It will always be advantageous to obtain definitive conclusions from CBP on substantial processing when a product is assembled or manufactured in a foreign country with components and other inputs from other countries. In addition, it should be useful to obtain the provisions of the CBP that components imported into the United States have been substantially processed through a production process, which would allow for the substantial transformation of the “final test” in the United States, since the purchasing entity may find such convincing conclusions even if they are not binding in this context. In addition, only seven of these decisions decided that the final product in question had been essentially processed in the United States or a designated country, with the other decisions not corresponding to the country of origin of a portion or essential element of the final product. And only one of those decisions found that there was a major transformation in the United States, with the other decisions concluding that a major transformation had taken place internationally. As we thought, the published decisions confirm that proof of an essential transformation in a post-energy world is not an easy task. Acetris had previously received an advisory provision from CBP that applied its own precedents to establish that the active substance (API) named after the detection, imported from India, did not complete the essential processing test when it was converted into pills in the United States, and the pills therefore had to be treated as Indian origin. Although the CIT stated that each analysis was factual and should be determined on an individual basis and that it had not completely prohibited the use of other “subsidiary factors” historically used by CBP, the CIT`s energy opinion appeared to set a higher bar for substantial transformation, meaning that U.S. companies appear to have to do more than before 2016 for TAA compliance. The TAA generally prohibits the purchase of “foreign or instrumental products” that are not parties to the WTO agreement or that are “designated” by the President for the purposes of the TAA. 19 U.S.C No. 2512 (a) (1).
The TAA country of origin test defines “a product of a country” as: In summary, the CIT`s decision in Energizer clearly influenced the way CBP analyzes major transformations under TAA. It is interesting to note that while the CIT decision profoundly altered this analysis, the lack of clear guidelines for determining the country of origin, when a final product has not undergone any significant changes in any country, has often left CBP to its own device. In this vacuum, the vast majority of CBP`s decisions focused on the analysis of “subsidiary factors” and maintained a “full set of circumstances” often used before Energizer.