Advertisement

July 24, 2014

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Issues Guidance on Country of Origin

Despite software’s intrusion into almost every aspect of our lives, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued very little guidance on how to determine a software’s country of origin, particularly in situations where a substantial transformation may have occurred. CBP guidance on this issue could touch Government procurement requirements, free trade agreements, and the valuation of imported goods. So, a recent ruling released by CBP regarding the substantial transformation of software could be very important.  

CBP issued the ruling on June 8, 2012. but publicly released it just last week. Although the ruling at issue is a non-binding, advisory ruling, it is very useful as evidence of how CBP may come to regard software’s substantial transformation in the future. In HQ H192146, CBP considered the country of origin of database management systems for purposes of determining whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country for purposes of granting waivers of the “Buy American” Act restrictions.   Under the applicable rule of origin, an article is a product of a country only if it is (i) wholly the growth, product or manufacture of that country or (ii) it has been substantially transformed into a new and distinct article of commerce with a name, character or use distinct from that of the article from which it was so transformed.

In order to determine where the software originated, CBP analyzed the steps of the manufacturing process. For both database management systems, the research, development and specification and architecture of the system were completed in European countries while the programming of the source code was done in China. The “software build” occurred in France or Germany and consisted of source code being methodically converted into standalone lines and incompatibilities or bugs being exorcised by re-writing and correcting code. The systems were then tested and validated in China or Germany and then burned onto server media in France or the United States.

CBP applied the analysis laid out by the Court of International Trade in Data General v. United States, 4 CIT 182 (1982) to determine which step altered the character of a program. In Data General, the CIT held that programming substantially transformed a memory chip by changing the pattern of interconnections, which gave the chip its “essence.” Here, CBP found that the systems were substantially transformed in the country where the software build occurred.

Thus, when considering whether your software meets the requirements of a free trade agreement or government procurement requirements, or whether the design work is an assist for valuation purposes, HQ H192146 can be instructive. Specifically, your software may have been substantially transformed in the country in which the source code is built into a program.

©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Partner

Kathleen M. Murphy counsels clients on maximizing trade benefits, making informed global procurement decisions and developing domestic and international trade compliance programs.  She represents clients in audits, validations and investigations conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  She also guides clients through the Importer Self-Assessment Program and designs periodic internal reviews intended to foster self-governance.

Kathleen also represents both domestic and foreign-based companies in developing or enhancing comprehensive solutions for supply chain...

312-569-1155

About the Author

Associate

Beata K. Spuhler is an attorney with the Customs & Trade team.  Beata regularly assists clients with all aspects of U.S. Customs law, such as classification, valuation and country of origin and marking issues, enforcement actions, determining eligibility under various free trade agreements and duty preference programs.

Beata has assisted clients with establishing import operations.  She has also conducted compliance reviews of existing customs practices, including the drafting of customs procedures and training company personnel on customs-related topics...

312-569-1158

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.