19 C.F.R. § 102.11

General rules

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

The following rules shall apply for purposes of determining the country of origin of imported goods other than textile and apparel products covered by § 102.21.

(a) The country of origin of a good is the country in which:

(1) The good is wholly obtained or produced;

(2) The good is produced exclusively from domestic materials; or

(3) Each foreign material incorporated in that good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification set out in § 102.20 and satisfies any other applicable requirements of that section, and all other applicable requirements of these rules are satisfied.

(b) Except for a good that is specifically described in the Harmonized System as a set, or is classified as a set pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 3, where the country of origin cannot be determined under paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) The country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of the single material that imparts the essential character to the good, or

(2) If the material that imparts the essential character to the good is fungible, has been commingled, and direct physical identification of the origin of the commingled material is not practical, the country or countries of origin may be determined on the basis of an inventory management method.

(c) Where the country of origin cannot be determined under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and the good is specifically described in the Harmonized System as a set or mixture, or classified as a set, mixture or composite good pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 3, the country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of all materials that merit equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good.

(d) Where the country of origin of a good cannot be determined under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section, the country of origin of the good shall be determined as follows:

(1) If the good was produced only as a result of minor processing, the country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of each material that merits equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good;

(2) If the good was produced by simple assembly and the assembled parts that merit equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good are from the same country, the country of origin of the good is the country of origin of those parts; or

(3) If the country of origin of the good cannot be determined under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the last country in which the good underwent production.

[T.D. 96-48, 61 FR 28956, June 6, 1996, as amended by CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35581, July 6, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 933 F. Supp. 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 933 F. Supp. 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). · cites it 3× “Applying the hierarchical analysis required by 19 C.F.R. § 102.11 , Customs determined in its HRL that CPC’s finished product sold at retail must be marked to show it is a “product of Canada.”

Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “8, 1991), Customs denied the plaintiffs protests on the sets’ preferential tariff treatment, due, in part as indicated, to the presence of the non-BDC component glass lid(s) at the time of entry.”

Cummins Engine Co. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “]” 19 C.F.R. § 102.11 (a)(3)(1995). The NAFTA Marking Rulés do not mention the substantial transformation test in instructing how to determine the country of origin.”

Bestfoods (Formerly Known as Cpc Int'l, Inc.) v. United States, 260 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “1 (b) (2000); 19 C.F.R § 102.11 (2000). Under this tariff shift method, a good, or component of a good, is considered of United States origin if the subsequent manufacturing processes in the United States are sufficient to change that good or component’s tariff classification.”

CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 574 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Applying the hierarchical analysis required by 19 C.F.R. § 102.11 , Customs determined in its HRL that CPC’s finished product sold at retail must be marked to disclose the Canadian-origin peanut slurry content of the product.”

Bestfoods v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 965 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “35 (b), see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 102.11 (3) and 102.20, is a reasonable approach to addressing health and food safety concerns given the purpose of the Marking Statute and Marking Rules.”

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.