CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 087271 CC
Mr. Matthew Chang
Assistant Vice President
C. Itoh & Co. (America) Inc.
335 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
RE: Country of origin of sweaters
Dear Mr. Chang:
This letter is response to your inquiry of September 18,
1990, requesting country of origin determinations for sweaters.
FACTS:
According to your submissions, knit-to-shape component parts
are made in China. These parts are sent to Hong Kong where they
are joined together by a simple linking method, such as that
described in Section 12.130 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
12.130), to create completed sweaters. We note that you have not
submitted a sample.
You have requested country of origin and country of origin
marking determinations in light of Treasury Decision (T.D.)
90-17. In addition, you inquire whether the sweaters will be
subject to a Column II rate of duty and which country must issue
the visa.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin for the merchandise at issue?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
T.D. 90-17, published in the Federal Register on March 1,
1990 (55 F.R. 7303), announced a change of practice to conform
the rules of origin for textile products for all purposes to the
rules set forth in Section 12.130 of the Customs Regulations (19
CFR 12.130). Therefore country of origin determinations for
duty, quota, and marking purposes for textile products are
governed by 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)(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.
Section 12.130(e)(2) provides that an article or material
usually will not be considered to be a product of a particular
foreign territory or country, or insular possession of the U.S.
by virtue of merely having undergone any of the following:
...
(iii) trimming and/or joining together by sewing, looping,
linking, or other means of attaching otherwise completed knit-to-
shape component parts produced in a single country, even when
accompanied by other processes (e.g. washing, drying, mending,
etc.) normally incident to the assembly process.
We believe that based on your submissions Section
12.130(e)(2)(iii) would be applicable. Assuming that the
component parts are completed and knit-to-shape and are joined
together by sewing, looping, linking, or other means of
attaching, no substantial transformation takes place in Hong
Kong. The last substantial transformation for this merchandise
occurs in China, where the fabric is made. Therefore the country
of origin for duty, quota and visa, and marking purposes is
China.
You inquired whether one of the following would be
acceptable for marking purposes: "Made in China, Assembled in
Hong Kong" or "Knit in China, Assembled in Hong Kong."
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 the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the
English name of the country of origin of the article. Part 134,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of
origin marking requirements and exceptions to 19 U.S.C. 1304.
The name of the country of origin must be clearly indicated
on the imported article. Reference may be made to a second
country so long as the country or origin is clearly stated and
the requirements of Section 134.46 of the Customs Regulations are
satisfied. The expressions "Made in China" and "Knit in China"
clearly state the country of origin for the merchandise at issue.
The expressions "Made in China, Assembled in Hong Kong" or "Knit
in China, Assembled in Hong Kong" satisfy the requirements of
Section 134.46 of the Customs Regulations and would be acceptable
country of origin marking.
Concerning your additional questions, merchandise of China
is subject to a Column I rate of duty at this time. A visa will
be required from China. With regard to your question concerning
a possible change in the most-favored-nation (MFN) status of
China, we are not aware of any impending change in the
eligibility of the PRC for MFN status. However, should you
require more detailed information we suggest that you contact the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on this matter.
HOLDING:
The country of origin for duty, quota and visa, and marking
purposes for the merchandise at issue is China.
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