Main Idea: The regulations used to determine the country of origin of textile and apparel products require the sequential application of rules much like the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) in the HTSUS

In ruling N326416 (Feb. 2, 2023), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined the country of origin of a prepared painting canvas.  The finished product was a poly-cotton canvas stretched and attached to a wood frame.  The production process involved first manufacturing the canvas in India before shipping to China in rolls.  Once in China, the rolls were stretched and cut to fit over a wooden frame.  The canvas was then secured onto the wooden frame.  Finally, the finished product was shipped from China to the U.S.

CBP first determined that the painting canvas was classified under subheading 5901.90.2000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for “[t]extile fabrics coated with gum or amylaceous substances, of a kind used for the outer covers of books or the like; tracing cloth; prepared painting canvas; buckram and similar stiffened textile fabrics of a kind used for hat foundations: Other: Of man-made fibers (229).”  The rate of duty is 7% ad valorem.

CBP then determined the country of origin of the canvas.  Because the painting canvas is a textile product, the special rules of origin relevant to textiles and apparel apply.  The country of origin rules for textile and apparel products apply to the items classified in Chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, and some other specifically listed HTS classifications.  CBP’s origin regulations contain five rules for determining the country of origin for textile and apparel products.  Using the “wholly obtained,” “tariff shift,” and “technical production requirements” criteria, these rules apply sequentially – like the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) in the HTSUS.

CBP analyzed the rules set forth under 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(1) through (5) to the painting canvas and determined (c)(1) – (2) did not apply to the canvas.  CBP then turned to 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3).  Because the canvas was not knit to shape, CBP determined that 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(i) was also not applicable.  However, 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(ii) provides that “…if the good was not knit to shape… and…was wholly assembled in a single country…, the country of origin of the good is the country…in which the good was wholly assembled.”  CBP determined that the rules under 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(ii) applied to the canvas.

Further, 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(a)(6) provides, in pertinent part, that the term “wholly assembled” refers to a good where “all components…preexisted in essentially the same condition as found in the finished good and were combined to form the finished good.”  To determine if a product meets this definition, CBP noted that it looks to “the condition of the components pieces immediately prior to completion.”  In application, CBP found that the two component pieces – the canvas and the wooden frame – preexisted in the same conditions as found in the finished good.  As such, CBP determined that the product met the definition of “wholly assembled” and that its country of origin could be determined via 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(ii).

Applying 19 C.F.R. § 102.21(c)(3)(ii), CBP determined that China was the country in which the good was “wholly assembled.”  As such, the country of origin of the prepared painting canvas was China.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Simeon Yerokun Simeon Yerokun

imeon Yerokun is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s International Trade group and based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He advises clients on all areas of import regulatory compliance, trade remedies, and international trade litigation.

Simeon has extensive experience counseling companies in

imeon Yerokun is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s International Trade group and based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He advises clients on all areas of import regulatory compliance, trade remedies, and international trade litigation.

Simeon has extensive experience counseling companies in the areas of business and human rights law, including compliance with global anti-forced labor and human rights requirements. He regularly represents companies before U.S. government agencies on forced labor-related matters, including securing the release of goods detained and seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He also offers deep experience assisting companies in mapping their supply chains, including linking imported products back to their raw materials using enterprise software and other inventory management audit tools. Simeon is highly accomplished in forced labor supply chain mapping and risk assessments, as well as verifying due diligence efforts with on-the-ground visits to client facilities, incorporating third-party intelligence and audit resources.

Simeon’s experience also covers a broad spectrum of trade and customs issues, including those related to import regulatory compliance matters such as valuation, classification, duty drawback, marking and labeling, entry procedures, and penalties; free trade agreements; antidumping and countervailing duty issues; trade litigation; intellectual property issues such as trademark and copyright infringement; the enforcement of exclusion orders issued by the International Trade Commission (ITC); steel and aluminum tariffs under the Section 232 National Security Investigation; and the additional tariffs on products from China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Additionally, Simeon handles antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations before the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under the Tariff Act of 1930, and litigation involving the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).

Prior to joining Crowell, Simeon was a trade and finance attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and before that, he served as counsel to Commissioner Irving A. Williamson at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Simeon is a proud graduate of Howard University School of Law, where he served as technical editor of the school’s Human Rights and Globalization Law Review.