weiss
Ramapo Tobacco, LLC
One Ruth Court
Monsey, NY 10952
RE: Marking of cigarettes rolled in the Dominican Republic
Dear Mr. Weiss:
This is in response to your request of May 2, 2007 regarding the country of origin marking of cigarettes produced in a Dominican Republic cigarette rolling plant using all U.S. origin materials.
FACTS:
You indicate in your letter of May 2, 2007 that you have contracted with a cigarette rolling plant in the Dominican Republic to produce cigarettes. All the materials and components, including the tobacco (encompassing the flavorings, blending, and cutting), flip-top boxes, cartons, filters, papers/foil, cellophane and glue are of U.S. origin. In the Dominican Republic plant the tobacco is fed into a cigarette rolling machine and combined with the filter and paper. You state “[t]he output of the process is thousands of cigarettes.” The cigarettes are fed into the packaging machine which counts groupings of 20 cigarettes, adds the foil and fills the flip-top boxes. The machine then wraps cellophane around the box. When 10 boxes are filled, the machine loads them into a carton. The cartons containing 10 sealed boxes are manually placed in cases for shipment to the United States.
We note that you indicated that the tobacco (encompassing the flavorings, blending, and cutting) are “coming from the USA.” It is our understanding that the tobacco originates from various countries, including the United States, and is processed, including flavoring, into a ready to smoke tobacco blend by a U.S. tobacco blender. We agree based on the information provided that this tobacco blend is considered to be of U.S. origin. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 560102 of June 17, 1997 in which the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that the origin of tobacco of various countries was the country in which the tobacco was blended and processed into cut-filler tobacco.
You are requesting that CBP rule that you may mark your cigarettes, produced as described above, “Product of USA,” “Product of USA, Assembled in the Dominican Republic,” or “Assembled in the Dominican Republic, all materials from the USA.”
ISSUE:
What is the proper marking for cigarettes produced in the Dominican Republic of all U.S. materials?
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 United States 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 an ultimate purchaser in the United States 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 markings on the imported goods the country of which the good is the product. "The evident purpose is to mark the goods so 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 and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C.
§ 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. 134.1(b)), defines "country of origin" as “the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. 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 regulations]. . . .” A substantial transformation is said to have occurred when an article emerges from a manufacturing process with a name, character, or use which differs from the original material subjected to the process. U.S. v. Gibson Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940); Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (1982).
In this case, the U.S. origin materials, including the tobacco blend, emerge from the manufacturing process in the Dominican Republic with a new name, character, and use, i.e., the loose tobacco is now in a cigarette, a separately recognizable commercial product. Thus, the U.S. origin materials are substantially transformed in the Dominican Republic and the origin of the cigarettes is the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the cigarettes or their container must be marked to indicate the Dominican Republic as their country of origin. As such, the cigarettes may not be marked as requested “Product of USA” nor “Product of USA, Assembled in the Dominican Republic.”
With regard to the request to mark the cigarettes “Assembled in the Dominican Republic, all materials from the USA”, although the processing which occurs in the Dominican Republic is not set forth in detail, the manufacture of the cigarettes is, in part, an assembly operation. In Zwicker Knitting Mills v. United States, 469 F. Supp. 727, 733 (1979), the court stated “It is common knowledge that ‘to assemble’ means to fit or join components or parts together.” Although the tobacco is an amorphous material which is not capable of being assembled with the various other materials, the combining of the rolling paper, filters and glue would qualify as an assembly operation. As such, “Assembled in the Dominican Republic, all materials from the USA” would be an acceptable marking.
HOLDING:
The country of origin of the cigarettes is the Dominican Republic and the cigarettes or their containers must be marked to so indicate. The markings you suggested, “Product of USA,” “Product of USA, Assembled in the Dominican Republic,” are not acceptable markings. However, “Assembled in the Dominican Republic, all materials from the USA” would be an acceptable marking.
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time the merchandise is entered. If the documents are filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Gail A. Hamill, Chief
Tariff Classification and Marking Branch