HQ 956541: Country of Origin determination for girls' knit top; fabric knit, dyed and cut in Taiwan; simple assembly in China; 19 CFR 12.130(b),(d),(e); cutting constitutes substantial transformation

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 956541

                        September 29, 1994

CLA  CO:R:C:T  956541  jb

CATEGORY:  CLASSIFICATION

Ms. Jenny Feng
Sung Kiang Industrial Co., Ltd.
1Fl., No. 15, Lane, 46, Ching Cheng St.
Taipei, Taiwan
Republic of China

RE:  Country of Origin determination for girls' knit top; fabric
     knit, dyed and cut in Taiwan; simple assembly in China; 19
     CFR 12.130(b),(d),(e); cutting constitutes substantial
     transformation 

Dear Ms. Feng:

     This letter is in response to your inquiry of 
May 31, 1994, requesting a country of origin determination for a
girl's knit top.  Two samples of the finished garment and the
garments' constituent parts were submitted to this office for
examination.

FACTS:

     The garment in question is a girl's knit top, referenced
style number 3200, size 2T/4T, and is constructed of 65 percent
polyester and 35 percent cotton jacquard-type knit fabric.  The
garment features a crew neck, short sleeves and a hemmed bottom. 
There is a keyhole opening at the back of the neck which is
secured by a single button.

     The fabric for the subject garment is knit, dyed and cut
into piece goods in Taiwan.  In China, the garment's component
parts are assembled into the completed article, and then the
garment is ironed, inspected and packed for shipment to the
United States.  

ISSUE:

     What is the country of origin of the merchandise at issue?


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 12.130 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 12.130)
sets forth the principles of country of origin for textiles and
textile products subject to Section 204 of the Agricultural Act
of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854).

     Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.130(b), the standard of substantial
transformation governs the country of origin determination where
textiles and textile products are processed in more than one
country.  The country of origin of textile products is deemed to
be that foreign territory or country where the article last
underwent a substantial transformation.  Substantial
transformation is said to occur when the article has been
transformed into a new and different article of commerce by means
of substantial manufacturing or processing.
     
     The factors to be applied in determining whether or not a
manufacturing operation is substantial are set forth in 19 CFR
12.130(d)(2).  The following are considered:

     (i) The physical change in the material or article;

    (ii) The time involved in the manufacturing or processing;

   (iii) The complexity of the manufacturing or processing;

    (iv) The level or degree of skill and/or technology required
         in the manufacturing or processing operations;

     (v) The value added to the article or material;  

  Section 12.130(e)(1) describes manufacturing or processing
operations from which an article will usually be considered a
product of the country in which those operations occurred:  

     (i) Dyeing of fabric and printing when accompanied by two or
         more of the following finishing operations: bleaching,   
         shrinking, fulling, napping, decating, permanent         
         stiffening, weighting, permanent embossing, or moireing; 
 
   (ii) Spinning fibers into yarn;

   (iii) Weaving, knitting or otherwise forming fabric;

    (iv) Cutting of fabric into parts and the assembly of those
         parts into the completed article; or
     
     (v) Substantial assembly by sewing and/or tailoring of all
         cut pieces of apparel articles which have been cut from
         fabric in another foreign territory or country, or
         insular possession, into a completed garment (e.g., the
         complete assembly of all cut pieces of suit-type         
         jackets, suits and shirts).

     We have previously held that cutting of fabric into pattern
pieces constitutes a substantial transformation of the fabric,
resulting in the apparel pieces becoming a product of the country
where the fabric is cut (See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL)
952531, dated November 25, 1992, HRL 953697, dated July 26, 1993,
and HRL 955125, dated January 27, 1994).

      As was stated by Customs in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 85-38
(19 Cust. Bull. 58, 70; 50 FR 8714), the final document rule
establishing 19 CFR 12.130, in pertinent part:

     [T]he assembly of all cut pieces of a garment usually is a
     substantial manufacturing process that results in an article
     with a different name, character or use than the cut        pieces.  It should be noted that not all assembly operations
     of cut garment pieces will amount to a substantial          transformation of those pieces.  Where either less than
     complete assembly of all the cut pieces of a garment is
     performed in one country, or the assembly is a relatively
     simple one, then Customs will rule on the particular factual
     situations as they arise, utilizing the criteria in section
     12.130(d).
     
     Customs has consistently held that the mere assembly of
goods by linking and looping, or simple sewing, is not enough to
substantially transform the components of an article into a new
and different article of commerce (See HRL 082747, dated February
23, 1989; HRL 086665, dated March 23, 1990; HRL 951169, dated
April 1, 1992; HRL 951437, dated July 17, 1992; HRL 952647, dated
January 27, 1993).       
     
     In the case of the subject garment, the assembly operations
performed in China are minor combining and sewing operations and
do not possess the requisite degree of complexity to be deemed
substantial manufacturing processes for purposes of conferring
country of origin status.  No great degree of skill or technology
is required, nor is tailoring involved.  

     Additional operations such as ironing, inspecting and
packaging are considered minor finishing operations and are not
sufficient to affect country of origin.  As is stated in section
12.130(e)(2)(i), an article usually will not be considered to be
a product of a particular country by virtue of merely having
undergone:

     Simple combining operations, labeling, pressing, cleaning or
     drycleaning, or packaging operations, or any combination
     thereof;

     The cutting operations in Taiwan materially alter the fabric
into designated garment pieces.  This constitutes a substantial
transformation of the fabric and confers country of origin.  

HOLDING:

     The country of origin of the submitted girl's knit top,
referenced style number 3200, is Taiwan.  It is at the cutting
process in Taiwan that the fabric last undergoes a substantial
transformation and is transformed into a new and different
article of commerce.  As this constitutes a substantial
transformation of that fabric, Taiwan is the country of origin
for the subject garment.       
     
     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 the ruling letter,
either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect.  

     Should it be subsequently 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