19 C.F.R. § 10.176

Country of origin criteria

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Merchandise produced in a beneficiary developing country or any two or more countries which are members of the same association of countries—(1) General. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any article which either is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of, or is a new or different article of commerce that has been grown, produced, or manufactured in, a beneficiary developing country may qualify for duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). No article will be considered to have been grown, produced, or manufactured in a beneficiary developing country by virtue of having merely undergone simple (as opposed to complex or meaningful) combining or packaging operations or mere dilution with water or mere dilution with another substance that does not materially alter the characteristics of the article. Duty-free entry under the GSP may be accorded to an article only if the sum of the cost or value of the materials produced in the beneficiary developing country or any two or more countries that are members of the same association of countries and are treated as one country under section 507(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2467(2)), plus the direct costs of processing operations performed in the beneficiary developing country or member countries, is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of the article at the time it is entered.

(2) Combining, packaging, and diluting operations. No article which has undergone only a simple combining or packaging operation or a mere dilution in a beneficiary developing country within the meaning of paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be entitled to duty-free treatment even though the processing operation causes the article to meet the value requirement set forth in that paragraph. For purposes of this section:

(i) Simple combining or packaging operations and mere dilution include, but are not limited to, the following:

(A) The addition of batteries to devices;

(B) Fitting together a small number of components by bolting, glueing, soldering, etc.;

(D) The addition of substances such as anticaking agents, preservatives, wetting agents, etc.;

(E) Repacking or packaging components together;

(F) Reconstituting orange juice by adding water to orange juice concentrate; and

(G) Diluting chemicals with inert ingredients to bring them to standard degrees of strength;

(ii) Simple combining or packaging operations and mere dilution will not be taken to include processes such as the following:

(A) The assembly of a large number of discrete components onto a printed circuit board;

(B) The mixing together of two bulk medicinal substances followed by the packaging of the mixed product into individual doses for retail sale;

(C) The addition of water or another substance to a chemical compound under pressure which results in a reaction creating a new chemical compound; and

(D) A simple combining or packaging operation or mere dilution coupled with any other type of processing such as testing or fabrication (for example, a simple assembly of a small number of components, one of which was fabricated in the beneficiary developing country where the assembly took place); and

(iii) The fact that an article has undergone more than a simple combining or packaging operation or mere dilution is not necessarily dispositive of the question of whether that processing constitutes a substantial transformation for purposes of determining the country of origin of the article.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Merchandise grown, produced, or manufactured in a beneficiary developing country. Merchandise which is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a beneficiary developing country, or an association of countries treated as one country under section 507(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2467(2)) and § 10.171(b), and manufactured products consisting of materials produced only in such country or countries, shall normally be presumed to meet the requirements set forth in this section.

[T.D. 76-2, 40 FR 60048, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended by T.D. 80-271, 45 FR 75641, Nov. 17, 1980; T.D. 00-67, 65 FR 59675, Oct. 5, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1981–2017 · leading case: Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. The United States, 870 F.2d 627 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. The United States, 870 F.2d 627 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Because Customs has not adhered to a consistent position on this issue, we accord its interpretation considerably less deference than would be customary for a consistent position. Turning now to the language of the statute itself, it is conspicuously silent as to a requirement…”

Torrington Co. v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 1083 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 10.176 (a) provides in pertinent part: (a) Merchandise produced in a beneficiary developing country or any two or more countries which are members of the same association of countries.”

Superior Wire v. The United States, William Von Raab, Comm'r of Customs, & Dist. Dir. of Customs at Port of Detroit, Michigan, 867 F.2d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “IV 1986); 19 C.F.R. § 10.176 (1988). Superior also claimed reliance based on the fact that Customs Service officials had followed Ruling 553052 CW in permitting Superior’s Canadian drawn wire to enter the United States as a Canadian product until Ruling 075923 JVL issued.”

Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See also 19 C.F.R. § 10.176 (a)(2). On the other hand, this is not, apparently, a case of a BDC being used as a “pass through” operation for the purpose of combining a non-BDC component with BDC components, which is to say this is not a case of non-BDC lids being exported “in…”

Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 1544 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “6 The advice given in that instance was negative on GSP entry of the goods based upon reasoning initially that 19 C.F.R. § 10.176 (a), covering country-of-origin criteria, applies and then that the regulations have a basis in the statutory language.”

Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 2 Ct. Int'l Trade 36 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981). “176(a), Customs Regulations [ 19 CFR § 10.176 (a)]: (a) Merchandise 'produced in one beneficiary developing country.”

Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States, 2004 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “” 19 C.F.R. § 10.176 (c). The wall tile manufactured from these constituent parts is therefore entitled to a presumption that it meets the requirements of the GSR Even were that not the case, the evidence amply demonstrates that the 35% threshold of Mexican-origin value in the…”

House of Ideas, Inc. v. United States, 2 Ct. Int'l Trade 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981). “” 4 Inasmuch as the language of 19 CFR 10.176 (1980) 5 duplicates the language of General Headnote 3(a)(ii), requiring that not less than 35 percent of the value of the article inclusive of materials and production costs be attributable to the beneficiary country, it is…”

Dayglo Color Corp. v. United States, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985). “Plaintiff contends the imported merchandise, being wholly a manufacture of Korea, a Beneficiary Developing Country, is entitled to treatment under GSP by virtue of Customs own regulations, specifically 19 CFR 10.176(c). 1 Additionally, plaintiff urges the court to hold the use…”

— 19 C.F.R. § 10.176(c) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.